The United States in modern war has always used a bullet-sponge strategy in war -- have some allied power take the casualties to weaken the long-term opponent. I didn't say win the immediate war; just weaken the long-term opponent.
As long as Ukraine fights, Russia gets weaker.
Trump doesn't care about that. Why, I hesitate to guess.
First. The United Nations is irrelevant. Second, as others have said, the US supported others (China and Soviet Union) to keep them in the war, which reduced the risk/extent of US casualties.
So the fact that the US was not fighting in 1931 or 1939 is irrelevant. Once the US entered the war, it swiftly embarked on a strategy of shoring up its allies so that they would absorb the brunt of the Japanese and German war machines (read -- take the casualties) and not the US.
As Ho Chi Min observed re Vietnam (I paraphrase), American do not like long wars. Therefore we will give them a long war.
As we all know, when the South Vietnamese ceased routinely going on the offensive in the 1960s (unless pushed hard by the US), General Westmoreland wanted 500,000 more US troops for the cause. A stunned White House (I believe LBJ) refused, knowing that US casualties were already more than the US could stomach.
Foreign policy and diplomacy are separate, albeit related fields. My comment concerned US war fighting strategy: We arrange for bullet sponges in conflicts. Let's focus.
Russia has had a 'temporary' economic upswing due to all the resources it has put into the war since 2022, but those expenditures are finite. At the same International sanctions have prevented Russia from generating revenue to support these added expenses. By throwing money into its military, it has neglected the civilian side of the economy, which is where REAL economic growth happens and THE reason the Soviet union collaped in 1991. Russia has sacrificed its future for a temporary increase now. In fact, one internationally known economist [not an American] has stated Russia CANNOT AFFORD to STOP the fighting because its economy will TOTALLY COLLAPSE if it does. THAT is why I said it was a joke....
tbh I looked at Russian GDP per capita and if anything it's risen. Whether that has translated into improved living standards given all the military expenditure I don't know.
As CDR S noted in Graham's article, Russian economy has stagnated, with no future investments. Putin is sacrificing long term Russian stability for a dream of empire before he dies
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, The Atlantic Council, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Not sure how an essay on Russia's stagnant economy fulfills your opinion of their editorial purpose. The article is heavy in sited references (links in discussion). I've read it twice and don't see any factual errors I am aware of. The authors are of this article don't owe anything to the Council's "propaganda" or the board. One author is a non-resident fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, so I'm guessing she knows her stuff. The other is a Russian expert at the Davis Center at Harvard -- another decent resume. The Council is a much-desired publication destination for these types of essays, similar to Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy.
In summary, this is a professionally written, researched and resourced paper that provides insight on what is happening in the Russian economy. It would help all of us to understand the realities and not assume our "sound bite" addled media favorites provide it for us.
BTW: I disagree on your opinion of the Atl Council. It is one of many think tanks that use academic regimen to brings issues to the front burners. You may not like conclusions, as I will disagree on occasion, but their fact finding is impeccable. Haven't been able to say that about the Heritage Foundation since the mid-2010's --and I use to cite them a lot in my work before then.
Agreed, but this is also one of those "the other guy gets a vote" things. Putin and co. chose to align themselves with Beijing in the late oughts and early teens, and there's only so much we can do about the results of that.
And I say this as someone who thinks we should have started doing a reverse Nixon sometime around 2004 or so and brought Russia into NATO.
Maybe, but at this point I think it would take a change in management in Moscow plus the Chinese doing something egregiously dumb like kicking the Russians out of Kazakhstan.
Russia chose to align themselves with Beijing because D.C., London, and Brussels made it clear that the Russia would always be viewed as a gas station inhabited by untermensch.
The Chinese offered a transactional relationship without the retarded moral judgment from a bunch of limp-wristed Eurocrats who think they're important because tourists like to visit the museums detailing the history of the countries they used to be.
That was a lot of words to say, "I am eliding over the Russian track record in Eastern Europe and Putin's issues with anything that might impede his tendencies towards cronyism."
The Poles invaded Russia in 1919 because they saw an opportunity to settle grievances. The Germans invaded in 1941.
If you want to talk cronyism, maybe explain how 5 of the top 6 counties in per capita income surround Washington D.C., a city with no industry other than government.
Meanwhile, Russia killed millions of its own people in the early 1930s, took over the Baltic states and tried to take over Finland in 1939, vassalized Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, and refused to leave Moldova in the early 1990s.
Stop pretending that Russia is some poor innocent maiden preyed upon by evil Westerners.
To which 'modern' wars are you referring? Your comment is BS and doesn't have any facts to back it up. WW I, WWII, Korea and Vietnam all say otherwise.
WW2 used China and USSR as theaters to bog down the Axis powers. WW1 saw the US move slowly towards the front, drawing complaints from the French. Korea and Vietnam both saw the indigenous forces front and center even though the US was directing strategy.
America's public does not accept casualties. Russia's does.
Your comment is STILL BS because the wars to which you refer began in 1931 with the invasion of China by the Japanese and of Poland in 1939 by the Germans. If you are going to use that logic, the same holds true with the UK in 1931 and ALL the neutral countries in the world including Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, etc, etc, etc! There was NO United Nations, and the US was a 'declared' neutral country, so the US was not obligated to fight Japan in 1931 or Germany in 1939. In spite of that, the US still supplied China and the UK and USSR with logistics during that period., thereby doing MORE than it was obligated to do. Go back to school and study International Foreign Policy and Diplomacy before you start spouting 'facts' which are nothing more than useless and unfactual dribble.
Probably comes from the Institute for the Study of War as I have seen similar numbers there. They are a Nuland aligned think tank. I don't think anyone in the West really knows.
This figure has been confirmed by several open-source intelligence entities, such as Oryx, which do not have/owe allegiance to any national government or power. In addition, it's only common sense when you consider the war is > 4 years old, and Russia only has a fraction more land now than it did in 2022 when this 'phase' started. Sounds to me like you're a Russian apologist. Go spend some time on the front-lines, and you'll quickly learn the truth of the 1 million casualties.
Russian drones, artillery, and missiles don't care about how clever or heroic the Ukrainians are. They smoke them, just like Ukrainian drones smoke Russian soldiers.
Every time the Ukrainians conduct a counter-offensive they take heavy losses. They're not super soldiers.
Yeah, the narrative always focuses on Russian losses, but never considers Ukrainian losses. They just assume that the Ukrainians have been mowing down Russian meatwaves with great heroism.
But they've also promoted "2000M to Andriivka" as proof of Ukrainian courage, which is a film about the 2023 Ukrainian offensive that displays tactics that are high casualties for the Ukrainians. I didn't see much in the way of elite mechanized tactics in that documentary.
Russian drones, artillery, and missiles don't care about Ukrainian courage or cleverness, and the Russians are using more drones than the Ukrainians are.
Indeed, there was not. British and Canadian generals figured out a successful strategy called "bite and hold" at Passchendaele that the Germans had no counter for. It was slow, but effective, because it consisted of only taking one trenchline at a time and then reinforcing the hell out of it, running the cables and phones forward so artillery spotters could call down the steel rain, etc.
But British high command was dominated by cavalry officers who couldn't stand the slow and steady pace, and they ordered the generals to resume the "throw walls of soldiers until the Germans run out of ammo" approach.
Russia committed hard to the "bite and hold" strategy back in late 2023, and it's been working for them. Outside observers think that glacial pace means they're incapable of moving faster, but military historians who are being honest with themselves recognize this for what it is: bite and hold.
Yeah, the mud was swallowing men since the ground had been thoroughly torn up for three years at that point. Crazy bad luck, and command should have picked a different spot to press hard.
Reading accounts of battles like, I’m amazed at the courage of the men and appalled at the callous disregard high command showed for their lives due to their refusal to acknowledge how bad the ground conditions were. Medevac was extremely difficult due to the mud, so a lot of guys died who might have survived even with 1917 medicine.
They finally took the village and the ridge line it was on, only to lose it in a counteroffensive.
I think Ukraine should accept Putin’s terms. Crimea and four provinces, no NATO in Ukraine and no Ukraine in NATO and a reduction in the size of its armed forces.
If Ukraine and Europe finds these terms unacceptable they are welcome to pay any price to continue the fight. Just don’t ask America to support these endless wars which are of no strategic importance.
Also, we should unfreeze Russia's assets and return their yachts. By imposing sanctions we destroyed the dollar as the reserve currency and only hurt ourselves.
Well, hell, while we're at it, just go ahead and give Eastern Europe back to Russia! Just take care of all of it now...I mean, after all, we know what benovelant benefactor Russia is!
This can only mean that you support the shelling and killing of civilians (over 13,000) in the Donbass solely for being Russian and civilians. You must also support the Azov Regiment, their most ardent group of forces. You must also celebrate Stepan Bandera's birthday. (yuk) It's a National Holiday in Ukraine.
The greatest tragedy is this whole war could have been avoided had Romney beaten Obama or had Trump's 2020 reelection been properly recognized.
Even beyond that, but for Anglo/Euro intervention, the war could have ended on more or less similar terms to the present in 2022. Damn Boris Johnson, damn the Europeans and damn Biden!
The outlines of a mutually 'tolerable intolerable' deal have been obvious since the initial Russian invasion failed.
Sorry, your first paragraph is the most ridiculous 'causal' to world events I have ever heard. This political screech in total appears to reflect lack of global affairs understanding boiled down and compensated for with a partisan media garbage. CDR S. provided us a comprehensive view of sober realities, and you wasted it with that. I don't agree with him in total-- I think the Ukrainians still have fight in them (wouldn't you if you were invaded?), but I see the facts as he laid out as valid and factual and the most likely outcome as he and Thomas Graham described. Before you reply with some tripe, take a look at Putin's historical view on "Greater Russia," the non-existence of a Ukrainian state in his mind, and how Ukraine evolved after independence -- all independent of any American elections.
I’m very well aware of the history, the Russian concept of ‘near abroad’, Greater Russia theory and the like. I’m also well aware Putin - Russia generally - is cautious when it thinks it is facing resolute powers and strikes only when it judges its potential adversaries weak. Ukraine is a very complex issue on many levels - I’ve had Ukrainian friends from whom I learned of the Ukraine - Russia issues more that 50 years ago! My US political point is merely that Obama was very weak on Russian aggression where Romney took Russia seriously and would not have been irresolute - think of a France and Britain ruled by serious men when Hitler remilitarized the Rheinland in 1936. Likewise, had Trump remained in office, Putin was much less likely to invade. Counterfactuals, so we can’t truly know…but as we consider policy going forward we should understand.
Now that was a more sober comment and I thank you for thinking it through. Your talk about France (the 3rd Republic in constant internal strife) and Chamberlain's willingness to achieve peace at "all costs" are valid points. I should note this proposed peace seems to be a Chamberlain-esque solution.
But I disagree in general. Before Trump 2.0, American foreign policy can best be described as a 10-15 degree rudder adjustment for each Administration since the end of WWII. Obama as 'weak' on Russia or what-iffing Romney (who I like) is poking at constrained views on specific points in a greater spectrum. Generally, we have been consistent if not responding to each event as some prefer. Obama made mistakes while trying--and failing -- to extract from the Middle East. He could have done better (they all could). In sum, I honestly don't think it mattered who was in the WH as this escalated, unless someone decided to put American boots on the ground. That was Putin's bet after we didn't respond to Crimea.
BTW: I have visited both -- UKR and RUS. It does give you a feel of what's the thinking.
Your point about American foreign policy post-WWII as series of minor course corrections (sailing analogy accepted - no tacks or gybes…) is one seen frequently (and by almost everyone who laments end the end of the ‘liberal rules based world order’). I am increasingly of the view, which I intend to develop at documented essay length beyond that of comments in a thread here, that, in fact, that sort of consensus policy really only lasted until the end of the Cold War, and that the policies of the mid-1990s through Biden actual represent a significant departure from the understandings that underlined those earlier policies.
Would look forward to reading that. I am admittingly a believer in the "liberal bases world order" akin to Churchill's comment (actually requoted by him) that democracy is the worst form of government until you try the others (paraphrase). Pure chaos above the Nation-state and great power competition has always led to nothing but periodic large-scale war amongst the powers. The liberal order, though imperfect, has clearly tamped down the global conflagrations.
Would submit the elephant in the room after WWII is nuclear weapons, MAD, and war by proxy...which this sort of is, except one of the major belligerents has rattled the nuclear saber more than once to brush back critics.
Whether something that isn't an authoritarian world empire in place of nation-state and great power competition is even possible is an interesting and much discussed question. What we (the US) thought we were building post-WWII was altered as the Cold War and containment developed...a number of the institutions which supporters of the 'liberal rules based world order' supported and continue to support developed into institutions which were ultimately hostile to the interests of the US. It is the recognition of this and a concern to return to something like more reciprocal notions of trade and security that has spurred the rejection of what the 'liberal rules based world order' has transmogrified itself into.
Disagree with you completely: how the sitting President is perceived by adversaries, potential adversaries, allies and potential allies matters in all of their respective calculi of decision making. Likewise, personality and political differences among sitting Presidents affects their own perception of adversaries, potential adversaries, allies, and potential allies - domestically as well as internationally - and their decision-making calculus.
A lot of this has to do with sunk costs. The Ukrainian government can’t make peace and justify to its people giving up a large portion of its territory to a nation that invaded it and inflicted such horrible casualties. At the same time, Russia can’t justify an invasion that has cost it so much and didn’t result in any real gains. So neither side can make peace but neither side is strong enough to win the war. The situation in Ukraine is almost exactly analogous to France between 1914 and 1918. France wasn’t strong enough to evict the Germans from their territory but could never agree to a peace that left the Germans in possession of the best third of their nation. Germany couldn’t make peace and just go back with nothing in hand after its people sacrificed so much but couldn’t finish off France either. So the war dragged on until the US intervention combined with Germany finally starting to starve from the blockade finally caused it to collapse. I would love to see peace in Ukraine but it is going to be very difficult to obtain short of the complete collapse of one side.
"In summary, Ukraine's population has decreased by an estimated 20–25% (or more in some assessments) from pre-2021 figures by the end of 2025, marking one of the sharpest demographic declines in recent history."
"From 2021 to the end of 2025, Russia's population has declined by an estimated 1–3 million (roughly 1–2%)."
The only delusion going on here is you thinking the war isn’t a stalemate. The war is over three years old. Is Ukraine closer to collapse than Russia? Maybe. We will find out as time goes on. Even if it collapses tomorrow that won’t change the enormous price Russia has paid in this war or make the decision to start the war anything other than the disaster it is.
You don’t have any idea what is going on in Russia or how close it is or is not to collapse. All you know is you want to believe it won’t. You are the definition of delusional. If you are correct it will be due to pure luck
This is delusional. Ukraine’s population, infrastructure & economy have been trashed.
Whereas Russia has actually seen multi year growth of their economy even in the face of Global sanctions. Russians infrastructure is intact and actually grown given it’s friend without limits helping its extraction economy.
They have far from given as good as they have gotten.
The Russians have lost over a hundred thousand men and too much irreplaceable equipment to count. The Russian military will likely never fully recover from this given the state of the Russian industrial sector. This has been the worst strategic disaster for Russia since the decision to enter World War I.
They lost decades old stocks that had been in storage. Most of those tanks and artillery pieces dated back to post war days.
Counter to you misperception Russian industry has benefited from war mobilization and expanded war material production. Prior to it was anemic and on the topes. Now they have restored muscle memory on building and fielding artillery and armour. Let alone built and entire new drone industry. During this time their economy grew by 3.6% in 2023 & 4.1% in 2024.
Their loss against population size is no worse than Ukrainian losses.
As for Russia military it’s shown resilience and more amazingly shown ability to reconstitute repeatedly during the course of the war. They continue to launch waves of artillery, drone and missile attacks after 4 years of constant high intensity warfare. That shows just the opposite of your claim of them never recovering. Cote military has gained knowledge where as conscripts have brunt the brunt of the carnage. Which is Russia’s history and given they are new conscripts aren’t the regular Army.
If anything their Armed Forces and it’s leadership will come out far more experienced & capable with a focus of what’s required going forward.
At the sametime, Putin has shown resilience and actually gained tighter control of the Nation and economy. Counter to the wishcasting for some rival to push him out a window.
You are showing to be captured by propaganda and not reality.
At end of the day Russia will come out the other side with NATo frozen, Europe buying even more Russian energy and in full control of Crimea, with a full
Land bridge including Donbass, Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia. They also control major Ukrainian ports and industrial areas especially in Mariupol.
Was that submarine they just lost old stock? The Bear bombers too? They pulled the old stock out of storage because they had lost the new stuff. What do think they are using fifty year old equipment out of kindness? Because they want to make things sporting?
I have been listening to this horse shit for three years now. Let me guess, the Russians didn’t intend to take Kiev at the beginning of the war and this was always the plan. It is just fucking ridiculous. Russia took on a fourth rate power everyone expected to fold in two weeks and instead has seen the cream of its military ground up in a stalemate and the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II for going on four years now. There is no way to spin that as anything but the total disaster that it is.
You fail to read the brief and have drunk the last 11 years of cool aide about this war. I have a feeling you work for RAND.
Sanctions have failed. Europe still funding Russia though their dependence on Russian energy and their failure to embrace more of a pivot towards North American energy sources. Hell Germany still went forward with shutdown of their nuclear industry. What that tell you about where they think Russia will end up at end of things.
Ukraine forces are stretched and can’t reconstitute to required levels. Where as it only cost Russia cash to pull in conscripts. Or technology or energy transfers to have their allies provide manpower.
Russia is this close to winning. You people have been saying that for four years. How many times do you have to be wrong before you pull your head out of your ass?
Closer than anyone, especially the Russians, thought. Prewar, Ukraine had the second biggest army in Europe. The initial Russian commitment of 80,000 men was not enough to fight house to house in Kiev much less occupy all of Ukraine. Was the attack in the north an attempt to panic the Ukrainians or a diversion to allow and easy occupation of the Donbas. In the event, neither worked.
I like what Jetcal 1 and you said in your analysis. Huge conundrum here. Both the US and China sat on the sidelines for awhile watching this horrifying scenario develop. I suspect China is supporting Russia only so that Russia continues to fight and weaken itself. One can debate whether they'd actually use military force to take over the resources of Siberia/Far East Military district...but, certainly they have the same historical argument as they've used in other situations i.e. "We used to own that XXX years, centuries, millennia ago." China also knows that any resources we send or sell to the Ukraine are resources that won't go to strengthening US and allied bases and forces in the Pacific. By keeping our attention on the European front, they can out wait this administration. Should the war continue (at the expense of the Ukraine and Russian people) China can continue to strengthen their belt and road initiative, continue their "practices" to take over Taiwan, and have time to let their long term strategy unfold. Unfortunately, what passes for US strategy is pretty much limited from election to election. I don't think China wants to lose its #1 trading partner (the US) but wants to be strong enough to dominate the Pacific Rim and they are just about there.
On the other hand re. weapons going to Ukraine instead of INDOPACOM, we're sending older stuff on the way out of the arsenal, no? And getting lots of ISR practice.
And can China really be happy that Russia has forcefully reminded the West that it needs to rebuild its defense industrial base?
Europe is essentially useless in any conflict with China because of both geography and will so it doesn't matter how much it rebuilds (which it won't).
I expect little military help for the reasons you state. But even if no European weapons and ammunition help America in INDOPACOM, America’s defense industry base is stronger than it would have been had Russia not invaded Ukraine. Is China happy with Russia for that?
We need to reshore manufacturing in general, not just defense. The tremendous build up in WW2 was made possible by repurposing other manufacturing. Kaiser (basically a construction company-Grand Coulee) produced ships by the hundred. Rock-ola (juke boxes) made M1 carbines as did IBM, auto industry made tanks, aircraft and heavy trucks and so on.
You should read up on the WWII history of the Dodge Brothers. They were highly competent engineers and factory managers. It was said they could build anything.
The American defense industry is not really much stronger.
The big defense contractors have consistently lobbied for procurement policies that have limited the ability for smaller, more innovative manufacturers to sell products to Ukraine that are in demand by the actual end-users there.
DoD has really shit the bed when it comes to restructuring forces to have a realistic capability of not getting slaughtered if they were sent into a near-peer conflict like Ukraine.
Seeing the videos of Russian fiber-optic drones blowing up NATO-supplied vehicles with obvious EW anti-drone gear on top has been educational.
We were assured by Admiral Mullen that Europe's significant contributions made the 1000 ship fleet-in-being possible and insurmountable by any adversary. Are we now to doubt The Smartest People in the Room(TM)?
You make some good points. China and Russia have always been uneasy allies. Even when they shared an ideology, they were almost at each other's throats.
The China/Russia alliance is purely transactional, which historically has been more reliable than ideological alliances between vastly different cultures.
China has bigger ambitions than getting nuked over Siberian resources that the Russians are eager to sell them. And since they're not competing for whose the better communist, I think their alliance is on stronger legs than it was when the USSR was routing weapons shipments meant for Vietnam through China, and which China would promptly steal for themselves and give the Vietnamese WWII surplus junk.
Well, Russia collapsed in 1917, but is less likely to do so today as similar conditions don't exist.
Ukraine - given its smaller population and greater destruction of the country, however much it receives in Western weapons, is several times more likely to collapse - suddenly - than is Russia.
Russia is certainly not in the position of being effectively blockaded. Europe still buys Russian fuel!
Anyone holding out in Ukraine for American troops to rescue Ukraine is naive.
The European troops and equipment to wage an effective offensive war against Russia simply do not exist today. Not to mention the European nations do not have the political will to launch an offensive war.
Between the Scandinavians and the Poles, any Russian move West probably could be thwarted - and if the Russians moved West there would be US intervention.
The poor Baltics would not last a day no matter what we do, even if we started popping tactical nukes when the first Russian crossed the Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian frontier, just as the Russians couldn't hold East Prussia once the US was involved.
Anyone who thinks they know which side is going to collapse first is lying to themselves. Partisans of both sides have been convinced the other side is on the verge of collapse almost since the day the war started. If I had a dollar for every “Ukraine is on the verge of collapse “ or “This time Russia is not going to recover “ think pieces I have seen over the last three and a half years, I have would have enough money for a hell of a weekend in Vegas even at today’s prices.
Lying to myself, hardly... I didn't suggest I know which side will collapse first, merely suggested what seems more likely (and why).
I don't fundamentally disagree that neither side believes it can make the necessary concessions to end the war at this point.
For those of us who are not prepared to pay for an endless war (while we are depleting our own war stocks and failing to ramp up production to replace them in a timely manner - and that's the US, not the Europeans who are not really rearming), what is to be done?
Would recommend:
1) Continuing to fund the Ukraine (while our own readiness declines as a result of war stock depletion) which Ukraine and Russia continue to fight?
2) Actually putting NATO (meaning American) troops into action and going to war with Russia if the Russians won't make a deal Ukraine can live with (with US pressue on Ukraine)?
3) Telling Ukraine it's on its own if it doesn't make a deal the Russians will agree to (with US pressure on Russia)?
Because those seem to be the alternatives.
I don't think the Europeans are capable of going to war now, and I don't think the American people (let alone the government or the troops themselves) want to fight a war against Russia.
The alternative is to keep feeding money to Ukraine and see if the Russians get tired of dying before Ukraine runs out of people. It is a brutal calculus but it does have the upside of extracting the maximum toll from Russia should it not work.
As you say, brutal and cynical. The surviving Ukrainians if it fails are unlikely to thank us. At the very least, they should have an election to decide whether that’s what they want. And we should insist on NO CORRUPTION.
The other thing that no one seems to ever think of is that a Russian victory would just lead to an insurgency as Russia tries to occupy and control the place. That would be worse than the war. Russia can potentially win the conventional war but it has no chance of occupying and pacifying Ukraine Ukraine is an enormous country populated with a now hostile population. It would be like trying to occupy the entire upper Midwest. There is really no way this ends well for Russia.
Well put. The brutality of WW1 costs horrified Winston Churchill in early '15. The allies could keep the slaughter going thanks to US credit. The Germans & Austriana played (mostly) defense.
WW1 stopped because the British Fleet starved Germany into submission and 250k US troops per month were landing in France by mid 1918.
The sunk cost fallacy, that future expenditures are justified because of past expenditures, is a trap many individuals and countries make. It’s embarrassing and difficult when we as individuals have to admit to a past mistake, but much more important for countries to do so.
My observation is that people and nations almost never admit that a previous decision was wrong, and that’s where things really begin to go off the rails.
Bite and hold won the British small victories like Vemi Ridge. It was not however decisive or even significant in winning the war. It just gave them away to stay active and on the offensive without destroying their army. What won the war was the mastering of combined arms and the collapse of the German Army in the fall of 1918. Russia is not winning the war by the small gains they are trading with Ukraine. It will win only if the US gets tired of funding Ukraine, which might happen but it is not happening anytime soon
I am more than amazed that anyone, even a full blown Russian symp, can say with a straight face that giving the Russians what they came for and a pat on the back is going to satisfy them.
The Russians, or maybe just Putin, want all of Ukraine and will only pause at Crimea and Donbas. They will turn to other former SSRs, now independent nations, when they recover and are ready. They have said so. Repeatedly.
You do not win peace by given tyrants a piece of what they demand with the hope that they will be satisfied.
Russia doesn't want all of Ukraine. It wants its port and its Russian speaking provinces that voted to rejoin Russia years ago. It threatened to take the whole loaf in order to negotiate to the terms it really wanted. Typical tactic for them if you look at their previous negotiating positions on other topics.
Perhaps you should actually read what Putin has written on Russia's rightful territory and Ukrainian independence. You're naive if you think he doesn't want all of Ukraine.
The Ukrainians have killed and injured a lot of Russians. The Russia's huge reserves of tanks and artillery have been depleted.
There will be fewer Russians available to fight the next conflict. Their huge equipment reserves, which was their ace in the hole, is not there anymore. These are good things.
The countries of the region owe Ukraine a debt of gratitude for this.
Russia has shown it's willingness to use it's military to redraw it's borders. Something not seen in Europe for many years.
The things holding Putin back are practical, not philosophical or moral.
I don't mind seeing the Russians attrited and made to suffer. They deserve it.
In short, I hate to see Ukraine thrown under the bus and abandoned as Poland was in 1945.
Translated: You say everyone should be grateful to Ukraine for undergoing demographic suicide as a proxy for everyone else. That is horrifically cynical. You also presume Russia actually wants a next conflict. Maybe it just wants to be left alone. Without us helping its neighbors violate agreements about NATO membership. Pity no one in 1990 could take the long view and welcome Russia into the circle of nations like Japan or Germany in 1945, since you want to talk about 1945.
Sometimes you have to pick a side Richard. The modern Western European was no threat to Russia. They cant be bothered to leave the Cafe and would be much happier doing business than invading.
While she is American, Victoria Nuland exemplifies their attitude (while holding them in contempt as you do). She produced a map of Russia divided into about 40 ministates along resource boundaries. These would be colonies exploited for their resources by various Western states or perhaps corporations. This was well underway during the Yeltsin years before Putin put a stop to it. That explains his continued support in spite of everything. NATO did in fact dismember Serbia which posed no threat to any NATO nation. I can guarantee that the Russians noticed what happened to a traditional ally.
Tell the Russians that the Poles and Balts can be trusted. The Poles took advantage of the Russian civil war to invade in 1919 before getting pushed out by 1921.
The whole region was in turmoil at the end of WW1. The newly formed countries of the region were jockeying for position and territory. The map drawn up by the Allies at the end of the war did not necessarily reflect the ethnic and historical realities.
The collapse of not only the Russian Empire but also the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and to some extent Prussia left a vacuum that made conflicts inevitable.
South-Eastern Poland and Western Ukraine were part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, not the Russian one. Even durring those times there was a strong Polish cultural and e onomic presence in what is today Western Ukraine.
The Ukranians saw the situation as a chance to gain independence. The current conflict is not Ukraine's first attempt to do so. There have been many.
Lastly, don't forget the Soviets were at the gates of Warsaw until Pilsudski's counterattack sent them scurrying back to the motherland.
The situation remained stable until the 1939 joint Russian-German invasion.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum did exactly what you suggest, i.e., "welcome Russia into the circle of nations", trusting Russia to respect Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons:
I write above what were the two fundamental quid pro quos of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to repeat, Ukraine gets territorial security, Russia gets nuclear weapons.
You say "recall" without stating the additional item(s) required by the memorandum.
And what might they be, please limiting that to what is actually written in the Memorandum, not "expectations".
Why "presume"? Russia wanted this conflict; they invaded Ukraine, twice. First with Putin's "little green men," then with such a mass that it ended up in its own fatal traffic jam on the road to Kyiv.
If Russia had won in three days, as they supposedly had planned to, surely they would have wanted "to be left alone." That part you got right; the rest is delusional.
The Ukrainians didn’t choose this war; it was thrust upon them. And let’s not forget that the very start of our country went with the words, “give me liberty, or give me death.” To label their fight as mere “suicide” cheapens both their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of our forefathers. Who were willing to give their, “lives, duty, and sacred honor,” in the cause of freedom for themselves and posterity. And the countries of Europe do owe the Ukrainians a great debt; as long as Ukraine is free from Russia, so are they.
We should not be ignoring people just because they are sinners. We should be focusing whether or not what they say is true and right, regardless of the messenger.
Wonder how different this would all look if ol' Boris Johnson had let Ukraine and Russia sign that peace treaty and end the hostilities weeks into the war back when it started.... It is easy to catch a snake with another man's hand. And Ukraine has been that proxy hand for everyone who wasn't willing to commit their own countrymen and blood to the fight. But the grift was too big (the largesse of U.S. taxpayers, willing and unwilling) to stop the fight. I suspect Zelensky will quit when he gets a few more mansions in far away cities and his wife gets a few more Paris shopping sprees. The corruption in all of this is mind blowing and there is a real reason Congress voted AGAINST having any audit trail to the money they were so merrily marching into Ukrainian bank accounts. The baksheesh that came to them is criminal. Again, this didn't go on for 4 years because the Ukrainians were that special militarily. It lasted this long because other countries were helping prolong it with aid and training, and weapons because they were in on the literal spoils of war. Disgusting. Millions of dead brother Slavs means nothing to these people. Leave it to Europe to turn a family argument into a bloodbath. They seem good at it looking at the last Century.
It's very difficult to discover the truth of what is happening in the war. If you believe what you see on YouTube, well, Ukraine is winning thanks to innovative use of drones: aerial, marine, and now terrestrial too.
If you run the numbers, then it has to be Russia, simply because of its sheer size, along with our people willing to counsel "peace in our time": giving Putin enough of what he wants now to go away, to rebuild, regroup, and come back again in 5 years or so and go after the rest of what he wants.
With Trump having shown NATO participation as just an option, not a real obligation, Putin has gained something very, very useful in future, assuming he lasts long enough to use it.
I think he will not say the quiet part out loud, that he's just signing up to a deal that he will break, same as the last time he gave solid security promises to Ukraine, but he won't need to say the quiet part out loud.
Hitler after "Munich" said that Neville Chamberlain was such a nice man that he gave him his signature. That's about how much worth we can assign to any deal Putin signs.
Too, with the war over (for now), I think Trump would be amazingly quick to do a series of nakedly corrupt deals with Putin that would obviate any meaningful US reaction to further Russian aggression. Severed cables, disrupted internet service, assassinations, isolated incidents of terrorism, Russian support for the rise of neo-fascist separatism... you name it and Putin will be getting up to it without having to worry about US retaliation, having bought off Donald Trump.
(I understand that I start from a position miles off from the Commander's, and that's okay with me. This is his sandbox and I just come to play in it once in a while. On the other hand, you wearers of the red hats, please spare us any of this tired "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or m y being any sort of America-hater rhetoric. I have known of Donald Trump about as long as I have known New York City, and his personal history is remarkably bad: 34 felony counts for which he was fairly tried and convicted, along with a conviction of a sex crime tantamount to rape all means that you don't have to be crazy to find him despicable. If others here find some value in him, so be it.)
For "us" it will be people far off whom we don't need to be concerned with; we could be enjoying our peace (in our time) dividend.
For me it could be big trouble in the back yard: Kyiv is a 20-hour drive away from home; the Ukrainian border is less than 12 hours away.
Look, you have your opinion. But let's do facts. He wrote 34 checks and the DA improperly charged them as separate acts, not to mention all the shenanigans to get around statutes of limitations and elevate a misdemeanor to a felony - especially given that the underlying predicate act of signing an NDA is not a criminal act anywhere, any time. In the final analysis, his bookkeeper entered legal fees paid to an attorney, reimbursement or not, as legal fees on the books. So you can sit on your high horse and continue to make this asinine statement to make yourself feel like a nice, morally superior person...but you're wrong and you're not stating truth or facts, but the results of a kangaroo court that is still on appeal and will be overturned.
Now, you say you've known Donald Trump as long as you've known NY. OK...then you know how the tabloids and paparazzi followed Trump EVERYWHERE back at the time this alleged assault (that the crazy lady couldn't remember when in the year, or even WHAT year, it supposedly occurred). If you were ever in Bergdorf's at the time...do you remember where the women's fitting rooms were? So, Donald Trump comes in and attracts attention - as he did and does - followed by more than one person looking to get photos or some type of story. Meets this woman and talks to her - follows her into the changing area which is OUT IN THE OPEN, not in a secluded area, and proceeds to feel her up (which is all she alleged). She couldn't substantiate any of the facts of the allegation with any proof or timeline, bringing this up decades later, so there is no way to defend yourself. If she says "It was June 4, 1996!" or any other date (even a season in a specific year) Trump could show he was elsewhere that day or busy at that time elsewhere in the city - but with no specifics, there is no way to defend yourself from this type of insinuated allegation. So a hostile jury in NYC, wanting to get Trump for something, rendered a verdict in a CIVIL trial to award Carrol money based on this spurious, concocted allegation.
Carrol has made the same type of charges against a total of "twenty-one hideous men" throughout her life (though she only mentions Trump and Les Moonves by name in her book). Now, you may choose to believe it because you hate Trump, but the circumstances say it is a travesty to charge ANYONE based on that type of evidence. It was another political hit job in NYC.
Finally, that you let your opinion and belief in these political witch hunts color your analysis says all there is to say about the quality of the opinions. They come from a place of bias and can, will, and should be immediately discounted for what they are.
Hey, Trump, a guy that says, unprompted, that he can just grab women by their private parts and get away with that... there's something wrong with that man, okay?
I don't hate Trump. I find him despicable, corrupt, and obviously untrustworthy, but that's just me, as I pointed out.
It's not "bias," to think badly of Trump because of what he has done. When it merely comes to what he says, please bear in mind that he uttered over 30,000 documented lies, just during his first term.
You would not want to buy a used car from Donald Trump, let alone turn him loose to cut some shady deal with Putin.
Here, oh Trusting one, you are ranting, and doing that on a side track. Whatever Trump is, he's just part of whatever deal the Commander envisions as a way to end the current war in Ukraine, just as Putin is.
His believers may continue to see the sunbeams issuing forth from Trump's nethers, when I shall not mind; he's merely one part of whatever needs to be put together to end Russian aggression against Europe.
Again, more hyperbole. Your "30,000 lies" are just a made up narrative that is a mish mash of things you SAY aren't TRUE because you disagree with them, don't believe they are true...but they are notably subjective and up for debate and your opinions (and those of liberals) are not what makes them true or false.
I've been with businesses that have bought land and built buildings with Trump, writ large (his companies). Your terming it a "shady deal" is, again, just your subjective bias brought on by the Russia Hoax by Hillary, Obama et al (that you probably still believe is true).
"Europe" in this case, you twit, is used for the EU and NATO...which Ukraine is NOT a part of. If Europe and the EU want to solve it, more power to them. They should! Get it done! Stop dithering and looking to us to do it for them.
Don't blame me! That was the Washington Post that documented Trump's over 30,000 lies, each and every one.
You, TbV, have "been with business that have bought land... " Truly, we are a nation of immigrants.
Back to Topic A!
Geography 101: Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe.
The European Union does not include and thus does not define all of Europe. Norway, for example, inarguably is in Northern Europe, but it is not in the EU. And Romania and Bulgaria only joined the EU in 2007, along with Croatia in 2013, despite having existed as parts of Europe for many years previous.
I will blame you because, as is evident from the WaPo list, it is exactly what I described...yet you will get on a forum and waive it around like it is the Sermon on the Mount as somehow proof of everything you say on whatever topic comes up about Trump as if they are inviolable. If you are going to stake your arguments on it, you own it. Instead you pile logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy.
As is evident from the rest of your post, you have issues with reading comprehension, which may explain your other deficiencies. In the context being discussed, there is a distinction between the EU as "Europe" a political entity and Europe as a geographic area. Maybe those distinctions in context create too big of a concept for you to understand?
Dude, there is no Russia "hoax." The man is in Putin's pocket, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Donald is bought and paid for. We just have to deal with the fact that our chief magistrate is a crook and in the pocket of our enemy.
There was a hoax that has been well documented that was cooked up Hillary's campaign and perpetuated by Obama and his IC community (Brennan, Clapper, and Comey) through a dissemination strategy enabled by the media through the compilation of a fake dossier from Christopher Steele paid for (with campaign funds from Hillary) by Perkins Coie through Fusion GPS. This is well documented and why, of course, Mueller and his partisan Dems could find NOTHING to any of it. It was a fiction.
So, you're a kook if you still believe in any of this in the face of what has been PROVEN beyond a doubt (the hoax perpetrated by Hillary) vs no proof of any collusion with Russia, by Trump or any American.
I know it is galling, but you were gullible and the Dems lied to your face and you believed it all. Still do.
Sigh. As a woman I will tell you there are MANY women out there who will ignore wedding bands on a man, and all sorts of other things (him having a family, children, etc.) and throw themselves physically at them if they are rich or powerful enough. It's laughable. Trump was stating a fact, coarsely, but a fact. As for the E. Jean Carroll thing... the dress she supposedly was wearing wasn't even manufactured till after the "incident" which narrative came directly from her favorite t.v. show (next to The Apprentice) which was Law and Order. It's all in her Twitter account. No woman I know who had ever been been raped or assaulted would watch a tv show of her attacker willingly. Stop the repetition of lies. It's tiresome.
It's a matter of focus, I guess. I tend to focus on how Trump bragged about his own criminal misbehavior rather than to try to guess about the character of whomever he was grabbing. I make him out to be a person of low character, going by what he said of his own misbehavior.
As one of "MANY" women, would you, DB, be okay with being grabbed like that? (Just asking for a friend.)
Actually no one would try. Or has. Because I don't throw myself at strange men. They know better than to try it. A woman controls the situation far more than you men pretend to know just by her demeanor. I've watched other women in action since I was about 11 and began noticing things. Dress, conversation, behavior, body language, proximity... all play into the permission and green light that Trump was talking about. Don't tell me you're shocked hundreds of young starlets, socialites and aspiring actresses weren't hoping Trump was their gold digger's dream back during the Billy Bush interview. And he was aware of it. He was merely stating the obvious, which always tends to make a certain kind of person clutch the pearls and grab the smelling salts. Reality is like that. Just because a mouth breathing jury of haters and other people who couldn't get out of jury duty wanted to nail him on trumped up charges doesn't make him guilty. I've lost all faith in our nation's court system at this point. From the judges to the juries. It's a joke.
No what he said. What he said was that young women looking to get ahead in show business will LET famous men grab them - not that he did. The great Democrat icon and donor Harvey Weinstein proved this was TRUE by DOING it (and more) for decades in Hollywood - where all the liberals knew about it - until Rose McGowan spoke out about it (and others jumped on the Me Too bandwagon, eventually getting out of control, as usual). THEN they were all upset and going after, yes, those Hollywood liberals doing all that stuff for years.
But somehow stating that truism was too much for you to understand.
Ironic that "Trust but verify" would regurgitate Trump's lies. The fact of the matter is that Trump is a tax cheat and got caught. New York catches and punishes tax cheats who get caught cheating. Trump got a slap on the wrist. There are business folks who did what Trump did and are sitting in Dannemora.
The ruling, bad as it was, had nothing to do with taxes re the 34 counts being discussed. You're thinking of the other political case by Tish James about the value of his properties with the huge fine which was overturned on appeal...case in point.
NY received his taxes every year, by the way, and approved them...he underwent multiple state and Federal audits that found nothing illegal. And, as I said, the case was overturned on appeal. There are no business folks in prison anywhere who did real estate deals with banks, where the banks (as they always do) determined for themselves the value of the properties and determined the loan conditions. There was no fraud and there was no criminality at all.
Again, you've been watching too much MSN whatever they call themselves these days. Do some research.
Correct. It was 34 counts of falsification of business records, done in order to conceal hush money paid on Trump's behalf by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, porn star.
That's your proof of Trump's good character? Well, okay, if you say so!
- The NDA is legal, which you characterize as something that doesn't exist "hush money" to make it sound nefarious, SO....
- Cohen pays, under retainer agreement, the money to Daniels through his law office for which he is then reimbursed from a fund in Trump's office through 34 payments for the SAME item (not 34 individual, separate transactions). Under law, these would be properly charged as the same single misdemeanor count of falsifying a business record IF recorded improperly and if charges within the statute of limitations (NOT a felony), SO....
- the bookkeeper, with no direction from anyone, enters it as a legal expense for something totally legal (NDA) as payment to Cohen's law firm under a retainer agreement, SO....
- to construct a felony and get around the statute of limitations on the alleged false entries, they make up a narrative of this somehow being related to campaign finance violations, which the Federal Elections Commission had already ruled they were not.
It was a manufactured hit job, illegally predicated, and specious, arbitrary prosecution under color of law.
Don't even try with the kind that gobbles up lying headlines from the media and doesn't find out the real facts. The headlines become their reality and talking point. Just as intended for the sheep.
You are super deep in the weeds, obviously you’ve been reading The Donald’s pleadings. I've read very little.
Trump is a tax cheat. That fact is well established. I don’t care enough to keep straight all his economic crimes, but, they are well known.
If your point is that the criminal convictions pertained to doctoring records during his tax cheating, and not lying about the value of his properties, I will concede. Either way, it is financial chicanery, and New York state aggressively prosecutes business people under the statute Trump was convicted under. There were, and are, people in New York prisons who did what Trump got highly favorable treatment for. This swamp creature wallows in misconduct.
To your last point that the appeals court gave him a big win. Cutting a huge fine down to a large fine is hardly a win.
Show where Trump cheated on his taxes...because NY State and the IRS haven't found any of it and when his taxes were leaked, nobody else could find anything either. You can't "keep it straight" because all the lies about his supposed crimes have fallen apart.
It is NOT financial chicanery, it is the way EVERY real estate deal of any size is done by development companies across the country every day. EVERY. DAY. That you don't understand property valuation and development and how that business works is not Trump's fault nor does it make him guilty of anything "just because". Nobody, not in NY State or elsewhere, has EVER been prosecuted for anything like this...and none are, therefore, in prison for it.
In a political prosecution of the first order, the judges were sharply divided on various legal issues, including the core contention about the property valuations that was reached by the trial court. It came down to such simple things as the Judge not understanding the difference between a commercial property valuation vs a valuation for tax assessment - and those numbers are miles apart. So the Judge, making a ruling, didn't understand what HE was looking at and rejected technical expert testimony that told him he was wrong. You should go back and listen to the oral arguments before the appeals panel in NY!
A majority on the Appeals Court agreed the specific financial penalty was disproportionate to the actual harm, as the lenders who received the financial statements did not lose money and often benefited from the loans. The court found the penalty to be a punitive measure rather than a standard compensation for victims.
His tax return was prepared by a professional company ... not gonna go into it with you other than to say that when his returns were divulged (illegally) no one could prove anything criminal.
There is a concept in the law called the "statute of limitations." If we don't catch you before a certain amount of time, which varies from crime to crime, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you cannot be prosecuted.
Trump's playbook is stall and delay. Cf. The Epstein Files. He stalled so long that nobody can charge him because the statute of limitations has passed. That does not mean he is not a tax cheat.
And then there is the cold, brutal Western calculation of interests. I get that Trump wants this war to go away, but we (collectively) have a rather strong interest in bleeding Russia as hard and as long as we can. The place is already in a demographic death spiral; what's left is to accelerate it to the point where they are physically incapable of fielding an effective army again. The hard, cold question is how long this will take.
We (collectively, but particularly the EUropeans) have used Ukraine for this. I have not seen a more cynical exploitation of a war party since I was born. Yes, they're corrupt ex-communist arses, but this? Yet they are in the right (for us), wrong (for them) place and they're being used - and their very corruption is the lever we're using to keep the fires stoked.
There are existential national interests... and then there are the practical needs of each leadership - Russia's to keep the failing system afloat by any means necessary, and Ukraine's to keep Western money flowing to their elites by any means at hand. If you want an end to this war, these latter drivers may be more relevant to overcome. This may well mean toppling both regimes before the shooting will stop... or waiting until one of them falls on their own.
If this keeps going, Ukraine will remain our client state and Russia will fully become a client state of China. That is the real reason the State Dept. wants this war to end. Whether they're right is anyone's guess.
Not eager at all. But in Russia's case, it's not a question of whether; it's merely when - and it's usually better to have some input on the timing. Maybe later is better? That's a valid argument.
The drivers for Western birth rates are radically different from those in Russia, and thus the solutions (if any) will have to be different as well. For rich societies with reasonably flexible markets, the problem may well sort itself out by adjustment and self-elimination of certain political classes. In Russia, the decline seems terminal because there's no surplus to buffer the fall (Russia having a long history of having its ruling classes consuming it all).
Spilt milk and all, but the time to end all of this was before it started. A massing of forces, mass supplies run into Ukraine etc. etc. to show Putin we were serious. But Europe was less on a footing to respond then (not too great now, but willing) so it would have been a massive effort. Then Putin doesn't invade, of course, we go home...and he does it all again until we get tired of spending the money to wind up the troops and assemble them every time he wants to jerk our chain. Sort of like Saddam messing with us on the No-Fly Zones and sanctions regime.
The upside of the conflict, as distasteful as it may be to frame any positives, is it has gotten the attention of the EU and UK and reoriented them - to what extent is still questionable as a large part of their population and politicians would fall right back into the pre-Ukraine mindset very quickly once Ukraine ends. They are talking a good game about NATO and their defense but take away the immediate threat and they'll be back to all their socio-cultural elitist BS and be right back where they were. So we have to feed that passion for their own defense and I think Trump is doing that with his NatSec policy...putting them on notice. It is as much of a bluff as running troops into Europe/Ukraine to deter Putin, but it may work. They'll do anything to oppose or counter Trump in a state of high dudgeon and indignation. But it puts them in the posture we want them in, so check that box.
As was stated by John K., the parties are in a stalemate and only some outside force is likely to break it, or some really bad mistake on the battlefield by one or the other. Alternative 1 is to present the current peace agreement to Putin and then give him the stick - agree or we are going to begin immediate economic measures to isolate and collapse the Russian economy. If China wants to mix in, we can do the same with them and we can wage an economic war you will lose. This could, of course, lead to another war even if Putin capitulates now. After this is over he is going to go back and start rebuilding his forces like a madman. The outcome of this needs to be putting him back in his box and limiting his ability to rearm enough to do this again....with a more engaged EU.
Alternative 2: Accept the peace agreement or we Let Germany, the UK, Poland and France off the chain to aid Ukraine in the same way Putin has involved China, Chechnya, Belarus, NK, et al. This ceased being a one-on-one war some time ago...we just haven't openly pushed in troops from other countries like Putin has. This intervention, much like the US in WWI, would break the stalemate. Purpose: Push the border back to February 2022....not 2014 with Crimea as that would be a step too far. Make sure Putin knows this is the limited objective, but if hostilities commence the Allies will strike deep targets to interdict strategic targets, supply and logistics...but ground troops will not enter Russia.
Alternative 3: The only other way to break the stalemate, maybe, is a one night surprise sortie of allied stealth aircraft to bomb Russian formations to create a breakthrough for a combined arms assault by Ukrainian forces that will penetrate deeply enough to cut GLOCs and unhinge the Russian position causing a general retreat. This is all or nothing...a one shot...and depends on no Stealth losses and plausible deniability. If they don't detect the aircraft, and the Ukrainians take the ground to recover any evidence from the assault, Russia won't know what hit them...they may suspect, but they won't KNOW. High risk and only if Putin really wants to dig in and double down...and we want to change that. We may not find it worth it for a number of reasons, but the only way it could be done without entering the war on a full scale basis.
Hopefully they can come to an agreement and we can avoid the provocations and prevarications in our US political discourse from the likes of the Russian bots and 50 Ruble Brigade (good one, LT Nemo) that invade social media.
Trump's plan for this, 28 points, IIRC, was well intentioned, and Putin may accept it...for now.
Ultimately, though, the Dnepr River is Russia's goal. No, not all of Ukraine. Peter Zeihan notwithstanding, that just leaves Russia with an extended and vulnerable northern flank in the form of Poland and a certain lingering and difficult guerilla war in the western half of Ukraine. Since this doesn't give Russia everything up to the Dnepr, it really just means war again in the not too distant future.
Diplomacy to convince Russia that the Ukraine will not be used as a dagger pointed at Russia's vitals? No, not really, We are America, which means we change our foreign policy and diplomacy every two to eight years. With the best will in the world, we are just not that reliable, not in a matter that Russia sees as life and death. And the EU? The EU is a slowly collapsing mental disease masquerading as a sovereign. Thus, they're even less reliable than we are, in the medium and long term.
So is the 28 point plan worth pursuing? Probably; who knows, maybe the horse will learn to sing.
Strongly suspect you are right that Russia believes a defensible frontier (e.g. the Dnepr) is an existential security requirement. Also suspect the Russians know very well now (if there was ever any doubt) how profoundly they are hated by all of their neighbors to the West, including the parts of Ukraine which had been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are recently as the 17th and 18th centuries. No easy answers.
The United States in modern war has always used a bullet-sponge strategy in war -- have some allied power take the casualties to weaken the long-term opponent. I didn't say win the immediate war; just weaken the long-term opponent.
As long as Ukraine fights, Russia gets weaker.
Trump doesn't care about that. Why, I hesitate to guess.
First. The United Nations is irrelevant. Second, as others have said, the US supported others (China and Soviet Union) to keep them in the war, which reduced the risk/extent of US casualties.
So the fact that the US was not fighting in 1931 or 1939 is irrelevant. Once the US entered the war, it swiftly embarked on a strategy of shoring up its allies so that they would absorb the brunt of the Japanese and German war machines (read -- take the casualties) and not the US.
As Ho Chi Min observed re Vietnam (I paraphrase), American do not like long wars. Therefore we will give them a long war.
As we all know, when the South Vietnamese ceased routinely going on the offensive in the 1960s (unless pushed hard by the US), General Westmoreland wanted 500,000 more US troops for the cause. A stunned White House (I believe LBJ) refused, knowing that US casualties were already more than the US could stomach.
Foreign policy and diplomacy are separate, albeit related fields. My comment concerned US war fighting strategy: We arrange for bullet sponges in conflicts. Let's focus.
I disagree about Russia getting weaker I think Putin has used the last four years to rebuild Russia's economy.
LOLOLOLOL! That's a joke if I ever saw one....
Why do you say that?
Remind me not to ask you for financial advice.
Russia has had a 'temporary' economic upswing due to all the resources it has put into the war since 2022, but those expenditures are finite. At the same International sanctions have prevented Russia from generating revenue to support these added expenses. By throwing money into its military, it has neglected the civilian side of the economy, which is where REAL economic growth happens and THE reason the Soviet union collaped in 1991. Russia has sacrificed its future for a temporary increase now. In fact, one internationally known economist [not an American] has stated Russia CANNOT AFFORD to STOP the fighting because its economy will TOTALLY COLLAPSE if it does. THAT is why I said it was a joke....
tbh I looked at Russian GDP per capita and if anything it's risen. Whether that has translated into improved living standards given all the military expenditure I don't know.
As CDR S noted in Graham's article, Russian economy has stagnated, with no future investments. Putin is sacrificing long term Russian stability for a dream of empire before he dies
Again how do we know Russia’s economy has stagnated? Did they have a government shutdown? Are they running $2 trillion trade deficit?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/russia-tomorrow/the-russian-economy-in-2025-between-stagnation-and-militarization/
Have you looked at the Atlantic Council board? Pure swamp.
Yeah…the directors look like a mixed bag. Even Kelly Conway is there.
GEN Jones, a few others
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, The Atlantic Council, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
The Atlantic Council isn't known for having a historically strong record of truth-telling.
They are known for pushing propaganda that results in more military contracts for the companies their members sit on the boards of.
Not sure how an essay on Russia's stagnant economy fulfills your opinion of their editorial purpose. The article is heavy in sited references (links in discussion). I've read it twice and don't see any factual errors I am aware of. The authors are of this article don't owe anything to the Council's "propaganda" or the board. One author is a non-resident fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, so I'm guessing she knows her stuff. The other is a Russian expert at the Davis Center at Harvard -- another decent resume. The Council is a much-desired publication destination for these types of essays, similar to Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy.
In summary, this is a professionally written, researched and resourced paper that provides insight on what is happening in the Russian economy. It would help all of us to understand the realities and not assume our "sound bite" addled media favorites provide it for us.
BTW: I disagree on your opinion of the Atl Council. It is one of many think tanks that use academic regimen to brings issues to the front burners. You may not like conclusions, as I will disagree on occasion, but their fact finding is impeccable. Haven't been able to say that about the Heritage Foundation since the mid-2010's --and I use to cite them a lot in my work before then.
gotta ask: your profile: retired naval officer of what and when?
Correct. Very senior. Cold War and GWOT. You?
You’ll have to speak squid to explain “very senior”
I overlap but don;t like the GWOT label.
Didn’t answer the what
Their national debt is almost $500B, they'll collapse soon.
/s
Imagine if their debt was 38 trillion.
We don't want Russia so weak the Chicoms can take over Siberia quicker than they already are.
Agreed, but this is also one of those "the other guy gets a vote" things. Putin and co. chose to align themselves with Beijing in the late oughts and early teens, and there's only so much we can do about the results of that.
And I say this as someone who thinks we should have started doing a reverse Nixon sometime around 2004 or so and brought Russia into NATO.
+100 for the reverse Nixon. I think it still may be possible.
Maybe, but at this point I think it would take a change in management in Moscow plus the Chinese doing something egregiously dumb like kicking the Russians out of Kazakhstan.
It is said that only Nixon could go to Beijing. So who can go to Moscow?
Russia chose to align themselves with Beijing because D.C., London, and Brussels made it clear that the Russia would always be viewed as a gas station inhabited by untermensch.
The Chinese offered a transactional relationship without the retarded moral judgment from a bunch of limp-wristed Eurocrats who think they're important because tourists like to visit the museums detailing the history of the countries they used to be.
That was a lot of words to say, "I am eliding over the Russian track record in Eastern Europe and Putin's issues with anything that might impede his tendencies towards cronyism."
Grow up.
The Poles invaded Russia in 1919 because they saw an opportunity to settle grievances. The Germans invaded in 1941.
If you want to talk cronyism, maybe explain how 5 of the top 6 counties in per capita income surround Washington D.C., a city with no industry other than government.
Meanwhile, Russia killed millions of its own people in the early 1930s, took over the Baltic states and tried to take over Finland in 1939, vassalized Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, and refused to leave Moldova in the early 1990s.
Stop pretending that Russia is some poor innocent maiden preyed upon by evil Westerners.
To which 'modern' wars are you referring? Your comment is BS and doesn't have any facts to back it up. WW I, WWII, Korea and Vietnam all say otherwise.
WW2 used China and USSR as theaters to bog down the Axis powers. WW1 saw the US move slowly towards the front, drawing complaints from the French. Korea and Vietnam both saw the indigenous forces front and center even though the US was directing strategy.
America's public does not accept casualties. Russia's does.
To be fair, Japan picked China, and Hitler pick the USSR
We didn't, though we did send them material a great cost to keep them in the fight bleeding our enemies
China fought our mutual enemy, as did the Soviet Union. We supplied them because doing so reduced pressure on our forces.
Your comment is STILL BS because the wars to which you refer began in 1931 with the invasion of China by the Japanese and of Poland in 1939 by the Germans. If you are going to use that logic, the same holds true with the UK in 1931 and ALL the neutral countries in the world including Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, etc, etc, etc! There was NO United Nations, and the US was a 'declared' neutral country, so the US was not obligated to fight Japan in 1931 or Germany in 1939. In spite of that, the US still supplied China and the UK and USSR with logistics during that period., thereby doing MORE than it was obligated to do. Go back to school and study International Foreign Policy and Diplomacy before you start spouting 'facts' which are nothing more than useless and unfactual dribble.
Somehow my reply got shifted to the top of the thread.
"Ukraine has less of an ability to sustain the fight"
Filled my BS bingo card here!
US/EU has less of an ability to sustain the fight. FIFY!
Where do you get the figure of one million Russian casualties or any other numbers for that matter? Sounds like NATO wishful thinking.
Probably comes from the Institute for the Study of War as I have seen similar numbers there. They are a Nuland aligned think tank. I don't think anyone in the West really knows.
Nuland. Enough said.
ISW was started by Robert Kagan's (Nuland's husband) brother or sister-in-law. It's a marriage made in hell of retarded neocons and neoliberals.
They lie and deflect and downplay, until Ukraine does a minor counter-offensive, at which point they trumpet the great success of the UAF.
This figure has been confirmed by several open-source intelligence entities, such as Oryx, which do not have/owe allegiance to any national government or power. In addition, it's only common sense when you consider the war is > 4 years old, and Russia only has a fraction more land now than it did in 2022 when this 'phase' started. Sounds to me like you're a Russian apologist. Go spend some time on the front-lines, and you'll quickly learn the truth of the 1 million casualties.
They might be moving slowly to avoid large casualties.
I looked at the Oryx site, they are clearly pro-Ukrainian.
Oryx is a very dubious source.
Russian drones, artillery, and missiles don't care about how clever or heroic the Ukrainians are. They smoke them, just like Ukrainian drones smoke Russian soldiers.
Every time the Ukrainians conduct a counter-offensive they take heavy losses. They're not super soldiers.
Yeah, the narrative always focuses on Russian losses, but never considers Ukrainian losses. They just assume that the Ukrainians have been mowing down Russian meatwaves with great heroism.
But they've also promoted "2000M to Andriivka" as proof of Ukrainian courage, which is a film about the 2023 Ukrainian offensive that displays tactics that are high casualties for the Ukrainians. I didn't see much in the way of elite mechanized tactics in that documentary.
Russian drones, artillery, and missiles don't care about Ukrainian courage or cleverness, and the Russians are using more drones than the Ukrainians are.
There was no lack of courage on the part of the British at Gallipoli, the Somme or Passchendaele.
Indeed, there was not. British and Canadian generals figured out a successful strategy called "bite and hold" at Passchendaele that the Germans had no counter for. It was slow, but effective, because it consisted of only taking one trenchline at a time and then reinforcing the hell out of it, running the cables and phones forward so artillery spotters could call down the steel rain, etc.
But British high command was dominated by cavalry officers who couldn't stand the slow and steady pace, and they ordered the generals to resume the "throw walls of soldiers until the Germans run out of ammo" approach.
Russia committed hard to the "bite and hold" strategy back in late 2023, and it's been working for them. Outside observers think that glacial pace means they're incapable of moving faster, but military historians who are being honest with themselves recognize this for what it is: bite and hold.
Agreed. The British also had bad luck. Unseasonable rain that turned the field into mud.
That’s why I don’t like talking heads who sneer at the Russian for not have taken all of Ukraine by now. Much easier to bleed Ukraine.
Yeah, the mud was swallowing men since the ground had been thoroughly torn up for three years at that point. Crazy bad luck, and command should have picked a different spot to press hard.
Reading accounts of battles like, I’m amazed at the courage of the men and appalled at the callous disregard high command showed for their lives due to their refusal to acknowledge how bad the ground conditions were. Medevac was extremely difficult due to the mud, so a lot of guys died who might have survived even with 1917 medicine.
They finally took the village and the ridge line it was on, only to lose it in a counteroffensive.
I think Ukraine should accept Putin’s terms. Crimea and four provinces, no NATO in Ukraine and no Ukraine in NATO and a reduction in the size of its armed forces.
If Ukraine and Europe finds these terms unacceptable they are welcome to pay any price to continue the fight. Just don’t ask America to support these endless wars which are of no strategic importance.
Also, we should unfreeze Russia's assets and return their yachts. By imposing sanctions we destroyed the dollar as the reserve currency and only hurt ourselves.
Well, hell, while we're at it, just go ahead and give Eastern Europe back to Russia! Just take care of all of it now...I mean, after all, we know what benovelant benefactor Russia is!
You could argue that Russia originally earned it by defeating Nazi Germany.
Why would Russia want Eastern Europe? What's there of value?
You're creating a strawman. No one said give eastern Europe or the Baltic countries to Russia.
This can only mean that you support the shelling and killing of civilians (over 13,000) in the Donbass solely for being Russian and civilians. You must also support the Azov Regiment, their most ardent group of forces. You must also celebrate Stepan Bandera's birthday. (yuk) It's a National Holiday in Ukraine.
You're either a dope or a Nazi, which is it?
You are just repeating Kremlin propaganda points. Please read up on history.
"Yes they're Nazis, but they're our Nazis" Victoria Neuland, allegedly.
The greatest tragedy is this whole war could have been avoided had Romney beaten Obama or had Trump's 2020 reelection been properly recognized.
Even beyond that, but for Anglo/Euro intervention, the war could have ended on more or less similar terms to the present in 2022. Damn Boris Johnson, damn the Europeans and damn Biden!
The outlines of a mutually 'tolerable intolerable' deal have been obvious since the initial Russian invasion failed.
I promise you we haven't heard the last of Burisma and the depths of corruption the Bidens and their cohorts were involved in that spawned this war.
What did Gertrude Stein say about Oakland, Calif.?
Sorry, your first paragraph is the most ridiculous 'causal' to world events I have ever heard. This political screech in total appears to reflect lack of global affairs understanding boiled down and compensated for with a partisan media garbage. CDR S. provided us a comprehensive view of sober realities, and you wasted it with that. I don't agree with him in total-- I think the Ukrainians still have fight in them (wouldn't you if you were invaded?), but I see the facts as he laid out as valid and factual and the most likely outcome as he and Thomas Graham described. Before you reply with some tripe, take a look at Putin's historical view on "Greater Russia," the non-existence of a Ukrainian state in his mind, and how Ukraine evolved after independence -- all independent of any American elections.
I’m very well aware of the history, the Russian concept of ‘near abroad’, Greater Russia theory and the like. I’m also well aware Putin - Russia generally - is cautious when it thinks it is facing resolute powers and strikes only when it judges its potential adversaries weak. Ukraine is a very complex issue on many levels - I’ve had Ukrainian friends from whom I learned of the Ukraine - Russia issues more that 50 years ago! My US political point is merely that Obama was very weak on Russian aggression where Romney took Russia seriously and would not have been irresolute - think of a France and Britain ruled by serious men when Hitler remilitarized the Rheinland in 1936. Likewise, had Trump remained in office, Putin was much less likely to invade. Counterfactuals, so we can’t truly know…but as we consider policy going forward we should understand.
Now that was a more sober comment and I thank you for thinking it through. Your talk about France (the 3rd Republic in constant internal strife) and Chamberlain's willingness to achieve peace at "all costs" are valid points. I should note this proposed peace seems to be a Chamberlain-esque solution.
But I disagree in general. Before Trump 2.0, American foreign policy can best be described as a 10-15 degree rudder adjustment for each Administration since the end of WWII. Obama as 'weak' on Russia or what-iffing Romney (who I like) is poking at constrained views on specific points in a greater spectrum. Generally, we have been consistent if not responding to each event as some prefer. Obama made mistakes while trying--and failing -- to extract from the Middle East. He could have done better (they all could). In sum, I honestly don't think it mattered who was in the WH as this escalated, unless someone decided to put American boots on the ground. That was Putin's bet after we didn't respond to Crimea.
BTW: I have visited both -- UKR and RUS. It does give you a feel of what's the thinking.
Cheers
Your point about American foreign policy post-WWII as series of minor course corrections (sailing analogy accepted - no tacks or gybes…) is one seen frequently (and by almost everyone who laments end the end of the ‘liberal rules based world order’). I am increasingly of the view, which I intend to develop at documented essay length beyond that of comments in a thread here, that, in fact, that sort of consensus policy really only lasted until the end of the Cold War, and that the policies of the mid-1990s through Biden actual represent a significant departure from the understandings that underlined those earlier policies.
Would look forward to reading that. I am admittingly a believer in the "liberal bases world order" akin to Churchill's comment (actually requoted by him) that democracy is the worst form of government until you try the others (paraphrase). Pure chaos above the Nation-state and great power competition has always led to nothing but periodic large-scale war amongst the powers. The liberal order, though imperfect, has clearly tamped down the global conflagrations.
Would submit the elephant in the room after WWII is nuclear weapons, MAD, and war by proxy...which this sort of is, except one of the major belligerents has rattled the nuclear saber more than once to brush back critics.
Whether something that isn't an authoritarian world empire in place of nation-state and great power competition is even possible is an interesting and much discussed question. What we (the US) thought we were building post-WWII was altered as the Cold War and containment developed...a number of the institutions which supporters of the 'liberal rules based world order' supported and continue to support developed into institutions which were ultimately hostile to the interests of the US. It is the recognition of this and a concern to return to something like more reciprocal notions of trade and security that has spurred the rejection of what the 'liberal rules based world order' has transmogrified itself into.
“Ideology: the mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither mistaken nor beliefs.”
― Nein: A Manifesto
The fallacy in your argument is that who the President is matters. They are given a narrow set of options, if they deviate, they get impeached.
Disagree with you completely: how the sitting President is perceived by adversaries, potential adversaries, allies and potential allies matters in all of their respective calculi of decision making. Likewise, personality and political differences among sitting Presidents affects their own perception of adversaries, potential adversaries, allies, and potential allies - domestically as well as internationally - and their decision-making calculus.
Tell me you haven't heard of the Russia Hoax without telling me you've never heard of the Russia Hoax.
A lot of this has to do with sunk costs. The Ukrainian government can’t make peace and justify to its people giving up a large portion of its territory to a nation that invaded it and inflicted such horrible casualties. At the same time, Russia can’t justify an invasion that has cost it so much and didn’t result in any real gains. So neither side can make peace but neither side is strong enough to win the war. The situation in Ukraine is almost exactly analogous to France between 1914 and 1918. France wasn’t strong enough to evict the Germans from their territory but could never agree to a peace that left the Germans in possession of the best third of their nation. Germany couldn’t make peace and just go back with nothing in hand after its people sacrificed so much but couldn’t finish off France either. So the war dragged on until the US intervention combined with Germany finally starting to starve from the blockade finally caused it to collapse. I would love to see peace in Ukraine but it is going to be very difficult to obtain short of the complete collapse of one side.
That, sir, is perhaps the best, most succinct, summation of the current situation that I have read anywhere. And it is spot on.
Thank you.
I liken it more to the first Finnish Winter War. Simply because Ukraine was not a military strength peer of Russia.
With US help they are. The Fins for all of their virtues had to make peace after one winter. The Ukrainians have given as good as they have gotten.
Seems a lot of delusion in this analysis.
Here's news from the real world from Grok:
"In summary, Ukraine's population has decreased by an estimated 20–25% (or more in some assessments) from pre-2021 figures by the end of 2025, marking one of the sharpest demographic declines in recent history."
"From 2021 to the end of 2025, Russia's population has declined by an estimated 1–3 million (roughly 1–2%)."
The only delusion going on here is you thinking the war isn’t a stalemate. The war is over three years old. Is Ukraine closer to collapse than Russia? Maybe. We will find out as time goes on. Even if it collapses tomorrow that won’t change the enormous price Russia has paid in this war or make the decision to start the war anything other than the disaster it is.
"Maybe."
As I said. Delusional."
You don’t have any idea what is going on in Russia or how close it is or is not to collapse. All you know is you want to believe it won’t. You are the definition of delusional. If you are correct it will be due to pure luck
Yes Bill, just like Russia was going to run out of missiles, they're going to collapse now anytime.
This is delusional. Ukraine’s population, infrastructure & economy have been trashed.
Whereas Russia has actually seen multi year growth of their economy even in the face of Global sanctions. Russians infrastructure is intact and actually grown given it’s friend without limits helping its extraction economy.
They have far from given as good as they have gotten.
The Russians have lost over a hundred thousand men and too much irreplaceable equipment to count. The Russian military will likely never fully recover from this given the state of the Russian industrial sector. This has been the worst strategic disaster for Russia since the decision to enter World War I.
They lost decades old stocks that had been in storage. Most of those tanks and artillery pieces dated back to post war days.
Counter to you misperception Russian industry has benefited from war mobilization and expanded war material production. Prior to it was anemic and on the topes. Now they have restored muscle memory on building and fielding artillery and armour. Let alone built and entire new drone industry. During this time their economy grew by 3.6% in 2023 & 4.1% in 2024.
Their loss against population size is no worse than Ukrainian losses.
As for Russia military it’s shown resilience and more amazingly shown ability to reconstitute repeatedly during the course of the war. They continue to launch waves of artillery, drone and missile attacks after 4 years of constant high intensity warfare. That shows just the opposite of your claim of them never recovering. Cote military has gained knowledge where as conscripts have brunt the brunt of the carnage. Which is Russia’s history and given they are new conscripts aren’t the regular Army.
If anything their Armed Forces and it’s leadership will come out far more experienced & capable with a focus of what’s required going forward.
At the sametime, Putin has shown resilience and actually gained tighter control of the Nation and economy. Counter to the wishcasting for some rival to push him out a window.
You are showing to be captured by propaganda and not reality.
At end of the day Russia will come out the other side with NATo frozen, Europe buying even more Russian energy and in full control of Crimea, with a full
Land bridge including Donbass, Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia. They also control major Ukrainian ports and industrial areas especially in Mariupol.
Was that submarine they just lost old stock? The Bear bombers too? They pulled the old stock out of storage because they had lost the new stuff. What do think they are using fifty year old equipment out of kindness? Because they want to make things sporting?
I have been listening to this horse shit for three years now. Let me guess, the Russians didn’t intend to take Kiev at the beginning of the war and this was always the plan. It is just fucking ridiculous. Russia took on a fourth rate power everyone expected to fold in two weeks and instead has seen the cream of its military ground up in a stalemate and the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II for going on four years now. There is no way to spin that as anything but the total disaster that it is.
You are a delusional idiot or a paid propagandist. Either way, go tell someone dumb enough to believe you.
Projection much?
You fail to read the brief and have drunk the last 11 years of cool aide about this war. I have a feeling you work for RAND.
Sanctions have failed. Europe still funding Russia though their dependence on Russian energy and their failure to embrace more of a pivot towards North American energy sources. Hell Germany still went forward with shutdown of their nuclear industry. What that tell you about where they think Russia will end up at end of things.
Ukraine forces are stretched and can’t reconstitute to required levels. Where as it only cost Russia cash to pull in conscripts. Or technology or energy transfers to have their allies provide manpower.
Russia is this close to winning. You people have been saying that for four years. How many times do you have to be wrong before you pull your head out of your ass?
Closer than anyone, especially the Russians, thought. Prewar, Ukraine had the second biggest army in Europe. The initial Russian commitment of 80,000 men was not enough to fight house to house in Kiev much less occupy all of Ukraine. Was the attack in the north an attempt to panic the Ukrainians or a diversion to allow and easy occupation of the Donbas. In the event, neither worked.
I like what Jetcal 1 and you said in your analysis. Huge conundrum here. Both the US and China sat on the sidelines for awhile watching this horrifying scenario develop. I suspect China is supporting Russia only so that Russia continues to fight and weaken itself. One can debate whether they'd actually use military force to take over the resources of Siberia/Far East Military district...but, certainly they have the same historical argument as they've used in other situations i.e. "We used to own that XXX years, centuries, millennia ago." China also knows that any resources we send or sell to the Ukraine are resources that won't go to strengthening US and allied bases and forces in the Pacific. By keeping our attention on the European front, they can out wait this administration. Should the war continue (at the expense of the Ukraine and Russian people) China can continue to strengthen their belt and road initiative, continue their "practices" to take over Taiwan, and have time to let their long term strategy unfold. Unfortunately, what passes for US strategy is pretty much limited from election to election. I don't think China wants to lose its #1 trading partner (the US) but wants to be strong enough to dominate the Pacific Rim and they are just about there.
On the other hand re. weapons going to Ukraine instead of INDOPACOM, we're sending older stuff on the way out of the arsenal, no? And getting lots of ISR practice.
And can China really be happy that Russia has forcefully reminded the West that it needs to rebuild its defense industrial base?
Europe is essentially useless in any conflict with China because of both geography and will so it doesn't matter how much it rebuilds (which it won't).
I expect little military help for the reasons you state. But even if no European weapons and ammunition help America in INDOPACOM, America’s defense industry base is stronger than it would have been had Russia not invaded Ukraine. Is China happy with Russia for that?
We need to reshore manufacturing in general, not just defense. The tremendous build up in WW2 was made possible by repurposing other manufacturing. Kaiser (basically a construction company-Grand Coulee) produced ships by the hundred. Rock-ola (juke boxes) made M1 carbines as did IBM, auto industry made tanks, aircraft and heavy trucks and so on.
Agreed!
You should read up on the WWII history of the Dodge Brothers. They were highly competent engineers and factory managers. It was said they could build anything.
The American defense industry is not really much stronger.
The big defense contractors have consistently lobbied for procurement policies that have limited the ability for smaller, more innovative manufacturers to sell products to Ukraine that are in demand by the actual end-users there.
DoD has really shit the bed when it comes to restructuring forces to have a realistic capability of not getting slaughtered if they were sent into a near-peer conflict like Ukraine.
Seeing the videos of Russian fiber-optic drones blowing up NATO-supplied vehicles with obvious EW anti-drone gear on top has been educational.
We were assured by Admiral Mullen that Europe's significant contributions made the 1000 ship fleet-in-being possible and insurmountable by any adversary. Are we now to doubt The Smartest People in the Room(TM)?
The West has gotten many wake-up calls to rebuild its industrial capacity; it just keeps hitting the snooze button.
Gotta spend those resources babysitting the third world!
You make some good points. China and Russia have always been uneasy allies. Even when they shared an ideology, they were almost at each other's throats.
The China/Russia alliance is purely transactional, which historically has been more reliable than ideological alliances between vastly different cultures.
China has bigger ambitions than getting nuked over Siberian resources that the Russians are eager to sell them. And since they're not competing for whose the better communist, I think their alliance is on stronger legs than it was when the USSR was routing weapons shipments meant for Vietnam through China, and which China would promptly steal for themselves and give the Vietnamese WWII surplus junk.
Generally known as the sunk cost FALLACY. Otherwise, a good analysis
Well, Russia collapsed in 1917, but is less likely to do so today as similar conditions don't exist.
Ukraine - given its smaller population and greater destruction of the country, however much it receives in Western weapons, is several times more likely to collapse - suddenly - than is Russia.
Russia is certainly not in the position of being effectively blockaded. Europe still buys Russian fuel!
Anyone holding out in Ukraine for American troops to rescue Ukraine is naive.
The European troops and equipment to wage an effective offensive war against Russia simply do not exist today. Not to mention the European nations do not have the political will to launch an offensive war.
Between the Scandinavians and the Poles, any Russian move West probably could be thwarted - and if the Russians moved West there would be US intervention.
The poor Baltics would not last a day no matter what we do, even if we started popping tactical nukes when the first Russian crossed the Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian frontier, just as the Russians couldn't hold East Prussia once the US was involved.
But, to
Anyone who thinks they know which side is going to collapse first is lying to themselves. Partisans of both sides have been convinced the other side is on the verge of collapse almost since the day the war started. If I had a dollar for every “Ukraine is on the verge of collapse “ or “This time Russia is not going to recover “ think pieces I have seen over the last three and a half years, I have would have enough money for a hell of a weekend in Vegas even at today’s prices.
Lying to myself, hardly... I didn't suggest I know which side will collapse first, merely suggested what seems more likely (and why).
I don't fundamentally disagree that neither side believes it can make the necessary concessions to end the war at this point.
For those of us who are not prepared to pay for an endless war (while we are depleting our own war stocks and failing to ramp up production to replace them in a timely manner - and that's the US, not the Europeans who are not really rearming), what is to be done?
Would recommend:
1) Continuing to fund the Ukraine (while our own readiness declines as a result of war stock depletion) which Ukraine and Russia continue to fight?
2) Actually putting NATO (meaning American) troops into action and going to war with Russia if the Russians won't make a deal Ukraine can live with (with US pressue on Ukraine)?
3) Telling Ukraine it's on its own if it doesn't make a deal the Russians will agree to (with US pressure on Russia)?
Because those seem to be the alternatives.
I don't think the Europeans are capable of going to war now, and I don't think the American people (let alone the government or the troops themselves) want to fight a war against Russia.
What's your policy recommendation?
The alternative is to keep feeding money to Ukraine and see if the Russians get tired of dying before Ukraine runs out of people. It is a brutal calculus but it does have the upside of extracting the maximum toll from Russia should it not work.
As you say, brutal and cynical. The surviving Ukrainians if it fails are unlikely to thank us. At the very least, they should have an election to decide whether that’s what they want. And we should insist on NO CORRUPTION.
The other thing that no one seems to ever think of is that a Russian victory would just lead to an insurgency as Russia tries to occupy and control the place. That would be worse than the war. Russia can potentially win the conventional war but it has no chance of occupying and pacifying Ukraine Ukraine is an enormous country populated with a now hostile population. It would be like trying to occupy the entire upper Midwest. There is really no way this ends well for Russia.
That government would need Russian manpower and resources. So installing a puppet government would not help
Well put. The brutality of WW1 costs horrified Winston Churchill in early '15. The allies could keep the slaughter going thanks to US credit. The Germans & Austriana played (mostly) defense.
WW1 stopped because the British Fleet starved Germany into submission and 250k US troops per month were landing in France by mid 1918.
After he witness the ruin of WW I, can you blame Chamberlain for his course of action?
The sunk cost fallacy, that future expenditures are justified because of past expenditures, is a trap many individuals and countries make. It’s embarrassing and difficult when we as individuals have to admit to a past mistake, but much more important for countries to do so.
"The sunk cost fallacy, that future expenditures are justified because of past expenditures"
------------
In economic analysis you are, of course, correct. Decisions about potential behavior not yet taken should always be a marginal analysis.
However, this is not true in the world of politics.
My observation is that people and nations almost never admit that a previous decision was wrong, and that’s where things really begin to go off the rails.
The current Ukrainian government can't, but a new one will, and blame the defeat on the previous one.
Perhaps. The best solution is to give up part of Ukraine, end the war, and then leave Russia with a western backed bitter enemy on its doorstep.
The best solution for the West. Russia gets a vote, and will veto this.
Then let them bleed white and go broke. They are not going absorb Ukraine.
Bite and hold won the British small victories like Vemi Ridge. It was not however decisive or even significant in winning the war. It just gave them away to stay active and on the offensive without destroying their army. What won the war was the mastering of combined arms and the collapse of the German Army in the fall of 1918. Russia is not winning the war by the small gains they are trading with Ukraine. It will win only if the US gets tired of funding Ukraine, which might happen but it is not happening anytime soon
Wow. This post brought out the 50 Ruble brigade.
I am more than amazed that anyone, even a full blown Russian symp, can say with a straight face that giving the Russians what they came for and a pat on the back is going to satisfy them.
The Russians, or maybe just Putin, want all of Ukraine and will only pause at Crimea and Donbas. They will turn to other former SSRs, now independent nations, when they recover and are ready. They have said so. Repeatedly.
You do not win peace by given tyrants a piece of what they demand with the hope that they will be satisfied.
Lt. Nemo, your position at the front is awaiting. Or are you too comfortable in your arms chai?
Here's YOUR 50 rubles.
Seems like you are the one interested in receiving Rubles. I don't. Your idiocratic inability to discuss seems very organic.
Russia doesn't want all of Ukraine. It wants its port and its Russian speaking provinces that voted to rejoin Russia years ago. It threatened to take the whole loaf in order to negotiate to the terms it really wanted. Typical tactic for them if you look at their previous negotiating positions on other topics.
Perhaps you should actually read what Putin has written on Russia's rightful territory and Ukrainian independence. You're naive if you think he doesn't want all of Ukraine.
RUS wants its 1935 map borders back, including the Ukranian steppes at the time. The 'Stan boxes should take note.
Just like Hitler didn't want all of Czechoslovakia.
That absurd reduction didn't take long.
Someone eat too much Ukrainean propaganda instead of prescribed pills.
And here's YOUR 50 rubles.
Claiming people are Russian bots when you're parroting the opinions of thoroughly discredited neocons and neoliberals is just sad.
The Ukrainians have killed and injured a lot of Russians. The Russia's huge reserves of tanks and artillery have been depleted.
There will be fewer Russians available to fight the next conflict. Their huge equipment reserves, which was their ace in the hole, is not there anymore. These are good things.
The countries of the region owe Ukraine a debt of gratitude for this.
Russia has shown it's willingness to use it's military to redraw it's borders. Something not seen in Europe for many years.
The things holding Putin back are practical, not philosophical or moral.
I don't mind seeing the Russians attrited and made to suffer. They deserve it.
In short, I hate to see Ukraine thrown under the bus and abandoned as Poland was in 1945.
Translated: You say everyone should be grateful to Ukraine for undergoing demographic suicide as a proxy for everyone else. That is horrifically cynical. You also presume Russia actually wants a next conflict. Maybe it just wants to be left alone. Without us helping its neighbors violate agreements about NATO membership. Pity no one in 1990 could take the long view and welcome Russia into the circle of nations like Japan or Germany in 1945, since you want to talk about 1945.
History repeats. Tell the Poles and the Balts that Russia can be trusted.
Tell it to the Russians that NATO can be trusted. Every country in NATO, except Iceland, has invaded Russia at least once.
Sometimes you have to pick a side Richard. The modern Western European was no threat to Russia. They cant be bothered to leave the Cafe and would be much happier doing business than invading.
While she is American, Victoria Nuland exemplifies their attitude (while holding them in contempt as you do). She produced a map of Russia divided into about 40 ministates along resource boundaries. These would be colonies exploited for their resources by various Western states or perhaps corporations. This was well underway during the Yeltsin years before Putin put a stop to it. That explains his continued support in spite of everything. NATO did in fact dismember Serbia which posed no threat to any NATO nation. I can guarantee that the Russians noticed what happened to a traditional ally.
That's not what's coming out of Brussels.
Tell the Russians that the Poles and Balts can be trusted. The Poles took advantage of the Russian civil war to invade in 1919 before getting pushed out by 1921.
The whole region was in turmoil at the end of WW1. The newly formed countries of the region were jockeying for position and territory. The map drawn up by the Allies at the end of the war did not necessarily reflect the ethnic and historical realities.
The collapse of not only the Russian Empire but also the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and to some extent Prussia left a vacuum that made conflicts inevitable.
South-Eastern Poland and Western Ukraine were part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, not the Russian one. Even durring those times there was a strong Polish cultural and e onomic presence in what is today Western Ukraine.
The Ukranians saw the situation as a chance to gain independence. The current conflict is not Ukraine's first attempt to do so. There have been many.
Lastly, don't forget the Soviets were at the gates of Warsaw until Pilsudski's counterattack sent them scurrying back to the motherland.
The situation remained stable until the 1939 joint Russian-German invasion.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum did exactly what you suggest, i.e., "welcome Russia into the circle of nations", trusting Russia to respect Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
How did that work out?
Please recall what Russia was to get in return....
I write above what were the two fundamental quid pro quos of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to repeat, Ukraine gets territorial security, Russia gets nuclear weapons.
You say "recall" without stating the additional item(s) required by the memorandum.
And what might they be, please limiting that to what is actually written in the Memorandum, not "expectations".
The bomb.
Why "presume"? Russia wanted this conflict; they invaded Ukraine, twice. First with Putin's "little green men," then with such a mass that it ended up in its own fatal traffic jam on the road to Kyiv.
If Russia had won in three days, as they supposedly had planned to, surely they would have wanted "to be left alone." That part you got right; the rest is delusional.
The Ukrainians didn’t choose this war; it was thrust upon them. And let’s not forget that the very start of our country went with the words, “give me liberty, or give me death.” To label their fight as mere “suicide” cheapens both their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of our forefathers. Who were willing to give their, “lives, duty, and sacred honor,” in the cause of freedom for themselves and posterity. And the countries of Europe do owe the Ukrainians a great debt; as long as Ukraine is free from Russia, so are they.
Their leadership, who have amassed amazing personal wealth by doing so, followed the courses of action laid out to them by their NATO "allies."
And ours haven’t gotten rich and think only of themselves? It seems you’re saying that they are as bad a we are.
Our politicians are corrupt whores. That’s why we should ignore their demands for supporting conflicts they personally profit off of
We should not be ignoring people just because they are sinners. We should be focusing whether or not what they say is true and right, regardless of the messenger.
Who are they fighting the next conflict against?
Hopefully against each other.
Each other?
Let the Russians kill each other fighting over resources as the country fractures.
Oh, fantasizing now. Good luck with that.
The Europeans literally redrew the borders of Serbia in 1999.
The U.S. has long supported Israel repeatedly redrawing its borders.
The U.S. and NATO have repeatedly toppled governments through direct military force or via proxies.
Wonder how different this would all look if ol' Boris Johnson had let Ukraine and Russia sign that peace treaty and end the hostilities weeks into the war back when it started.... It is easy to catch a snake with another man's hand. And Ukraine has been that proxy hand for everyone who wasn't willing to commit their own countrymen and blood to the fight. But the grift was too big (the largesse of U.S. taxpayers, willing and unwilling) to stop the fight. I suspect Zelensky will quit when he gets a few more mansions in far away cities and his wife gets a few more Paris shopping sprees. The corruption in all of this is mind blowing and there is a real reason Congress voted AGAINST having any audit trail to the money they were so merrily marching into Ukrainian bank accounts. The baksheesh that came to them is criminal. Again, this didn't go on for 4 years because the Ukrainians were that special militarily. It lasted this long because other countries were helping prolong it with aid and training, and weapons because they were in on the literal spoils of war. Disgusting. Millions of dead brother Slavs means nothing to these people. Leave it to Europe to turn a family argument into a bloodbath. They seem good at it looking at the last Century.
When Foch read the Versailles Treaty, he said "this is not peace, this is an armistice for twenty years".
Foch was exactly correct, 1919 + 20 = 1939.
I invite the Commander to suggest terms for Ukraine which would be "peace not an armistice for a year or two".
I say there are no such terms.
To anyone interested in the Versailles I would recommend a fascinating book. "The Economic Consequences of the Peace," by John Maynard Keynes.
https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Consequences-Peace-Classic-Illustrated/dp/1686203985/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3JSOMKJKEPEWG&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.u3nkzC-sg32OxlLejAqOzMU6MZfy4fF_K48lDjpKsKibAQNWqtTk5otVQY5eOjisX-9D2wNL0Gb60poBtM3JKNBs02ZWutcbasa-DYl5b2zOeVMFeBkI22Yb4zF_jtKa9i1g1pj8YSEQWkzO209usZU_rdhCzupRIf0dqpDRkunQO0qKP43vyEqj2yu0YiyVdMMxKyfFXwAikj3Ndt2NeGfS9AybRRNuSoSeQL8hxqk.jxodF-_9s3lOgjAInsx5GwACtui8h-2jpGozBx6j6d8&dib_tag=se&keywords=amazon+book+keynes+peace&qid=1765906925&sprefix=amazon+book+keynes+peace%2Caps%2C155&sr=8-3
Thank you.
It's very difficult to discover the truth of what is happening in the war. If you believe what you see on YouTube, well, Ukraine is winning thanks to innovative use of drones: aerial, marine, and now terrestrial too.
If you run the numbers, then it has to be Russia, simply because of its sheer size, along with our people willing to counsel "peace in our time": giving Putin enough of what he wants now to go away, to rebuild, regroup, and come back again in 5 years or so and go after the rest of what he wants.
With Trump having shown NATO participation as just an option, not a real obligation, Putin has gained something very, very useful in future, assuming he lasts long enough to use it.
I think he will not say the quiet part out loud, that he's just signing up to a deal that he will break, same as the last time he gave solid security promises to Ukraine, but he won't need to say the quiet part out loud.
Hitler after "Munich" said that Neville Chamberlain was such a nice man that he gave him his signature. That's about how much worth we can assign to any deal Putin signs.
Too, with the war over (for now), I think Trump would be amazingly quick to do a series of nakedly corrupt deals with Putin that would obviate any meaningful US reaction to further Russian aggression. Severed cables, disrupted internet service, assassinations, isolated incidents of terrorism, Russian support for the rise of neo-fascist separatism... you name it and Putin will be getting up to it without having to worry about US retaliation, having bought off Donald Trump.
(I understand that I start from a position miles off from the Commander's, and that's okay with me. This is his sandbox and I just come to play in it once in a while. On the other hand, you wearers of the red hats, please spare us any of this tired "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or m y being any sort of America-hater rhetoric. I have known of Donald Trump about as long as I have known New York City, and his personal history is remarkably bad: 34 felony counts for which he was fairly tried and convicted, along with a conviction of a sex crime tantamount to rape all means that you don't have to be crazy to find him despicable. If others here find some value in him, so be it.)
For "us" it will be people far off whom we don't need to be concerned with; we could be enjoying our peace (in our time) dividend.
For me it could be big trouble in the back yard: Kyiv is a 20-hour drive away from home; the Ukrainian border is less than 12 hours away.
Look, you have your opinion. But let's do facts. He wrote 34 checks and the DA improperly charged them as separate acts, not to mention all the shenanigans to get around statutes of limitations and elevate a misdemeanor to a felony - especially given that the underlying predicate act of signing an NDA is not a criminal act anywhere, any time. In the final analysis, his bookkeeper entered legal fees paid to an attorney, reimbursement or not, as legal fees on the books. So you can sit on your high horse and continue to make this asinine statement to make yourself feel like a nice, morally superior person...but you're wrong and you're not stating truth or facts, but the results of a kangaroo court that is still on appeal and will be overturned.
Now, you say you've known Donald Trump as long as you've known NY. OK...then you know how the tabloids and paparazzi followed Trump EVERYWHERE back at the time this alleged assault (that the crazy lady couldn't remember when in the year, or even WHAT year, it supposedly occurred). If you were ever in Bergdorf's at the time...do you remember where the women's fitting rooms were? So, Donald Trump comes in and attracts attention - as he did and does - followed by more than one person looking to get photos or some type of story. Meets this woman and talks to her - follows her into the changing area which is OUT IN THE OPEN, not in a secluded area, and proceeds to feel her up (which is all she alleged). She couldn't substantiate any of the facts of the allegation with any proof or timeline, bringing this up decades later, so there is no way to defend yourself. If she says "It was June 4, 1996!" or any other date (even a season in a specific year) Trump could show he was elsewhere that day or busy at that time elsewhere in the city - but with no specifics, there is no way to defend yourself from this type of insinuated allegation. So a hostile jury in NYC, wanting to get Trump for something, rendered a verdict in a CIVIL trial to award Carrol money based on this spurious, concocted allegation.
Carrol has made the same type of charges against a total of "twenty-one hideous men" throughout her life (though she only mentions Trump and Les Moonves by name in her book). Now, you may choose to believe it because you hate Trump, but the circumstances say it is a travesty to charge ANYONE based on that type of evidence. It was another political hit job in NYC.
Finally, that you let your opinion and belief in these political witch hunts color your analysis says all there is to say about the quality of the opinions. They come from a place of bias and can, will, and should be immediately discounted for what they are.
Hey, Trump, a guy that says, unprompted, that he can just grab women by their private parts and get away with that... there's something wrong with that man, okay?
I don't hate Trump. I find him despicable, corrupt, and obviously untrustworthy, but that's just me, as I pointed out.
Hit "Reply" by accident there. As I was saying,
It's not "bias," to think badly of Trump because of what he has done. When it merely comes to what he says, please bear in mind that he uttered over 30,000 documented lies, just during his first term.
You would not want to buy a used car from Donald Trump, let alone turn him loose to cut some shady deal with Putin.
Here, oh Trusting one, you are ranting, and doing that on a side track. Whatever Trump is, he's just part of whatever deal the Commander envisions as a way to end the current war in Ukraine, just as Putin is.
His believers may continue to see the sunbeams issuing forth from Trump's nethers, when I shall not mind; he's merely one part of whatever needs to be put together to end Russian aggression against Europe.
(Check the map: Ukraine is part of Europe.)
Your goalposts have wheels.
Additionally, NATO has no obligation to Ukraine. None.
Again, more hyperbole. Your "30,000 lies" are just a made up narrative that is a mish mash of things you SAY aren't TRUE because you disagree with them, don't believe they are true...but they are notably subjective and up for debate and your opinions (and those of liberals) are not what makes them true or false.
I've been with businesses that have bought land and built buildings with Trump, writ large (his companies). Your terming it a "shady deal" is, again, just your subjective bias brought on by the Russia Hoax by Hillary, Obama et al (that you probably still believe is true).
"Europe" in this case, you twit, is used for the EU and NATO...which Ukraine is NOT a part of. If Europe and the EU want to solve it, more power to them. They should! Get it done! Stop dithering and looking to us to do it for them.
Don't blame me! That was the Washington Post that documented Trump's over 30,000 lies, each and every one.
You, TbV, have "been with business that have bought land... " Truly, we are a nation of immigrants.
Back to Topic A!
Geography 101: Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe.
The European Union does not include and thus does not define all of Europe. Norway, for example, inarguably is in Northern Europe, but it is not in the EU. And Romania and Bulgaria only joined the EU in 2007, along with Croatia in 2013, despite having existed as parts of Europe for many years previous.
I will blame you because, as is evident from the WaPo list, it is exactly what I described...yet you will get on a forum and waive it around like it is the Sermon on the Mount as somehow proof of everything you say on whatever topic comes up about Trump as if they are inviolable. If you are going to stake your arguments on it, you own it. Instead you pile logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy.
As is evident from the rest of your post, you have issues with reading comprehension, which may explain your other deficiencies. In the context being discussed, there is a distinction between the EU as "Europe" a political entity and Europe as a geographic area. Maybe those distinctions in context create too big of a concept for you to understand?
Dude, there is no Russia "hoax." The man is in Putin's pocket, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Donald is bought and paid for. We just have to deal with the fact that our chief magistrate is a crook and in the pocket of our enemy.
There was a hoax that has been well documented that was cooked up Hillary's campaign and perpetuated by Obama and his IC community (Brennan, Clapper, and Comey) through a dissemination strategy enabled by the media through the compilation of a fake dossier from Christopher Steele paid for (with campaign funds from Hillary) by Perkins Coie through Fusion GPS. This is well documented and why, of course, Mueller and his partisan Dems could find NOTHING to any of it. It was a fiction.
So, you're a kook if you still believe in any of this in the face of what has been PROVEN beyond a doubt (the hoax perpetrated by Hillary) vs no proof of any collusion with Russia, by Trump or any American.
I know it is galling, but you were gullible and the Dems lied to your face and you believed it all. Still do.
Sigh. As a woman I will tell you there are MANY women out there who will ignore wedding bands on a man, and all sorts of other things (him having a family, children, etc.) and throw themselves physically at them if they are rich or powerful enough. It's laughable. Trump was stating a fact, coarsely, but a fact. As for the E. Jean Carroll thing... the dress she supposedly was wearing wasn't even manufactured till after the "incident" which narrative came directly from her favorite t.v. show (next to The Apprentice) which was Law and Order. It's all in her Twitter account. No woman I know who had ever been been raped or assaulted would watch a tv show of her attacker willingly. Stop the repetition of lies. It's tiresome.
It's a matter of focus, I guess. I tend to focus on how Trump bragged about his own criminal misbehavior rather than to try to guess about the character of whomever he was grabbing. I make him out to be a person of low character, going by what he said of his own misbehavior.
As one of "MANY" women, would you, DB, be okay with being grabbed like that? (Just asking for a friend.)
Actually no one would try. Or has. Because I don't throw myself at strange men. They know better than to try it. A woman controls the situation far more than you men pretend to know just by her demeanor. I've watched other women in action since I was about 11 and began noticing things. Dress, conversation, behavior, body language, proximity... all play into the permission and green light that Trump was talking about. Don't tell me you're shocked hundreds of young starlets, socialites and aspiring actresses weren't hoping Trump was their gold digger's dream back during the Billy Bush interview. And he was aware of it. He was merely stating the obvious, which always tends to make a certain kind of person clutch the pearls and grab the smelling salts. Reality is like that. Just because a mouth breathing jury of haters and other people who couldn't get out of jury duty wanted to nail him on trumped up charges doesn't make him guilty. I've lost all faith in our nation's court system at this point. From the judges to the juries. It's a joke.
Well, hang in there. There must be some rich creep out there who fancies his chances with Miss Havisham, mistaking her for someone else entirely.
So he's a whoremonger as well as a crook. Nice.
No what he said. What he said was that young women looking to get ahead in show business will LET famous men grab them - not that he did. The great Democrat icon and donor Harvey Weinstein proved this was TRUE by DOING it (and more) for decades in Hollywood - where all the liberals knew about it - until Rose McGowan spoke out about it (and others jumped on the Me Too bandwagon, eventually getting out of control, as usual). THEN they were all upset and going after, yes, those Hollywood liberals doing all that stuff for years.
But somehow stating that truism was too much for you to understand.
Exactly. "Let" is the key word, describing free will and cooperation, in which NO CRIME has occurred.
Ironic that "Trust but verify" would regurgitate Trump's lies. The fact of the matter is that Trump is a tax cheat and got caught. New York catches and punishes tax cheats who get caught cheating. Trump got a slap on the wrist. There are business folks who did what Trump did and are sitting in Dannemora.
The ruling, bad as it was, had nothing to do with taxes re the 34 counts being discussed. You're thinking of the other political case by Tish James about the value of his properties with the huge fine which was overturned on appeal...case in point.
NY received his taxes every year, by the way, and approved them...he underwent multiple state and Federal audits that found nothing illegal. And, as I said, the case was overturned on appeal. There are no business folks in prison anywhere who did real estate deals with banks, where the banks (as they always do) determined for themselves the value of the properties and determined the loan conditions. There was no fraud and there was no criminality at all.
Again, you've been watching too much MSN whatever they call themselves these days. Do some research.
Correct. It was 34 counts of falsification of business records, done in order to conceal hush money paid on Trump's behalf by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, porn star.
That's your proof of Trump's good character? Well, okay, if you say so!
So, stay with me here if you are able:
- The NDA is legal, which you characterize as something that doesn't exist "hush money" to make it sound nefarious, SO....
- Cohen pays, under retainer agreement, the money to Daniels through his law office for which he is then reimbursed from a fund in Trump's office through 34 payments for the SAME item (not 34 individual, separate transactions). Under law, these would be properly charged as the same single misdemeanor count of falsifying a business record IF recorded improperly and if charges within the statute of limitations (NOT a felony), SO....
- the bookkeeper, with no direction from anyone, enters it as a legal expense for something totally legal (NDA) as payment to Cohen's law firm under a retainer agreement, SO....
- to construct a felony and get around the statute of limitations on the alleged false entries, they make up a narrative of this somehow being related to campaign finance violations, which the Federal Elections Commission had already ruled they were not.
It was a manufactured hit job, illegally predicated, and specious, arbitrary prosecution under color of law.
Don't even try with the kind that gobbles up lying headlines from the media and doesn't find out the real facts. The headlines become their reality and talking point. Just as intended for the sheep.
You are super deep in the weeds, obviously you’ve been reading The Donald’s pleadings. I've read very little.
Trump is a tax cheat. That fact is well established. I don’t care enough to keep straight all his economic crimes, but, they are well known.
If your point is that the criminal convictions pertained to doctoring records during his tax cheating, and not lying about the value of his properties, I will concede. Either way, it is financial chicanery, and New York state aggressively prosecutes business people under the statute Trump was convicted under. There were, and are, people in New York prisons who did what Trump got highly favorable treatment for. This swamp creature wallows in misconduct.
To your last point that the appeals court gave him a big win. Cutting a huge fine down to a large fine is hardly a win.
Show where Trump cheated on his taxes...because NY State and the IRS haven't found any of it and when his taxes were leaked, nobody else could find anything either. You can't "keep it straight" because all the lies about his supposed crimes have fallen apart.
It is NOT financial chicanery, it is the way EVERY real estate deal of any size is done by development companies across the country every day. EVERY. DAY. That you don't understand property valuation and development and how that business works is not Trump's fault nor does it make him guilty of anything "just because". Nobody, not in NY State or elsewhere, has EVER been prosecuted for anything like this...and none are, therefore, in prison for it.
In a political prosecution of the first order, the judges were sharply divided on various legal issues, including the core contention about the property valuations that was reached by the trial court. It came down to such simple things as the Judge not understanding the difference between a commercial property valuation vs a valuation for tax assessment - and those numbers are miles apart. So the Judge, making a ruling, didn't understand what HE was looking at and rejected technical expert testimony that told him he was wrong. You should go back and listen to the oral arguments before the appeals panel in NY!
A majority on the Appeals Court agreed the specific financial penalty was disproportionate to the actual harm, as the lenders who received the financial statements did not lose money and often benefited from the loans. The court found the penalty to be a punitive measure rather than a standard compensation for victims.
His tax return was prepared by a professional company ... not gonna go into it with you other than to say that when his returns were divulged (illegally) no one could prove anything criminal.
There is a concept in the law called the "statute of limitations." If we don't catch you before a certain amount of time, which varies from crime to crime, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you cannot be prosecuted.
Trump's playbook is stall and delay. Cf. The Epstein Files. He stalled so long that nobody can charge him because the statute of limitations has passed. That does not mean he is not a tax cheat.
Iran will be getting up to it without having to worry about US retaliation, having bought off every President since Carter.
(See how that works?)
And then there is the cold, brutal Western calculation of interests. I get that Trump wants this war to go away, but we (collectively) have a rather strong interest in bleeding Russia as hard and as long as we can. The place is already in a demographic death spiral; what's left is to accelerate it to the point where they are physically incapable of fielding an effective army again. The hard, cold question is how long this will take.
We (collectively, but particularly the EUropeans) have used Ukraine for this. I have not seen a more cynical exploitation of a war party since I was born. Yes, they're corrupt ex-communist arses, but this? Yet they are in the right (for us), wrong (for them) place and they're being used - and their very corruption is the lever we're using to keep the fires stoked.
There are existential national interests... and then there are the practical needs of each leadership - Russia's to keep the failing system afloat by any means necessary, and Ukraine's to keep Western money flowing to their elites by any means at hand. If you want an end to this war, these latter drivers may be more relevant to overcome. This may well mean toppling both regimes before the shooting will stop... or waiting until one of them falls on their own.
If this keeps going, Ukraine will remain our client state and Russia will fully become a client state of China. That is the real reason the State Dept. wants this war to end. Whether they're right is anyone's guess.
Be very careful in your eagerness to create a vacuum that you know exactly what will rush in to fill that vacuum.
Not eager at all. But in Russia's case, it's not a question of whether; it's merely when - and it's usually better to have some input on the timing. Maybe later is better? That's a valid argument.
With respect to demographic death spirals, the entire western world joins them
The drivers for Western birth rates are radically different from those in Russia, and thus the solutions (if any) will have to be different as well. For rich societies with reasonably flexible markets, the problem may well sort itself out by adjustment and self-elimination of certain political classes. In Russia, the decline seems terminal because there's no surplus to buffer the fall (Russia having a long history of having its ruling classes consuming it all).
Good point
Spilt milk and all, but the time to end all of this was before it started. A massing of forces, mass supplies run into Ukraine etc. etc. to show Putin we were serious. But Europe was less on a footing to respond then (not too great now, but willing) so it would have been a massive effort. Then Putin doesn't invade, of course, we go home...and he does it all again until we get tired of spending the money to wind up the troops and assemble them every time he wants to jerk our chain. Sort of like Saddam messing with us on the No-Fly Zones and sanctions regime.
The upside of the conflict, as distasteful as it may be to frame any positives, is it has gotten the attention of the EU and UK and reoriented them - to what extent is still questionable as a large part of their population and politicians would fall right back into the pre-Ukraine mindset very quickly once Ukraine ends. They are talking a good game about NATO and their defense but take away the immediate threat and they'll be back to all their socio-cultural elitist BS and be right back where they were. So we have to feed that passion for their own defense and I think Trump is doing that with his NatSec policy...putting them on notice. It is as much of a bluff as running troops into Europe/Ukraine to deter Putin, but it may work. They'll do anything to oppose or counter Trump in a state of high dudgeon and indignation. But it puts them in the posture we want them in, so check that box.
As was stated by John K., the parties are in a stalemate and only some outside force is likely to break it, or some really bad mistake on the battlefield by one or the other. Alternative 1 is to present the current peace agreement to Putin and then give him the stick - agree or we are going to begin immediate economic measures to isolate and collapse the Russian economy. If China wants to mix in, we can do the same with them and we can wage an economic war you will lose. This could, of course, lead to another war even if Putin capitulates now. After this is over he is going to go back and start rebuilding his forces like a madman. The outcome of this needs to be putting him back in his box and limiting his ability to rearm enough to do this again....with a more engaged EU.
Alternative 2: Accept the peace agreement or we Let Germany, the UK, Poland and France off the chain to aid Ukraine in the same way Putin has involved China, Chechnya, Belarus, NK, et al. This ceased being a one-on-one war some time ago...we just haven't openly pushed in troops from other countries like Putin has. This intervention, much like the US in WWI, would break the stalemate. Purpose: Push the border back to February 2022....not 2014 with Crimea as that would be a step too far. Make sure Putin knows this is the limited objective, but if hostilities commence the Allies will strike deep targets to interdict strategic targets, supply and logistics...but ground troops will not enter Russia.
Alternative 3: The only other way to break the stalemate, maybe, is a one night surprise sortie of allied stealth aircraft to bomb Russian formations to create a breakthrough for a combined arms assault by Ukrainian forces that will penetrate deeply enough to cut GLOCs and unhinge the Russian position causing a general retreat. This is all or nothing...a one shot...and depends on no Stealth losses and plausible deniability. If they don't detect the aircraft, and the Ukrainians take the ground to recover any evidence from the assault, Russia won't know what hit them...they may suspect, but they won't KNOW. High risk and only if Putin really wants to dig in and double down...and we want to change that. We may not find it worth it for a number of reasons, but the only way it could be done without entering the war on a full scale basis.
Hopefully they can come to an agreement and we can avoid the provocations and prevarications in our US political discourse from the likes of the Russian bots and 50 Ruble Brigade (good one, LT Nemo) that invade social media.
Ending the Ukraine War.
Trump's plan for this, 28 points, IIRC, was well intentioned, and Putin may accept it...for now.
Ultimately, though, the Dnepr River is Russia's goal. No, not all of Ukraine. Peter Zeihan notwithstanding, that just leaves Russia with an extended and vulnerable northern flank in the form of Poland and a certain lingering and difficult guerilla war in the western half of Ukraine. Since this doesn't give Russia everything up to the Dnepr, it really just means war again in the not too distant future.
Diplomacy to convince Russia that the Ukraine will not be used as a dagger pointed at Russia's vitals? No, not really, We are America, which means we change our foreign policy and diplomacy every two to eight years. With the best will in the world, we are just not that reliable, not in a matter that Russia sees as life and death. And the EU? The EU is a slowly collapsing mental disease masquerading as a sovereign. Thus, they're even less reliable than we are, in the medium and long term.
So is the 28 point plan worth pursuing? Probably; who knows, maybe the horse will learn to sing.
Strongly suspect you are right that Russia believes a defensible frontier (e.g. the Dnepr) is an existential security requirement. Also suspect the Russians know very well now (if there was ever any doubt) how profoundly they are hated by all of their neighbors to the West, including the parts of Ukraine which had been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are recently as the 17th and 18th centuries. No easy answers.