Glad you wrote about this, Commander. And I agree with a lot of it while having my reservations and fears.
My big question, and the only one I think matters: whether the Russians don't come to the table at all, don't come in good faith, or break their promises, eventually the talks are going to fail. One, Russia has the initiative, and two, it's the Russians. What are Trump, Rubio, Kellogg, etc. willing to do when the Kremlin crew act like the godless, post-Communist murderers they are?
Russia does not have the initiative. The question is how much are you willing to give to Ukraine to fight the war against the godless communist murderers they are?
Unfortunately I fear the Russians have the initiative, on the battlefield at least. Yes, it's costing them horrendously, but they're gaining ground at at a faster rate than 2022 or 2023, in some evaluations. Worse, the ground they're fighting for now some might say is the tougher terrain—the same ravines and valleys chewed up the Soviet Southern Front and Nazi Army Group South in 1943. after that, it's easy ground to the Dnipro River. If I have one complaint that falls squarely on Ukrainian planners, it's that Ukrainian forces are not dug into better fortifications. At least not in the Donbas areas I toured when I was there this summer.
I should finish by saying I try to take a backseat to no one. I don't think peace talks should be on the table, unless its to negotiate a total Russian withdrawal after we've given the Ukrainians everything they need to liquidate enough Russians that the Kremlin realizes it can't hold the ground and to send a signal to Beijing and Pyongyang that any aggression is going to be met with slaughter. Kellogg has said that we'll arm to Ukrainians to keep the pressure up. I'm assuming he knows how much that's going to take.
With the losses Russia is taking on the ground, I can't agree they have the initiative. They are still trying to break the door down, and have had little luck. Combined with a failing economy, Russia simply can not continue much longer.
The true shame of the US in the war has been the way aid has been sent to Ukraine. All of it has been slow walked because of cowardice, or an actual desire not to see Ukraine win. Many think Biden, or the person actually calling the shots, really doesn't want Ukraine to drive Russia out. Russia needs to be driven out, and actually enforcing the sanctions would be a huge aid in that. Far too much is getting through.
Putin has already said he will not talk unless he is given Ukraine's surrender, which would be the equivalent of Munich 1938. He also demands lifting the sanctions. If he wants the sanction lifted, then he must get out of all of Ukraine, and take his colonists with him.
I suppose the difference is on how we define initiative. I could be using it wrong, I'm a novice and a fool.
My fear is that the Russians are advancing now, and even the more optimistic predictions seem so suggest the Russia war economy burns out late 2025, 2026. If they can seize all of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia in the coming months, that puts them in a strong position. Trump needs to arm the Ukrainians fast enough to stop that, negotiations or not.
And after that, I just want to have faith that Kellogg and team will quickly realize that negotiating with Putin is farcical, and that if we get some lousy ceasefire, it'll just give the Russians time to rearm. With "luck", Putin's age will bring impatience and he won't make time to bluff. then we can end this negotiation charade.
I have no doubt at this point that the Biden administration has no desire for a decisive Ukrainian victory. I imagine part of that was because they expected Kyiv to collapse, and part of it is they fear a Russian defeat will be a Russian collapse no one has planned for.
Initiative means they strike at the time and place of their choosing, and they have not been able to handle that fort the last two years. They have had to spend a lot of time reacting to the Ukrainians, and they have spent thousands of lives for very little. Russia can not keep spending lives in the way they have been wasting them. The losses are showing in the economy, adn Even Putin realizes that teh economy is in deep trouble. The head of the Central bank has told the Duma that end of the resources to fight the war is near. In her judgment, they won't be able to keep fighting by the end of winter. Because of the lack of funds, and labor shortages, the economy is very likely to collapse. The entire war industry establishment is looking at collapse.
This point seems to me to be endlessly debatable not only as a matter of semantics, but of fact, given the increasingly wide ranging attacks Ukraine is making in Russia. And is one the answer to which would settle little. To “have the initiative” in this context just does not mean that much. It’s being asked to carry too much freight.
Ukraine showed initiative in opening its Kursk operation, but could not sustain it long enough to achieve any decisive goal. Why ? Because as mentioned by Sal and others here, it lacks the manpower needed for sustained offensives. It has nevertheless also shown initiative in other ways, principally in demonstrating its ability to counterpunch while defending in manners and places of its choosing. The Russian army is also showing initiative on the battlefield. And taking that one step further, one might assert that it has won the prize for that, so that it would be fair to say that “Russia has the initiative”.
I’ll grant that. In fact, Russian commanders are desperate to sustain the initiative. There are because their leader requires is. Why ? Because he is desperate also. Putin now must win this war to save his own skin. Failing that, his army must accomplish something by having invaded Ukraine. How much ? Enough to allow him to declare “Mission Accomplished”, and then take advantage of any opportunity to freeze the conflict. The Russian army is consuming itself in order to sustain “initiative” because Putin must be seen in the eyes of the Russian people as having succeeded in accomplishing something by waging this war. I don’t know why January 20 2025 keeps coming up as the deadline for this. But it could prove one milestone. Another could be how long Russia can survive given the collapse of the ruble. Another could be a date further off in the future by which time Ukraine will have reacquired ballistic missiles. But in any case, initiative in Russia’s case is imperative for Putin’s sake.
In the case of Ukraine, it is for Ukraine’s sake. It is for survival. It is doubtful to say the least that this war would come to an end if the United States turned its back on it. Or pressured it in to “talks”. But even so, forcing the current government to the table under a threat of cutting off US assistance would be to Putin’s advantage and might constitute the sort of accomplishment he needs in order to continue justifying this war to the Russian people, and thereby stay alive. It will not cause him to quit. It will do the opposite.
VV Putin is a graduate of the von Ribbentrop School of diplomacy. Talk is for weaklings. And diplomacy’s only purpose is to soften up an enemy before you move in for the kill. He has now violated every arms treaty to which in recent history the US has been party. He is not fit to talk to.
Godless Communists? What century is this? Russia has had mobile churches following their troops conducting Holy Liturgies during the years Obama and Biden have persecuted our chaplain corps for preaching the gospel, and have run roughshod over our military members' religious liberties and freedom of conscience. We will ignore the "murdering" of entire families our own military has done with drones, etc. (oopsies!) or sitting on their hands while our own military are murdered right under our noses. Nothing is as simple as you like to think it is. Also can we talk about the murdering of Russian nationals in the Crimea for 8 years by the Ukrainians that caused them to ask to rejoin Russia in a referendum? Is that murder okay by you?
Oh please. Once the Russian Orthodox Church kneeled at the altar of the state, the ROC was pretty much left alone. Most of the clergy were KGB. Those same people are still active.
Like so many, you misjudge me. I get that all the time from people that, by default, support Russia. The accusation of Ukrainians murdering of Russians in the Donbas was a lie, and certainly so in Crimea. The Referendum you put so much faith in was illegit. The vote was not held until Putin had imported thousands of colonists, and allowed the occupying military to vote. Your referendum was a lie.
Murder of Ukrainians by Russians seems just fine to you.
Less than 15% of Russia's population are actively practicing Christians, despite Putin's showmanship and attempts to make the Bride of Christ his whore.
The tragic result of 70+ years of state enforced communist atheism. Can't win, can he. He attempts to revive Russian religion and culture he's making the OC his whore. If he didn't, you'd accuse him of suppressing it, right?
I get it, because you think Putin is based and trad you'll go to the mat for him, when in reality he's as corrupt and power-hungry as the globalist you hate. Grow up.
No, I think Putin takes care of his own people and national interests in a way few of our leaders have done for us in a century. We know what the Russians get out of this effort. What do we get, but more debt, looking like hypocrites defending borders in another country while letting our own be invaded by millions, clapping ourselves on the back for invading some countries for "democracy" while condemning other countries for having immediate reasons to watch their borders and defend their own national interests. You know what they say about inconsistency and the hobgoblin of little minds....
Oh please? I am at the local VA hospital regularly, so stop the emoting.
There is no plan to send troops to Ukraine to fight. Try reading and comprehending. Doing as you wish, abandoning Ukraine, is the height of geopolitical stupidity and would harm the position of the US in the world far more than abandoning Vietnam did. What you are wanting is shameful, and you have no moral compass, or you would not be pushing it.
If Ukraine had been supported properly, the war would already be over.
An American president once said "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
That's been where I was at since just about the beginning.
Not one bolt of hardware that's not paid for with cash on the barrelhead (no Lend-Lease type shenanigans), not one penny of American taxes, and not one drop of American blood spilled. It's in Europe's backyard, they should fight their own battles.
The only real way in which Russia is a threat to the US and US interests (which is not, mind you, synonymous with the interests of the money launderers who've been using Ukraine to wash their cash for years now) is with their nukes, and no matter how badly Putin is being informed by his cronies he knows deep down, in spite of his public bluster about waving the nuclear stick, that's a game he can't win.
But apparently [edit: saying] that's the same thing as slurping Putin's knob, with no functional differences from the "Brosheviks". *eyeroll*
China also has the incentive and has even put out statements at the Vice Chairman CMC level that they would do everything they can to make the talks difficult for the US so that Trump makes loads of concessions. They will then tell every potential ally of the US that the US abandons its friends and that they should not trust the US to have their back in a conflict.
We have already shown by what we did with the agreement we made with Gorbachev about NATO that we screw over our friends or anyone who trusts us to make an agreement with us. We actually have a long list of countries we've screwed over. What's your point? What is one more? Pro Tip: I don't see Trump as making loads of concessions that don't help us. He wouldn't have abandoned our friends in Afghanistan who trusted us and left the Taliban $85B in new equipment either. But that's one more country that we left high and dry.
Actually, Afghanistan was well watered with billions of US dollars and several thousand gallons of US blood over almost twenty years. Sorry, but after that, my field is barren (as the saying goes) and I have no more f..... to give.
I am uneasy about Rubio as SecState if he still adheres to his mindless questioning of Victoria Nuland over the U.S. funded biolabs in Ukraine. He called them "Russian propaganda." Methinks Marco would have pitched a similar fit as the Russians if Cuba had maintained 24 such labs off the coast of Florida. (The nature of what was being stored there is eyebrow raising to be sure.) It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored, as Papa Bravo used to say. I think we will eventually find out more about those labs, but not from Russian General Kirillov, who was blown to smithereens yesterday, as we get closer and closer to the day the democrats lose control of their Ukraine narrative. We would not countenance such labs on our borders. Oddly, many of the locations of those labs were bombed the first night of the Russian "invasion" in February 2022. Someday Phib should devote a post to this little story from hell. We lose moral legitimacy when we go about having one rule for ourselves and one for other nations.
Little Marco was the first Republican Senator to peddle the lie that the leaked DNC emails in 2016 had been hacked by Russia. He's a useful idiot for the MIC and the intelligence agencies. It's worth asking what the CIA has video of him doing.
Pardon my French, but WTF are you talking about? Did you miss Merkel confessing that the Minsk agreements were just a ploy to give Ukraine time to arm itself? From the Russian perspective, there is no in the West who is "agreement capable". From the unification of Germany, INF treaty, ect.., Russia has seen agreements broken. They will not suffer a hostile Ukraine on their border.
Prepare yourself for Trump turning over Ukraine to the Europeans, who will stand by and watch Ukraine turn into country 404.
Isn't that exactly (and primarily) what makes them allies? Is there any such thing as an "ally" outside of a situation where one is needed to advance a given interest?
CDR. If it were not for England and the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution there would no American Republic. If George III had acted like a constitutional monarch then Charles III would be our king today.
As Brettbaker mentioned - "Ukraine was on no maps in 1914, or before ..." isn't useful or practical thinking. What's next? Give huge chunks of Russia to Mongolia since we have "maps" showing it belonged to the Mongol Empire years before 1914? We have to deal in practical terms of the present. Most people are very disinterested in dreams of empires and rightfully dislike those who aspire to such dreams. The world started really breaking away from that thinking after WW2. Imperialism and totalitarian-gangsterism drive most conflicts and friction around the world today (e.g. Russia, Islamic-imperialism, the PRC, etc.). Those drivers rely on selective historical anchoring to justify their totalitarian actions.
Call me ignorant, but seems if we would return to what we SAID we would agree to - that is, repeat that we do not seek to move NATO closer to Putin's borders - tell him it was a buncha lying gimmiecrata bastards who went back on our national promise to him - that maybe he would do his part. Maybe, then, our evolved M-I Complex will have to find other ways to profit from the Uke's mountains of desirable raw materials. After all, it is my understanding that WE are the ones who broke our promises to Putin about not enlarging NATO in his direction.
I hope the deep state - fearing just such a diplomatic move from Trump - will not prompt them to do something to prevent such that will incinerate us all. At this point, I believe there is nothing off the table with their inventory of what they are willing to do.
There was no promise to Russia not to accept any of eastern Europe into NATO. Baker made an off hand statement he had no authority to make, and that's the only "promise" that was ever made.
Hardly. Baker was not the only one, but none of the rest put it in the form of a treaty either. Given the fact that Russia has had a habit of violating treaties, I feel little sympathy for Putin. He himself violated the Budapest Memorandum, and has been causing trouble. Without a treaty, there is nothing.
One might say that the declassification of documents shows Russia, like everyone else on the planet, was a fool to trust Bill Clinton because he and his cohorts were busy undermining the Budapest Memorandum and the negotiations that led up to it before the ink was dry. When you don't negotiate in good faith, you don't get to play the victim when there are consequences.
The Budapest Memorandum did not depend on the lack of expansion of NATO. Putin is the man that abrogated it for his own purposes. Putin's NATO schtick doesn't hold water. He wants Ukraine back under his thumb regardless, and his imperial lusts are what has driven him.
I don't like Clinton, particularly after what he did in the Balkans.
You are telling me GHW Bush's best oldest friend went around as Secretary of State making offhand statements he had no authority to make? Wow. You sell his authority short.
how about the treaty signed by russia, ukraine and co-signed by the US and Uk to guarantee the Ukraine’s borders in exchange for removing the nukes? unlike the so called verbal … this was signed! Putin is violating everyone’s sovereignty…. from Georgia, to the Balkans, ukraine and the Baltic.
The first promise in that regard was actually made to Gorbachev in the context of German reunification. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the West took advantage of the weakness of the Yeltsin years to enlarge NATO. Putin was actually reasonably friendly during his first years in power. We had a significant logistics base in the Stans during the Afghan War which never could have happened without Putin. I think the significance of the NATO attack on Serbia is underestimated. Serbia, a traditional Russian ally was dismembered and when Western leaders started talking about dismembering Russia, the Russians noticed.
Keep the paper-money fiat-currency printing press rolling, baby, to “pay” for all this Ukraine mess. Watch as your retirement accounts’ spending power craters from a dollar worth less and less, and your kids and your kids’ kids get stuck with the whole bill; all the while the elites in the Military Industrial Complex rake in the dough, well above the fiscal carnage!
Save The Ukraine at all and any cost!! It’s simply a sacrifice all of us in America MUST do. It’s our obligation, too.
Oh, BTW, Sal, could you have ‘em print out some more dollars; got that mess out in WESTPAC with the ChiComs brewing, you know.
You are aware that the vast majority of the aid to Ukraine (which has never been more than a tiny percentage of the budget) was in the form of old military equipment we were getting rid of anyway, right?
No, a lot of it was oodles of cash from our own treasury laundered back to DNC recipients via Sam Bankman-Fried. Nothing here is as simple as people make it out to be.
From Forbes: The sudden collapse of FTX has revealed the now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange to be many unpleasant things. But was it a vehicle for Democrats to launder Ukrainian relief funds to their candidates in the 2022 midterms? It’s “a question worth asking,” the world’s richest person, Elon Musk, tweeted Monday on the social media platform he now owns and runs.
Is it, though? According to the conspiracy theory, highlighted on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, Ukraine received $18.2 billion of security commitments from the U.S. and an unknown amount of donations through a Ukrainian government aid website launched with FTX in March. The Ukrainian government invested some of that money in FTX, the conspiracy theory goes, and Bankman-Fried then supposedly passed on $40 million of it to a handful of left-leaning super PACs. His deputy Nishad Singh allegedly funneled another $7.4 million.
Now we know the difference between fact and "conspiracy theory" has turned out to be about 6 months to a year of information, and since the press likes to cover for their own, they put the CS label on everything. There are a lot of articles out there but they have pay-walls, so I won't link to them. I suggest you do your own digging. I don't know what resources you pay for. I don't trust Fox, but Tucker seems to have info others don't. And Elon, having bought "the social media platform he now owns and runs" has labelled the old Twitter "a crime scene" which means he has all the old PMs that people used to send thinking Jack had their back. Now he has the PMs between people who thought they were clever when they were planning things from 2012 to 2023, so we shall see how this all unfolds under a new DOJ. Still wonder why Sam BF is still alive. He knows too much.
GREAT point and observation! So here’s the plan (perhaps DOGE can run with it):
Let’s start a 4%/year reduction in entitled benefits (Social Security and Medicare) on January 1st for anyone under 65. A 64-yr old gets 96%, at Social Security retirement age, gets 92%… all the way down to zero benefits for anyone age-40 or younger on 01Jan25. Thus, in 25 years all of that “entitlement” spending will be nonexistent; and! the obligation declines each year going forward. A win-win.
Heck, if you’re 40 or younger, you have a quarter of a century or more to invest/save up for retirement. You don’t need the U.S. taxpayer footing any bills or providing any pension for you!
This should free up PLENTY of money for the MIC and more forever-wars (mis)adventures! I’m writing my Rep and Senators now.
F*ckin’-A I’m a “Boomer”, and damn grateful for it! Ronald Reagan. John Lehman. 600-ship Navy. First TOPGUN movie on the street, living like a rock star making the airshow rounds in the F-14. If you weren’t there, you can’t even imagine it. I pity you if you weren’t a “boomer” in this Navy. Now go get some warm milk and go to bed, son.
Younger generations, like everybody else born circa 1960 and later, have been utterly screwed by these programs. The longer they've paid in, the more they are screwed. The spousal unit and I will Never get out of SS or Medicare equivalent to what we would have today had we been allowed, or even required, to invest that money in the markets
Every cohort born after 1938 will pay more into SS than they get out so virtually everyone now alive is getting screwed. Problem is that all that confiscated wealth is not available to support private retirement. The only way to break the cycle is a period of funding a new and an old retirement system at the same time which is fiscally painful, to say the least.
That particular "solution" has been practiced by every generation since The Greatest Generation. And every succeeding generation seems to be getting better at it.
Let's start with no more money for illegals, no more federal welfare of any sort, no more dept of education or any financial aid for education to states, no more federal student loans, and phase out 75% of the federal workforce which is largely writing and enforcing unconstitutional; regulations anyway, end all DEI programs, etc.
Once we've squeezed every wasted dollar back into the budget that we can we can assess, but why not have the hard conversations AFTER everything else has been done?
edit: with respect to younger people, concur, start changes now so the programs are, at worst, simply phased out in 60 years
It's a valid question, and I don't know enough about it to answer, especially for veterans on disability due to service, or even retirees. Is it possible that part of the "social contract" with these veterans includes medical treatment for life, for non-service related, but also non-elective procedures? I could be convinced it does, or should
This analysis takes no account of the promises the US made when Germany was to be reunited and Russian forces withdrawn that NATO would not expand "one inch". And it assumes Russia has no institutional memory of Europe's two invasions that reached nearly to Moscow. Ignore the past and the future will be doomed.
The Poles also took Moscow twice and participated in Napoleon's adventure where they were considered the best non-French troops. Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks, Spanish, Finns, Italians and SS troops from all over Western Europe tagged along with Hitler. Britain, France and Turkey invaded the Crimea. Canada, the US and Japan were also involved in the post-WW1 invasion.
Your analysis takes no account of the fact that Russia reneged on its promises to withdraw from all of the former SSRs when its troops decided to keep occupying a good chunk of Moldova. At that point, whatever promises were supposedly made regarding NATO expansion were void.
All that article demonstrates is that there are different visions of sovereignty. You can try and make it as "complex" as you want in order to bolster your weird notion that Russia is somehow blameless in this whole affair, but the fact is that Russia officially gave up the SSRs and then proceeded to leave its troops in place in Moldova, effectively occupying a good portion of the country, and did so well before anyone was thinking about expanding NATO eastward.
Now, if you want to argue that the government in Chisinau has any say in what goes in in Transnistria and that Russia isn't running things there, by all means do so, but I think everyone here will be insulted by that.
No one is saying Russia is blameless. But Ukraine and those who have used Ukraine for their own greed and power games are not blameless either and Ukraine is not a complete victim in this. I like to stay out of family arguments.
Are we occupying it, or do we just have troops stationed there? Don't play dumb, you and I both know the difference. (Also, the Western Allies never annexed their section of Germany.)
So are you saying when we ceded Panama Canal and then went in and invaded Panama later because Noriega wasn't behaving as we thought he should that was bad? LOL.
Noriega was a criminal. Hahahahaha! Great reason to invade. Latin America. Drugs. Gotta invade. Says the administration running drugs through Mena, Arkansas. Hahahahahaha. Yes, sadly we've let China commandeer the canal. Because we are not only feckless, we are stupid too.
No revisionist history. There are treasure troves of documents proving President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woernere assured Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't move one inch eastward if only they'd give East Germany back. So what we have here is proof that our word as a country is meaningless and no one should ever attempt to negotiate with any of these nations in good faith. Of course the first person to renege on this was ol Bill Clinton himself even as he was interfering in Russia's internal elections. But that's another story. Not every nation has the memory capacity of a goldfish. We are not a serious nation if we ignore the deals and promises we made before.
I’m glad we never attacked or invaded countries like Grenada Dominican Republic. Haiti Panama Nicaragua El Salvador Chile Serbia Libya Lebanon Syria ….
Without our full fifteen (15) Carrier Strike Groups to fully support the Unified Combatant Commander Concept in the field we cannot provide PROACTIVE PRESENSE (Shop-the-Flag) operations to curb bad actors, and can on respond to evolving situations after the fact. The eleven (11) we have today are having a difficult time filling spots in the shuffle to put out the fires . . . forget trying to provide PROACTIVE PRESENSE (Shop-the-Flag) operations.
Having lost our Nuclear Cruisers we no longer have Fast Carrier Battle Groups that can respond quickly, and stay longer with less replenishment requirement.
Speaking of 'Replenishment Requirement' . . . the USNS John Lewis (T-AO-205) cannot come online fast enough, and we will need more than planned to meet the needs of a growing fleet with redundancies in each AOR.
Unpleasant fact: Kellogg and company at the America First Policy Institute are die-hard defenders to this day of the misguided Doha Agreement, that the draw-shoot-aim Trump team concocked with the Taliban- with Amb (?) Zal Kalilizad on point and Mike P. at State as the action officer who put that mess together. (Recall the proposal to invite the Taliban delegation to Camp David for a Trump "summit" on 9/11 day). In defending that half-baked agreement, of course all done behind the back of our ostensible ally in Kabul (why should we tell them, after all, their troops were still dying and would have continued to die for years under the terms of the agreement), those involved were just trying to get a "big deal" done. The involved deal crew would defend the agreement as "conditions based" but the deadline for the US troop compete withdrawn (in company with those of our NATO allies serving in-country, who were also not informed of what Team Zal/Mike were cooking) was set. Enter Team Biden, who could not wait to pull the plug, and who were more than happy to use that agreement and that bug-out date for their own purposes. In defending that catastrophic departure, in hearings this past week, the entire Biden national security clown show, Wink'in, Blink'in and Nod, referenced the Trump Doha agreement, leading with a "Don made us do it" defense. Biden just got it done faster, with more mess and a much higher level of incompetence. If this same scheme and approach is deployed by the reinstalled crew in figuring out and implementing a "war ending" strategy for screwing Kiev, there should be no surprises.
The idea that we are somehow involved simply because we have sent military aid is silly. The next question results from the fact that US troops are not fighting in Ukraine. If you think so, you should be able to list the order of battle.
WE HAVE FUNCTIONED AS VERITABLE ARMED COMBATANTS in this war and are lucky we didn't get bombed for our role here. That is testimony to the fact Putin may have common sense and not want to rile Trump should he have returned.
Depends on your perspective. I would guess the Russian troops killed and maimed by American and NATO weapons don't think American involvement is silly. Just as I do not think Americans think it silly to think Iran is involved in Iraq because American troops have been killed and maimed by Iranian weapons. Or that it is silly to think China and the USSR were involved in the Vietnam war.
The people that have been appointed by Trump for the war are not on your side. They know what is going on, and know the US can not afford to abandon Ukraine. No one with half a brain wants to be on the same list with Chamberlain.
That probably would have actually worked out. Had Britain and France been willing to fight in 1938, Germany would not have had, among other things, access to Czechoslovakia's arsenal and industrial base.
France and England threw the country to the wolves. There was no excuse for what they did. All it got them was a bit of delay, but the war came anyway. They could have chose honor, but they chose dishonor and got war anyway.
Which underscores the concern that any Trump-Putin agreement will be a 21st century Munich with downstream effects that incentivize a future greater war not just in Europe but in the Indo-Pacific as well. The Trump Administration should not seek peace at any price, not take Putin's promises at face value and not give the impression in speech or in terms of the agreement that the Ukrainians are being sacrificed on the altar of appeasement.
Not at all. It's not our fight. It's a border dispute between two entities who have centuries of a squishy border going back and forth and us sending $200 billion in various forms of aid to them in 2.5 years when our own people desperately need it makes my stomach turn. Our congress trips over itself to run checks to them while we have citizens freezing to death in Appalachia. Russia wants Crimea and Sevastopol. I'm sure in 1954 if they had known the future they would not have ceded the territory and the port they built to the Ukrainian oblast. I'm sure they never foresaw the oblast becoming independent. Or they wouldn't have given it away. Much like we shouldn't have given the Panama Canal we built away.
Every agreement that exchanges a democratic countries land to an expansionist dictatorship for vague promises of near-term peace looks like Munich 1938,yes.
For that matter, democracy is pretty thin on the ground all over NATO these days. Rumania just nullified an election. It remains to be seen if Germany will outlaw the (real)opposition party. The UK is very busy criminalizing thought crime. Canada is a totalitarian mess. The US may be on the road to recovery come J20 but many states are still a problem and the last four years haven't been good. Even winning an election like The Netherlands and France doesn't mean you get to form a government. Last I knew, Belgium still doesn't even have a government after the most recent election. Italy is sort of a bright spot but there is a serious problem with the court system. Poland is sinking into suppression of the opposition.
Unfortunately, it seems like a majority of Russians want Crimea; so we're going to have to let them keep it. Can get some of the eastern parts back, though.
For that to happen, an legal referendum must be held. That would be after all the colonists Putin imported, and the Russian military are removed from Crimea, and the people that were pushed out of Crimea, particularly the Tatars, are brought back.
How about all the colonists the Russians imported, including all those Ukrainians, after "stealing" Crimea from the Ottomans?
" particularly the Tatars"
What on earth makes you think the Tatars have any love for Ukrainians? And do those Tatars get back their ancestral properties from the Ukrainian colonists who took them over?
Obviously you have no truck with dealing with a civilized world. It's quite Ok for Hitler to invade and subjugate Poland, along with the Soviet Union, so it's Ok for Putin to invade Ukraine, kill thousands of civilians intentionally, pound anything that stands, and then steal the land.
Tatars have gotten along with Ukrainians for a longtime. It is the Russians that have been a serious problem for them, and Putin is maintaining that tradition.
The question remains for you to answer. Why should such theft go on?
The population of Ukraine was quite small when the Russians conquered it. But it still belonged to them, and no one had the right to march in and take it. Given what you are supporting, war is just fine. What you are supporting is war, and all you are doing is looking for excuses to keep it going. Your attempts at engaging a logical fallacy in your service does you no credit.
Actually, it's not as cut and dry as you portray and I take issue with the "nonsensical diatribe" comment in regard to Putin's interview with Tucker. For countries with an actual working knowledge of their own history, what he said was true. Americans don't even know their own history for the most part and so our opinion really doesn't matter. But Putin did say Ukraine and Russia had a peace treaty ready to sign within months till Boris Johnson danced in (at whose behest?) and prevented it from being signed. This has everyone's fingerprints all over it. And it also ignores the Victoria Nuland admitted bioweapons research labs we were financing there in Ukraine (which according to their own disposal instructions following the invasion which I have seen in the original Ukrainian/Russian) were involved in materials that violate our own bioweapons restrictions in this country. They just whacked (who is they I ask) the Russian General who was telling the world about these labs yesterday. I ask you, would we allow 24 of these labs on the other side of the Rio Grande within striking distance of our cities? Again, this is all much more complicated than it is made out to be, and our MSM has waved the blue and yellow flag and ignored the horrific memories anything under a nazi flag evokes for the Russians within the lifespan of living Russians now, and ignores the truth of who is being enriched by this wasteful war. This all started in 2014 and we ignored what caused Russia to finally go into the Donbass.
Take issue as much as you like. I could not care less. Tucker allowed Putin to spew his propaganda without challenge. Tucker has, by a multitude of "reports" shown he is a Russian asset.
You take Nuland's word? The hatred directed at the woman by your ilk has made it clear that nothing she says is worth the breath it took to say it. It's one of the few things you get right. The Russian General killed was head of the agency that provided the Chemical weapons that have been used in Ukraine. He got what he had coming.
Your Mexico analogy was worn out a long time ago. It never held water, and it still does not. The biolabs were operated by the Ukraine Ministries of health and Agriculture. Putin doesn't liek teh fact they are owned by Ukraine because he wants them for his own biowar programs.
Your "peace treaty" was nothing of the sort. It was nothing but surrender document, and Zelensky rightfully threw it away.
You need to start dealing with the fact that Putin started the war in 2014 and widened it 2022. Putin is responsible for the death and destruction and no one else.
Given your rationale, why does it have to continue? Is it your desire to reward criminal behavior so we can be forced to deal with a much larger problem later?
History shows us the problems, and making war pay is how you get more war.
I hope you are correct. It would be a terrible thing to appease Putin. Our eastern NATO allies will be watching this very closely. As a family with Eastern European roots, I have always been fearful of USSR/Russia.
To understand this issue one has to know that there is hardly a country on the planet that has not at one time invaded or attacked Russia militarily. (Yes, we were one too). Their paranoia is understandable. And you do not make peace with the Bear by poking him. Sadly we long ago forfeited making that country a true partner in commerce, trade and cultural exchange that would have enriched everyone. Huge mistakes made at the end of the Cold War will haunt us all for a century to come.
Imagine if Nixon had written off South Vietnam in 1969. How many of our boys would have lived if he had cut our losses? But, no we had to have with honor.
I estimate Ukraine has already cost us one trillion in terms of outright expenditures equipment that was already paid for and future obligations. I could have rebuilt I95 for Miami to New England for that money.
The Ukrainians are not losing because "there aren't enough Ukrainians." While quantity has a quality of its own, it is not necessarily a good determinant let alone the principal determinant of success or victory. During the Yom Kippur war in '73, the Israelis in the Golan held off a Syrian force 10 time what the Israelis had. It was a near run thing, but the Israelis eventually pushed back into Syria. The difference between the Israelis then and the Ukrainians now is the idiotic policy imposed by the US and Western Europeans on the Ukrainians on how to fight the Russians. Am all for stopping the killing, but it has to stop the killing. It shouldn't be a pause in killings so the Russians can catch a break, regroup, and then resume the killing with the US and Western Europe essentially stepping aside. We are in this war because decades ago, in a reasonable effort to minimize the dangers of nuclear weapons, the US and Britain (yes, and Russia) waffled on assurance vs guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up nukes. Fast forward a few decades later, we get into arguments about NATO encroaching into Eastern Europe and "threatening" Russia. It's amazing to me how so many could make that argument even in the face of facts pointing to NATO weakness, disunity, and indecisiveness when facing problems. Apparently 1/6 of Germany's submarines and about 50% or less of German Army tanks being functional was a huge threat to Russia. Then, when Russia actually started becoming a threat the Europeans still twiddled their thumbs. I don't want the US embroiled in a conflict created by the likes of certain "smart" people in the US foreign affairs establishment. I also don't like the idea of asking the Ukrainians to agree to a peace that would lead to more of them getting killed and their nation being conquered later on. I am for American interests. American credibility, including acknowledgement of our strength, is a national interest. We want other nations to be mindful of our strength and resolve - FAFO.
The Russians cannot be trusted with a peace that has little consequence if violated. Would Russia even come to the table? Russia lost this conflict the moment they failed to achieve their main aim of absorbing or setting up a puppet state in Ukraine. Will they accept peace if Ukraine gives up on territories Russia currently occupies? Will Ukraine accept that peace? If I were Ukraine I wouldn't accept "peace" unless there are absolute security guarantees on the part of Europeans at the very least, and ideally on the part of the US. As an American I wouldn't want to provide guarantees, but would like Europeans to provide those guarantees. Would Europeans accept this responsibility? To really secure peace Putin and his supporters must know that future aggression against Ukraine and other NATO countries will have severe consequences - not like Obama "red lines."
When I look at the parade of people who marched in to kiss Zelensky's ring and pose for photos and give them armfuls of cash our relatives in W North Carolina and E Tennessee need desperately right now, they all look suspiciously like the people who screamed against our troops being in Iraq and cut off funding for our troops there in the field during the middle of fighting. Immediate red flag for me. The fact they downvoted those billions being audited also sends off alarms. The fact some of those fossils were around 45 years ago and couldn't bend the knee and appease the USSR enough also has my notice. Ask yourselves why.
Maybe Russia would not have invaded? The prospect of having Moscow (not to mention himself) nuked would probably have given Putin pause. Even the DPRK facing a non-nuclear RoK knows better than to be stupid. Crazy, yes. Stupid? Probably not.
As Mark mentioned 45 yrs old. Isn't it interesting how Ukraine has kept its draft to those above 25, keeping the younger generation preserved? In the mean time Putin is importing soldiers from Asia and Africa. He's smart enough not to push his own young population. At least for now.
The Trump administration may say that they want alliances to be strong. But we all know actions are what matter. Trump should be wary about getting a deal for the sake of getting a deal and trading land for vague promises of peace. If appeasement becomes the unspoken driving force behind its efforts to get a peace deal with Russia, China will tell all allies and potential allies of the US in the Indo-Pacific that the US is a fair weather friend that will drop you when you become "unnecessary" to its interest and that America First foreign policy really means that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid or anybody else for that matter. If Trump secures a deal with Putin based on appeasement, he may waive a piece of paper in the air with Vlad's signature on it, but those who know better will see a chasm opening beneath the US system of alliances and China getting a greenlight to act with impunity with the hope that Trump will view Taiwan as "unnecessary" to US national security.
No one said tariffs and trade restrictions are kow towing and appeasing. The fact China hasn't already taken over Taiwan and commandeered every computer chip factory we depend on by now in the face of Biden's global weakness is not due to Biden's "great deals" with China. Well except for the money the Chinese gave to Hunter, but that's another story.....
Oh, I see. Your "solution" is to raise prices on the American people. I'm sure that will work...
China hasn't moved against Taiwan because they aren't ready yet. Their military modernization project is not complete; they are dealing with a financial crisis and Xi is busy purging his generals. Two years from now, maybe a different story. Especially if Trump sends them a strong signal that he will not defend countries that he doesn't think are "necessary" to US vital interests. A deal screwing Ukraine will send China a bright greenlight.
Glad you wrote about this, Commander. And I agree with a lot of it while having my reservations and fears.
My big question, and the only one I think matters: whether the Russians don't come to the table at all, don't come in good faith, or break their promises, eventually the talks are going to fail. One, Russia has the initiative, and two, it's the Russians. What are Trump, Rubio, Kellogg, etc. willing to do when the Kremlin crew act like the godless, post-Communist murderers they are?
Send more $$ to al Qaeda…
Russia does not have the initiative. The question is how much are you willing to give to Ukraine to fight the war against the godless communist murderers they are?
Unfortunately I fear the Russians have the initiative, on the battlefield at least. Yes, it's costing them horrendously, but they're gaining ground at at a faster rate than 2022 or 2023, in some evaluations. Worse, the ground they're fighting for now some might say is the tougher terrain—the same ravines and valleys chewed up the Soviet Southern Front and Nazi Army Group South in 1943. after that, it's easy ground to the Dnipro River. If I have one complaint that falls squarely on Ukrainian planners, it's that Ukrainian forces are not dug into better fortifications. At least not in the Donbas areas I toured when I was there this summer.
I should finish by saying I try to take a backseat to no one. I don't think peace talks should be on the table, unless its to negotiate a total Russian withdrawal after we've given the Ukrainians everything they need to liquidate enough Russians that the Kremlin realizes it can't hold the ground and to send a signal to Beijing and Pyongyang that any aggression is going to be met with slaughter. Kellogg has said that we'll arm to Ukrainians to keep the pressure up. I'm assuming he knows how much that's going to take.
With the losses Russia is taking on the ground, I can't agree they have the initiative. They are still trying to break the door down, and have had little luck. Combined with a failing economy, Russia simply can not continue much longer.
The true shame of the US in the war has been the way aid has been sent to Ukraine. All of it has been slow walked because of cowardice, or an actual desire not to see Ukraine win. Many think Biden, or the person actually calling the shots, really doesn't want Ukraine to drive Russia out. Russia needs to be driven out, and actually enforcing the sanctions would be a huge aid in that. Far too much is getting through.
Putin has already said he will not talk unless he is given Ukraine's surrender, which would be the equivalent of Munich 1938. He also demands lifting the sanctions. If he wants the sanction lifted, then he must get out of all of Ukraine, and take his colonists with him.
I suppose the difference is on how we define initiative. I could be using it wrong, I'm a novice and a fool.
My fear is that the Russians are advancing now, and even the more optimistic predictions seem so suggest the Russia war economy burns out late 2025, 2026. If they can seize all of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia in the coming months, that puts them in a strong position. Trump needs to arm the Ukrainians fast enough to stop that, negotiations or not.
And after that, I just want to have faith that Kellogg and team will quickly realize that negotiating with Putin is farcical, and that if we get some lousy ceasefire, it'll just give the Russians time to rearm. With "luck", Putin's age will bring impatience and he won't make time to bluff. then we can end this negotiation charade.
I have no doubt at this point that the Biden administration has no desire for a decisive Ukrainian victory. I imagine part of that was because they expected Kyiv to collapse, and part of it is they fear a Russian defeat will be a Russian collapse no one has planned for.
Initiative means they strike at the time and place of their choosing, and they have not been able to handle that fort the last two years. They have had to spend a lot of time reacting to the Ukrainians, and they have spent thousands of lives for very little. Russia can not keep spending lives in the way they have been wasting them. The losses are showing in the economy, adn Even Putin realizes that teh economy is in deep trouble. The head of the Central bank has told the Duma that end of the resources to fight the war is near. In her judgment, they won't be able to keep fighting by the end of winter. Because of the lack of funds, and labor shortages, the economy is very likely to collapse. The entire war industry establishment is looking at collapse.
I hope US leaders can see the logic in holding out for that. I don’t see the value in negotiating a pseudo-peace when you can win the war
Holiday greeting from New Hampshire.
This point seems to me to be endlessly debatable not only as a matter of semantics, but of fact, given the increasingly wide ranging attacks Ukraine is making in Russia. And is one the answer to which would settle little. To “have the initiative” in this context just does not mean that much. It’s being asked to carry too much freight.
Ukraine showed initiative in opening its Kursk operation, but could not sustain it long enough to achieve any decisive goal. Why ? Because as mentioned by Sal and others here, it lacks the manpower needed for sustained offensives. It has nevertheless also shown initiative in other ways, principally in demonstrating its ability to counterpunch while defending in manners and places of its choosing. The Russian army is also showing initiative on the battlefield. And taking that one step further, one might assert that it has won the prize for that, so that it would be fair to say that “Russia has the initiative”.
I’ll grant that. In fact, Russian commanders are desperate to sustain the initiative. There are because their leader requires is. Why ? Because he is desperate also. Putin now must win this war to save his own skin. Failing that, his army must accomplish something by having invaded Ukraine. How much ? Enough to allow him to declare “Mission Accomplished”, and then take advantage of any opportunity to freeze the conflict. The Russian army is consuming itself in order to sustain “initiative” because Putin must be seen in the eyes of the Russian people as having succeeded in accomplishing something by waging this war. I don’t know why January 20 2025 keeps coming up as the deadline for this. But it could prove one milestone. Another could be how long Russia can survive given the collapse of the ruble. Another could be a date further off in the future by which time Ukraine will have reacquired ballistic missiles. But in any case, initiative in Russia’s case is imperative for Putin’s sake.
In the case of Ukraine, it is for Ukraine’s sake. It is for survival. It is doubtful to say the least that this war would come to an end if the United States turned its back on it. Or pressured it in to “talks”. But even so, forcing the current government to the table under a threat of cutting off US assistance would be to Putin’s advantage and might constitute the sort of accomplishment he needs in order to continue justifying this war to the Russian people, and thereby stay alive. It will not cause him to quit. It will do the opposite.
VV Putin is a graduate of the von Ribbentrop School of diplomacy. Talk is for weaklings. And diplomacy’s only purpose is to soften up an enemy before you move in for the kill. He has now violated every arms treaty to which in recent history the US has been party. He is not fit to talk to.
Godless Communists? What century is this? Russia has had mobile churches following their troops conducting Holy Liturgies during the years Obama and Biden have persecuted our chaplain corps for preaching the gospel, and have run roughshod over our military members' religious liberties and freedom of conscience. We will ignore the "murdering" of entire families our own military has done with drones, etc. (oopsies!) or sitting on their hands while our own military are murdered right under our noses. Nothing is as simple as you like to think it is. Also can we talk about the murdering of Russian nationals in the Crimea for 8 years by the Ukrainians that caused them to ask to rejoin Russia in a referendum? Is that murder okay by you?
Oh please. Once the Russian Orthodox Church kneeled at the altar of the state, the ROC was pretty much left alone. Most of the clergy were KGB. Those same people are still active.
Like so many, you misjudge me. I get that all the time from people that, by default, support Russia. The accusation of Ukrainians murdering of Russians in the Donbas was a lie, and certainly so in Crimea. The Referendum you put so much faith in was illegit. The vote was not held until Putin had imported thousands of colonists, and allowed the occupying military to vote. Your referendum was a lie.
Murder of Ukrainians by Russians seems just fine to you.
Less than 15% of Russia's population are actively practicing Christians, despite Putin's showmanship and attempts to make the Bride of Christ his whore.
The tragic result of 70+ years of state enforced communist atheism. Can't win, can he. He attempts to revive Russian religion and culture he's making the OC his whore. If he didn't, you'd accuse him of suppressing it, right?
Nope.
I get it, because you think Putin is based and trad you'll go to the mat for him, when in reality he's as corrupt and power-hungry as the globalist you hate. Grow up.
No, I think Putin takes care of his own people and national interests in a way few of our leaders have done for us in a century. We know what the Russians get out of this effort. What do we get, but more debt, looking like hypocrites defending borders in another country while letting our own be invaded by millions, clapping ourselves on the back for invading some countries for "democracy" while condemning other countries for having immediate reasons to watch their borders and defend their own national interests. You know what they say about inconsistency and the hobgoblin of little minds....
Russian chaplains have Russian flags with saints superimposed on them. They place them daily on captured Ukrainian villages.
The Russian army is horde of sinners and barbarians, nothing more.
Not another dime and for sure not a drop of American blood, let the EU fight RU.
EU don't want to fight RU, Germany in particular wants things to go back to the way they were, everyone making money.
Your pushing stupidity. There is no plan to involve US troops. Properly support Ukraine, and our geopolitical interests will be taken care of.
I don't want any American troops fighting, dying, being maimed, blinded TBI, burned and driven in PTSD for a losing war to help ukraine.
Do I have to draw you a picture or would you rather go visit a VAMC prosthetics clinic?
Not one more dime, and no American blood spilled fighting a lost war for zelienski.
Let the EU fight Russia for ukraine, once the US drops ukraine aid the EU will slink off and STDGFU.
Oh please? I am at the local VA hospital regularly, so stop the emoting.
There is no plan to send troops to Ukraine to fight. Try reading and comprehending. Doing as you wish, abandoning Ukraine, is the height of geopolitical stupidity and would harm the position of the US in the world far more than abandoning Vietnam did. What you are wanting is shameful, and you have no moral compass, or you would not be pushing it.
If Ukraine had been supported properly, the war would already be over.
Fuck ukraine it's leaders NATO and you bubba.
If NATO had left ukraine alone this damn war would have been over in three weeks and millions of people would be alive now.
I will work tirelessly to cut all aid to ukraine.
Yep Vietnam, I was there do you want to know the Total casualty figures for all deaths civilian, military allied and Communist?
An American president once said "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
Seems like he didn't have a plan either.
That's been where I was at since just about the beginning.
Not one bolt of hardware that's not paid for with cash on the barrelhead (no Lend-Lease type shenanigans), not one penny of American taxes, and not one drop of American blood spilled. It's in Europe's backyard, they should fight their own battles.
The only real way in which Russia is a threat to the US and US interests (which is not, mind you, synonymous with the interests of the money launderers who've been using Ukraine to wash their cash for years now) is with their nukes, and no matter how badly Putin is being informed by his cronies he knows deep down, in spite of his public bluster about waving the nuclear stick, that's a game he can't win.
But apparently [edit: saying] that's the same thing as slurping Putin's knob, with no functional differences from the "Brosheviks". *eyeroll*
China also has the incentive and has even put out statements at the Vice Chairman CMC level that they would do everything they can to make the talks difficult for the US so that Trump makes loads of concessions. They will then tell every potential ally of the US that the US abandons its friends and that they should not trust the US to have their back in a conflict.
We have already shown by what we did with the agreement we made with Gorbachev about NATO that we screw over our friends or anyone who trusts us to make an agreement with us. We actually have a long list of countries we've screwed over. What's your point? What is one more? Pro Tip: I don't see Trump as making loads of concessions that don't help us. He wouldn't have abandoned our friends in Afghanistan who trusted us and left the Taliban $85B in new equipment either. But that's one more country that we left high and dry.
"...one more country that we left high and dry"
Actually, Afghanistan was well watered with billions of US dollars and several thousand gallons of US blood over almost twenty years. Sorry, but after that, my field is barren (as the saying goes) and I have no more f..... to give.
" the US abandons its friends and that they should not trust the US to have their back in a conflict."
Quite a lot of that around the world in the past 60 or 70 years
I am uneasy about Rubio as SecState if he still adheres to his mindless questioning of Victoria Nuland over the U.S. funded biolabs in Ukraine. He called them "Russian propaganda." Methinks Marco would have pitched a similar fit as the Russians if Cuba had maintained 24 such labs off the coast of Florida. (The nature of what was being stored there is eyebrow raising to be sure.) It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored, as Papa Bravo used to say. I think we will eventually find out more about those labs, but not from Russian General Kirillov, who was blown to smithereens yesterday, as we get closer and closer to the day the democrats lose control of their Ukraine narrative. We would not countenance such labs on our borders. Oddly, many of the locations of those labs were bombed the first night of the Russian "invasion" in February 2022. Someday Phib should devote a post to this little story from hell. We lose moral legitimacy when we go about having one rule for ourselves and one for other nations.
Little Marco was the first Republican Senator to peddle the lie that the leaked DNC emails in 2016 had been hacked by Russia. He's a useful idiot for the MIC and the intelligence agencies. It's worth asking what the CIA has video of him doing.
Trump's Special Envoys will restrict Rubio's scope as will Gabbard as DNI assuming the neocons don't torpedo her.
I trust Rubio little if at all. He's one of the worst appointees, but maybe we can get a better replacement in the Senate.
Pardon my French, but WTF are you talking about? Did you miss Merkel confessing that the Minsk agreements were just a ploy to give Ukraine time to arm itself? From the Russian perspective, there is no in the West who is "agreement capable". From the unification of Germany, INF treaty, ect.., Russia has seen agreements broken. They will not suffer a hostile Ukraine on their border.
Prepare yourself for Trump turning over Ukraine to the Europeans, who will stand by and watch Ukraine turn into country 404.
Except Iceland, there is no NATO country that has not invaded Russia at least once.
Vikings don't count? :)
The original Vikings didn't so much invade Russia as create it. However, all three Viking countries provided SS units and Sweden did it on her own
" provided SS units "
As did a number of our current freedom-loving NATO partners.
The Russians are not godless or communist you absolute fool.
probably still a number of both (although maybe not as many as in the West), but that is no longer their official stance, for sure.
Russia is driving this bus. Only those suffering from normalcy bias can’t see it. Russia will negotiate only when Russia wants to negotiate.
This is not 1992, much less 1943.
US can scarcely afford to apply Mahan, much less go MacKinder in East Europe.
Where does Kellogg get Ukrainian “people”, what do these Kieran’s have to use to get their whims, EU supplies?
Ukraine was on no maps in 1914, or before…..
Stalin’s gift to Russia.
Poland isn't a real country either, using that sort of.criteria.
Stalin kicked 2 million Prussian aristocrats out of Poland.....
George Washington wanted nothing to do with allies!
When the Polish-Lithuanian empire occupied Kiev they treated the Cossacks like they were Sioux. Taras Balba....
If it were not for the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch, there would be no American Republic.
Just because interests aligned doesn't make them allies.
Isn't that exactly (and primarily) what makes them allies? Is there any such thing as an "ally" outside of a situation where one is needed to advance a given interest?
Only when interests align. Otherwise they're neutral or the opposition.
Have to include the colonial English too; they started the whole idea:)
CDR. If it were not for England and the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution there would no American Republic. If George III had acted like a constitutional monarch then Charles III would be our king today.
Parliament was just as responsible for the break as George III.
As Brettbaker mentioned - "Ukraine was on no maps in 1914, or before ..." isn't useful or practical thinking. What's next? Give huge chunks of Russia to Mongolia since we have "maps" showing it belonged to the Mongol Empire years before 1914? We have to deal in practical terms of the present. Most people are very disinterested in dreams of empires and rightfully dislike those who aspire to such dreams. The world started really breaking away from that thinking after WW2. Imperialism and totalitarian-gangsterism drive most conflicts and friction around the world today (e.g. Russia, Islamic-imperialism, the PRC, etc.). Those drivers rely on selective historical anchoring to justify their totalitarian actions.
Sanctity of countries thousands of sea miles from my land is immaterial.
Particularly when we give countries away to terrorists.
Not sure what you mean about the latter, and the former is highly dependent on American interests.
Interests!
CDR Sal, The book is an excellent read for those who want to know more about the overall AFPI/Trump agenda.
https://americafirstpress.org/
Call me ignorant, but seems if we would return to what we SAID we would agree to - that is, repeat that we do not seek to move NATO closer to Putin's borders - tell him it was a buncha lying gimmiecrata bastards who went back on our national promise to him - that maybe he would do his part. Maybe, then, our evolved M-I Complex will have to find other ways to profit from the Uke's mountains of desirable raw materials. After all, it is my understanding that WE are the ones who broke our promises to Putin about not enlarging NATO in his direction.
I hope the deep state - fearing just such a diplomatic move from Trump - will not prompt them to do something to prevent such that will incinerate us all. At this point, I believe there is nothing off the table with their inventory of what they are willing to do.
There was no promise to Russia not to accept any of eastern Europe into NATO. Baker made an off hand statement he had no authority to make, and that's the only "promise" that was ever made.
Wrong. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629
Hardly. Baker was not the only one, but none of the rest put it in the form of a treaty either. Given the fact that Russia has had a habit of violating treaties, I feel little sympathy for Putin. He himself violated the Budapest Memorandum, and has been causing trouble. Without a treaty, there is nothing.
One might say that the declassification of documents shows Russia, like everyone else on the planet, was a fool to trust Bill Clinton because he and his cohorts were busy undermining the Budapest Memorandum and the negotiations that led up to it before the ink was dry. When you don't negotiate in good faith, you don't get to play the victim when there are consequences.
The Budapest Memorandum did not depend on the lack of expansion of NATO. Putin is the man that abrogated it for his own purposes. Putin's NATO schtick doesn't hold water. He wants Ukraine back under his thumb regardless, and his imperial lusts are what has driven him.
I don't like Clinton, particularly after what he did in the Balkans.
If you don't like what he did in the Balkans, imagine how the Russians felt about it.
You are telling me GHW Bush's best oldest friend went around as Secretary of State making offhand statements he had no authority to make? Wow. You sell his authority short.
Not at all. That it did not result in any tangible is proof enough of how much authority was behind what he said. You're making baseless assumptions.
So a country's word isn't its bond. Got it.
The bond is given in treaties. Putin's word has never been worth the breath it took to spew it. Putin hasn't cared about such things either.
how about the treaty signed by russia, ukraine and co-signed by the US and Uk to guarantee the Ukraine’s borders in exchange for removing the nukes? unlike the so called verbal … this was signed! Putin is violating everyone’s sovereignty…. from Georgia, to the Balkans, ukraine and the Baltic.
"guarantee the Ukraine’s borders "
No, no,no!
1) It was not a treaty.
2) It didn't "guarantee" anything. We promised to take the matter before the UN Security Council if the agreement was violated.
The first promise in that regard was actually made to Gorbachev in the context of German reunification. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the West took advantage of the weakness of the Yeltsin years to enlarge NATO. Putin was actually reasonably friendly during his first years in power. We had a significant logistics base in the Stans during the Afghan War which never could have happened without Putin. I think the significance of the NATO attack on Serbia is underestimated. Serbia, a traditional Russian ally was dismembered and when Western leaders started talking about dismembering Russia, the Russians noticed.
Keep the paper-money fiat-currency printing press rolling, baby, to “pay” for all this Ukraine mess. Watch as your retirement accounts’ spending power craters from a dollar worth less and less, and your kids and your kids’ kids get stuck with the whole bill; all the while the elites in the Military Industrial Complex rake in the dough, well above the fiscal carnage!
Save The Ukraine at all and any cost!! It’s simply a sacrifice all of us in America MUST do. It’s our obligation, too.
Oh, BTW, Sal, could you have ‘em print out some more dollars; got that mess out in WESTPAC with the ChiComs brewing, you know.
You are aware that the vast majority of the aid to Ukraine (which has never been more than a tiny percentage of the budget) was in the form of old military equipment we were getting rid of anyway, right?
No, a lot of it was oodles of cash from our own treasury laundered back to DNC recipients via Sam Bankman-Fried. Nothing here is as simple as people make it out to be.
Shhh. You’re gonna give it all away.
Neutral question - Can you be more specific? Links to stories, perhaps?
From Forbes: The sudden collapse of FTX has revealed the now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange to be many unpleasant things. But was it a vehicle for Democrats to launder Ukrainian relief funds to their candidates in the 2022 midterms? It’s “a question worth asking,” the world’s richest person, Elon Musk, tweeted Monday on the social media platform he now owns and runs.
Is it, though? According to the conspiracy theory, highlighted on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, Ukraine received $18.2 billion of security commitments from the U.S. and an unknown amount of donations through a Ukrainian government aid website launched with FTX in March. The Ukrainian government invested some of that money in FTX, the conspiracy theory goes, and Bankman-Fried then supposedly passed on $40 million of it to a handful of left-leaning super PACs. His deputy Nishad Singh allegedly funneled another $7.4 million.
Now we know the difference between fact and "conspiracy theory" has turned out to be about 6 months to a year of information, and since the press likes to cover for their own, they put the CS label on everything. There are a lot of articles out there but they have pay-walls, so I won't link to them. I suggest you do your own digging. I don't know what resources you pay for. I don't trust Fox, but Tucker seems to have info others don't. And Elon, having bought "the social media platform he now owns and runs" has labelled the old Twitter "a crime scene" which means he has all the old PMs that people used to send thinking Jack had their back. Now he has the PMs between people who thought they were clever when they were planning things from 2012 to 2023, so we shall see how this all unfolds under a new DOJ. Still wonder why Sam BF is still alive. He knows too much.
We have been keeping their pension fund alive while Social Security circles the drain.
The Defense budget isn't exploding the debt. Entitlements are, but no one wants to touch them....
GREAT point and observation! So here’s the plan (perhaps DOGE can run with it):
Let’s start a 4%/year reduction in entitled benefits (Social Security and Medicare) on January 1st for anyone under 65. A 64-yr old gets 96%, at Social Security retirement age, gets 92%… all the way down to zero benefits for anyone age-40 or younger on 01Jan25. Thus, in 25 years all of that “entitlement” spending will be nonexistent; and! the obligation declines each year going forward. A win-win.
Heck, if you’re 40 or younger, you have a quarter of a century or more to invest/save up for retirement. You don’t need the U.S. taxpayer footing any bills or providing any pension for you!
This should free up PLENTY of money for the MIC and more forever-wars (mis)adventures! I’m writing my Rep and Senators now.
A typical boomer solution to pass the buck to younger generations. Its a moot conversation anyway Trump already said he's not touching entitlements.
F*ckin’-A I’m a “Boomer”, and damn grateful for it! Ronald Reagan. John Lehman. 600-ship Navy. First TOPGUN movie on the street, living like a rock star making the airshow rounds in the F-14. If you weren’t there, you can’t even imagine it. I pity you if you weren’t a “boomer” in this Navy. Now go get some warm milk and go to bed, son.
If there is any pitying to do, I do it! Sucka. But I live your memories. Man those are beautiful memories. Early cohort Gen X.
Early X Best X :)
Younger generations, like everybody else born circa 1960 and later, have been utterly screwed by these programs. The longer they've paid in, the more they are screwed. The spousal unit and I will Never get out of SS or Medicare equivalent to what we would have today had we been allowed, or even required, to invest that money in the markets
Every cohort born after 1938 will pay more into SS than they get out so virtually everyone now alive is getting screwed. Problem is that all that confiscated wealth is not available to support private retirement. The only way to break the cycle is a period of funding a new and an old retirement system at the same time which is fiscally painful, to say the least.
Agreed. It needs to be phased out
That particular "solution" has been practiced by every generation since The Greatest Generation. And every succeeding generation seems to be getting better at it.
Let's start with no more money for illegals, no more federal welfare of any sort, no more dept of education or any financial aid for education to states, no more federal student loans, and phase out 75% of the federal workforce which is largely writing and enforcing unconstitutional; regulations anyway, end all DEI programs, etc.
Once we've squeezed every wasted dollar back into the budget that we can we can assess, but why not have the hard conversations AFTER everything else has been done?
edit: with respect to younger people, concur, start changes now so the programs are, at worst, simply phased out in 60 years
" no more federal welfare of any sort,"
Does that include free VA medical care for non service connected problems?
It's a valid question, and I don't know enough about it to answer, especially for veterans on disability due to service, or even retirees. Is it possible that part of the "social contract" with these veterans includes medical treatment for life, for non-service related, but also non-elective procedures? I could be convinced it does, or should
At the rate the US is printing money, millionaires will be out in the street living in cardboard boxes.
LOL…exactly!
they'll be living in houses made of money
It will be cheaper than cardboard.
This analysis takes no account of the promises the US made when Germany was to be reunited and Russian forces withdrawn that NATO would not expand "one inch". And it assumes Russia has no institutional memory of Europe's two invasions that reached nearly to Moscow. Ignore the past and the future will be doomed.
Russia remembers two German invasions and a French and Swedish invasion. They also remember allied intervention in their civil war following WWI.
The Poles also took Moscow twice and participated in Napoleon's adventure where they were considered the best non-French troops. Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks, Spanish, Finns, Italians and SS troops from all over Western Europe tagged along with Hitler. Britain, France and Turkey invaded the Crimea. Canada, the US and Japan were also involved in the post-WW1 invasion.
Your analysis takes no account of the fact that Russia reneged on its promises to withdraw from all of the former SSRs when its troops decided to keep occupying a good chunk of Moldova. At that point, whatever promises were supposedly made regarding NATO expansion were void.
Your facts are not correct. Russia made no promises to withdraw from the former SSRs.
As a general rule, when one gives up sovereignty over a territory, that is generally considered to be a promise to stop occupying that territory.
I disagree with your assertion. There is no such general rule.
Sovereignty is a complex issue, more fully discussed here:
https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1472
All that article demonstrates is that there are different visions of sovereignty. You can try and make it as "complex" as you want in order to bolster your weird notion that Russia is somehow blameless in this whole affair, but the fact is that Russia officially gave up the SSRs and then proceeded to leave its troops in place in Moldova, effectively occupying a good portion of the country, and did so well before anyone was thinking about expanding NATO eastward.
Now, if you want to argue that the government in Chisinau has any say in what goes in in Transnistria and that Russia isn't running things there, by all means do so, but I think everyone here will be insulted by that.
No one is saying Russia is blameless. But Ukraine and those who have used Ukraine for their own greed and power games are not blameless either and Ukraine is not a complete victim in this. I like to stay out of family arguments.
So is the Federal Republic of Germany not a sovereign nation state?
Are we occupying it, or do we just have troops stationed there? Don't play dumb, you and I both know the difference. (Also, the Western Allies never annexed their section of Germany.)
So are you saying when we ceded Panama Canal and then went in and invaded Panama later because Noriega wasn't behaving as we thought he should that was bad? LOL.
Depends on why we invaded Panama. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we left Panama to its own devices since then?
Noriega was a criminal. Hahahahaha! Great reason to invade. Latin America. Drugs. Gotta invade. Says the administration running drugs through Mena, Arkansas. Hahahahahaha. Yes, sadly we've let China commandeer the canal. Because we are not only feckless, we are stupid too.
Russia is the one doing the invading. All this Kremlin propaganda and revisionist history is getting a bit tiring.
No revisionist history. There are treasure troves of documents proving President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woernere assured Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't move one inch eastward if only they'd give East Germany back. So what we have here is proof that our word as a country is meaningless and no one should ever attempt to negotiate with any of these nations in good faith. Of course the first person to renege on this was ol Bill Clinton himself even as he was interfering in Russia's internal elections. But that's another story. Not every nation has the memory capacity of a goldfish. We are not a serious nation if we ignore the deals and promises we made before.
Fake news. Go tell it to a GRU bot that cares.
Come on brother. Calling everyone a Russian Bot is stupid and tiresome.
When the facts are against you all you can do is shout BOT
The initial Soviet position was to allow German reunification but outside NATO. The deal you mention was our counterproposal and the eventual outcome.
I’m glad we never attacked or invaded countries like Grenada Dominican Republic. Haiti Panama Nicaragua El Salvador Chile Serbia Libya Lebanon Syria ….
It doesn't take into account because it undermines the preferred narrative.
Without our full fifteen (15) Carrier Strike Groups to fully support the Unified Combatant Commander Concept in the field we cannot provide PROACTIVE PRESENSE (Shop-the-Flag) operations to curb bad actors, and can on respond to evolving situations after the fact. The eleven (11) we have today are having a difficult time filling spots in the shuffle to put out the fires . . . forget trying to provide PROACTIVE PRESENSE (Shop-the-Flag) operations.
Having lost our Nuclear Cruisers we no longer have Fast Carrier Battle Groups that can respond quickly, and stay longer with less replenishment requirement.
Speaking of 'Replenishment Requirement' . . . the USNS John Lewis (T-AO-205) cannot come online fast enough, and we will need more than planned to meet the needs of a growing fleet with redundancies in each AOR.
We can't even stop a bunch of camel jockeys from shutting down the Red Sea.
Unpleasant fact: Kellogg and company at the America First Policy Institute are die-hard defenders to this day of the misguided Doha Agreement, that the draw-shoot-aim Trump team concocked with the Taliban- with Amb (?) Zal Kalilizad on point and Mike P. at State as the action officer who put that mess together. (Recall the proposal to invite the Taliban delegation to Camp David for a Trump "summit" on 9/11 day). In defending that half-baked agreement, of course all done behind the back of our ostensible ally in Kabul (why should we tell them, after all, their troops were still dying and would have continued to die for years under the terms of the agreement), those involved were just trying to get a "big deal" done. The involved deal crew would defend the agreement as "conditions based" but the deadline for the US troop compete withdrawn (in company with those of our NATO allies serving in-country, who were also not informed of what Team Zal/Mike were cooking) was set. Enter Team Biden, who could not wait to pull the plug, and who were more than happy to use that agreement and that bug-out date for their own purposes. In defending that catastrophic departure, in hearings this past week, the entire Biden national security clown show, Wink'in, Blink'in and Nod, referenced the Trump Doha agreement, leading with a "Don made us do it" defense. Biden just got it done faster, with more mess and a much higher level of incompetence. If this same scheme and approach is deployed by the reinstalled crew in figuring out and implementing a "war ending" strategy for screwing Kiev, there should be no surprises.
I think Trump has come to the realization that the west can not afford to abandon Ukraine.
Just like South Vietnam.
Yes, and the abandonment of South Vietnam hurt the US badly.
It would have hurt a lot less if we had not gotten involved at all. How many American lives and how much money is Ukraine worth?
The idea that we are somehow involved simply because we have sent military aid is silly. The next question results from the fact that US troops are not fighting in Ukraine. If you think so, you should be able to list the order of battle.
Who do you is handling those sophisticated weapons systems? Elves?
WE HAVE FUNCTIONED AS VERITABLE ARMED COMBATANTS in this war and are lucky we didn't get bombed for our role here. That is testimony to the fact Putin may have common sense and not want to rile Trump should he have returned.
Depends on your perspective. I would guess the Russian troops killed and maimed by American and NATO weapons don't think American involvement is silly. Just as I do not think Americans think it silly to think Iran is involved in Iraq because American troops have been killed and maimed by Iranian weapons. Or that it is silly to think China and the USSR were involved in the Vietnam war.
I think Trump has come to the realization that the US can afford to abandon Ukraine.
There, I fixed it.
Nice misrepresentation. You fixed nothing.
That post won’t age well. We will be out of Ukraine faster than a Sailor in a Cubi whorehouse ten minutes before liberty expires.
The people that have been appointed by Trump for the war are not on your side. They know what is going on, and know the US can not afford to abandon Ukraine. No one with half a brain wants to be on the same list with Chamberlain.
You need to get a haircut.
Okay, I'll bite. What would you have done if you were Chamberlain? Taken on Germany single-handed?
That probably would have actually worked out. Had Britain and France been willing to fight in 1938, Germany would not have had, among other things, access to Czechoslovakia's arsenal and industrial base.
France and England threw the country to the wolves. There was no excuse for what they did. All it got them was a bit of delay, but the war came anyway. They could have chose honor, but they chose dishonor and got war anyway.
Which underscores the concern that any Trump-Putin agreement will be a 21st century Munich with downstream effects that incentivize a future greater war not just in Europe but in the Indo-Pacific as well. The Trump Administration should not seek peace at any price, not take Putin's promises at face value and not give the impression in speech or in terms of the agreement that the Ukrainians are being sacrificed on the altar of appeasement.
You mean like the Russians took our promises at face value in 1989?
You mean that you've swallowed the Kremlin Koolaid and are mindlessly parroting their talking points to justify the Russian war of aggression?
Not at all. It's not our fight. It's a border dispute between two entities who have centuries of a squishy border going back and forth and us sending $200 billion in various forms of aid to them in 2.5 years when our own people desperately need it makes my stomach turn. Our congress trips over itself to run checks to them while we have citizens freezing to death in Appalachia. Russia wants Crimea and Sevastopol. I'm sure in 1954 if they had known the future they would not have ceded the territory and the port they built to the Ukrainian oblast. I'm sure they never foresaw the oblast becoming independent. Or they wouldn't have given it away. Much like we shouldn't have given the Panama Canal we built away.
Sure. Every agreement is Munich 1938.
Every agreement that exchanges a democratic countries land to an expansionist dictatorship for vague promises of near-term peace looks like Munich 1938,yes.
Ukraine is not a democracy. Just ask President for Life Zelensky.
For that matter, democracy is pretty thin on the ground all over NATO these days. Rumania just nullified an election. It remains to be seen if Germany will outlaw the (real)opposition party. The UK is very busy criminalizing thought crime. Canada is a totalitarian mess. The US may be on the road to recovery come J20 but many states are still a problem and the last four years haven't been good. Even winning an election like The Netherlands and France doesn't mean you get to form a government. Last I knew, Belgium still doesn't even have a government after the most recent election. Italy is sort of a bright spot but there is a serious problem with the court system. Poland is sinking into suppression of the opposition.
" Biden just got it done faster"
No. He actually delayed the Doha deadline by about 90 days.
Putin can not be allowed to keep any of Ukraine. Allowing a thief to keep what he has stolen is utterly immoral and lawless.
Unfortunately, it seems like a majority of Russians want Crimea; so we're going to have to let them keep it. Can get some of the eastern parts back, though.
For that to happen, an legal referendum must be held. That would be after all the colonists Putin imported, and the Russian military are removed from Crimea, and the people that were pushed out of Crimea, particularly the Tatars, are brought back.
The referendum Putin stages was totally illegit.
You are welcome to join the Ukrainian Army and drive them out.
You're welcome to be as silly as you like. On that note, join the Russian army. They need people like you.
I want nothing to with either side. That sounds quite reasonable.
Festung Amerika is not a workable concept. I understand your desire, but that ship sailed long ago.
I'd tell you to join the Russian Army, but I suspect you already have.
Nope. Given your posts, however, you may have.
They already held a referendum asking to rejoin the Russian Federation.
Stop with the facts already! Some here are are only interested in a comfortable narrative!
He has yet to post any facts.
He? Wrong again, shipwreck!
You are quite welcome to read what I said, then comment. The facts just don't sit well with you.
"an legal referendum must be held."
Says who?
" all the colonists Putin imported,"
How about all the colonists the Russians imported, including all those Ukrainians, after "stealing" Crimea from the Ottomans?
" particularly the Tatars"
What on earth makes you think the Tatars have any love for Ukrainians? And do those Tatars get back their ancestral properties from the Ukrainian colonists who took them over?
Obviously you have no truck with dealing with a civilized world. It's quite Ok for Hitler to invade and subjugate Poland, along with the Soviet Union, so it's Ok for Putin to invade Ukraine, kill thousands of civilians intentionally, pound anything that stands, and then steal the land.
Tatars have gotten along with Ukrainians for a longtime. It is the Russians that have been a serious problem for them, and Putin is maintaining that tradition.
The question remains for you to answer. Why should such theft go on?
The population of Ukraine was quite small when the Russians conquered it. But it still belonged to them, and no one had the right to march in and take it. Given what you are supporting, war is just fine. What you are supporting is war, and all you are doing is looking for excuses to keep it going. Your attempts at engaging a logical fallacy in your service does you no credit.
Actually, it's not as cut and dry as you portray and I take issue with the "nonsensical diatribe" comment in regard to Putin's interview with Tucker. For countries with an actual working knowledge of their own history, what he said was true. Americans don't even know their own history for the most part and so our opinion really doesn't matter. But Putin did say Ukraine and Russia had a peace treaty ready to sign within months till Boris Johnson danced in (at whose behest?) and prevented it from being signed. This has everyone's fingerprints all over it. And it also ignores the Victoria Nuland admitted bioweapons research labs we were financing there in Ukraine (which according to their own disposal instructions following the invasion which I have seen in the original Ukrainian/Russian) were involved in materials that violate our own bioweapons restrictions in this country. They just whacked (who is they I ask) the Russian General who was telling the world about these labs yesterday. I ask you, would we allow 24 of these labs on the other side of the Rio Grande within striking distance of our cities? Again, this is all much more complicated than it is made out to be, and our MSM has waved the blue and yellow flag and ignored the horrific memories anything under a nazi flag evokes for the Russians within the lifespan of living Russians now, and ignores the truth of who is being enriched by this wasteful war. This all started in 2014 and we ignored what caused Russia to finally go into the Donbass.
Take issue as much as you like. I could not care less. Tucker allowed Putin to spew his propaganda without challenge. Tucker has, by a multitude of "reports" shown he is a Russian asset.
You take Nuland's word? The hatred directed at the woman by your ilk has made it clear that nothing she says is worth the breath it took to say it. It's one of the few things you get right. The Russian General killed was head of the agency that provided the Chemical weapons that have been used in Ukraine. He got what he had coming.
Your Mexico analogy was worn out a long time ago. It never held water, and it still does not. The biolabs were operated by the Ukraine Ministries of health and Agriculture. Putin doesn't liek teh fact they are owned by Ukraine because he wants them for his own biowar programs.
Your "peace treaty" was nothing of the sort. It was nothing but surrender document, and Zelensky rightfully threw it away.
You need to start dealing with the fact that Putin started the war in 2014 and widened it 2022. Putin is responsible for the death and destruction and no one else.
It seems that everyone who doesn’t want a war with Russia is an agent of Putin.
No, but they are reasonable in their posts. You come across as a Russia supporter.
Cool. Now do that with the 2020 election.
You think I would have a problem with that? It doesn't change anything I've said.
Read a little history. Most of Europe, if not the entire world, has been "stolen" at one time or another. Sometimes more than once.
Given your rationale, why does it have to continue? Is it your desire to reward criminal behavior so we can be forced to deal with a much larger problem later?
History shows us the problems, and making war pay is how you get more war.
It’s time to dump Ukraine and zelensky.
Tell your GRU handler hello for me.
Typical neocon. You have no valid points so you resort to insults.
Typical Russian bot. Spoutting Kremlin talking points.
Shut up Ukronazi.
And there is the Russian Bot pejorative….
That’s all R. James has got.
I hope you are correct. It would be a terrible thing to appease Putin. Our eastern NATO allies will be watching this very closely. As a family with Eastern European roots, I have always been fearful of USSR/Russia.
This isn't your dad's Cold War. It's been 40 years of political evolution there. Little of which our press discusses.
If Putin doesn't secure Russia's borders, the Russians will find someone who will.
To understand this issue one has to know that there is hardly a country on the planet that has not at one time invaded or attacked Russia militarily. (Yes, we were one too). Their paranoia is understandable. And you do not make peace with the Bear by poking him. Sadly we long ago forfeited making that country a true partner in commerce, trade and cultural exchange that would have enriched everyone. Huge mistakes made at the end of the Cold War will haunt us all for a century to come.
Mackinder's ghost.
I don’t believe those numbers about huge Russian casualties compare to those of Ukraine. Sounds like McNamara body counts.
Correct. It's closer to 82k Russian dead and 600k Uke dead. https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng-trl
Imagine if Nixon had written off South Vietnam in 1969. How many of our boys would have lived if he had cut our losses? But, no we had to have with honor.
It’s time to end the endless wars and Ukraine is a great place to start.
I estimate Ukraine has already cost us one trillion in terms of outright expenditures equipment that was already paid for and future obligations. I could have rebuilt I95 for Miami to New England for that money.
The Ukrainians are not losing because "there aren't enough Ukrainians." While quantity has a quality of its own, it is not necessarily a good determinant let alone the principal determinant of success or victory. During the Yom Kippur war in '73, the Israelis in the Golan held off a Syrian force 10 time what the Israelis had. It was a near run thing, but the Israelis eventually pushed back into Syria. The difference between the Israelis then and the Ukrainians now is the idiotic policy imposed by the US and Western Europeans on the Ukrainians on how to fight the Russians. Am all for stopping the killing, but it has to stop the killing. It shouldn't be a pause in killings so the Russians can catch a break, regroup, and then resume the killing with the US and Western Europe essentially stepping aside. We are in this war because decades ago, in a reasonable effort to minimize the dangers of nuclear weapons, the US and Britain (yes, and Russia) waffled on assurance vs guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up nukes. Fast forward a few decades later, we get into arguments about NATO encroaching into Eastern Europe and "threatening" Russia. It's amazing to me how so many could make that argument even in the face of facts pointing to NATO weakness, disunity, and indecisiveness when facing problems. Apparently 1/6 of Germany's submarines and about 50% or less of German Army tanks being functional was a huge threat to Russia. Then, when Russia actually started becoming a threat the Europeans still twiddled their thumbs. I don't want the US embroiled in a conflict created by the likes of certain "smart" people in the US foreign affairs establishment. I also don't like the idea of asking the Ukrainians to agree to a peace that would lead to more of them getting killed and their nation being conquered later on. I am for American interests. American credibility, including acknowledgement of our strength, is a national interest. We want other nations to be mindful of our strength and resolve - FAFO.
The Russians cannot be trusted with a peace that has little consequence if violated. Would Russia even come to the table? Russia lost this conflict the moment they failed to achieve their main aim of absorbing or setting up a puppet state in Ukraine. Will they accept peace if Ukraine gives up on territories Russia currently occupies? Will Ukraine accept that peace? If I were Ukraine I wouldn't accept "peace" unless there are absolute security guarantees on the part of Europeans at the very least, and ideally on the part of the US. As an American I wouldn't want to provide guarantees, but would like Europeans to provide those guarantees. Would Europeans accept this responsibility? To really secure peace Putin and his supporters must know that future aggression against Ukraine and other NATO countries will have severe consequences - not like Obama "red lines."
I can only imagine what would happen if zelensky has atomic bombs.
When I look at the parade of people who marched in to kiss Zelensky's ring and pose for photos and give them armfuls of cash our relatives in W North Carolina and E Tennessee need desperately right now, they all look suspiciously like the people who screamed against our troops being in Iraq and cut off funding for our troops there in the field during the middle of fighting. Immediate red flag for me. The fact they downvoted those billions being audited also sends off alarms. The fact some of those fossils were around 45 years ago and couldn't bend the knee and appease the USSR enough also has my notice. Ask yourselves why.
REM wrote a song about that.
Maybe Russia would not have invaded? The prospect of having Moscow (not to mention himself) nuked would probably have given Putin pause. Even the DPRK facing a non-nuclear RoK knows better than to be stupid. Crazy, yes. Stupid? Probably not.
What's the average age of an Ukrainian soldier?
How long is their training?
45 years old. 8 days if they're lucky.
Not quite '73 Israelis
As Mark mentioned 45 yrs old. Isn't it interesting how Ukraine has kept its draft to those above 25, keeping the younger generation preserved? In the mean time Putin is importing soldiers from Asia and Africa. He's smart enough not to push his own young population. At least for now.
In the fight between the bear and the eagle, Ukraine doesn't realize it is the sheep.
And everlasting hellfire should fall on those who stopped the treaty that was ready to be signed 2 years ago. For their own selfish interests.
Not sure, fourth or ninth circle of hell?
The Trump administration may say that they want alliances to be strong. But we all know actions are what matter. Trump should be wary about getting a deal for the sake of getting a deal and trading land for vague promises of peace. If appeasement becomes the unspoken driving force behind its efforts to get a peace deal with Russia, China will tell all allies and potential allies of the US in the Indo-Pacific that the US is a fair weather friend that will drop you when you become "unnecessary" to its interest and that America First foreign policy really means that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid or anybody else for that matter. If Trump secures a deal with Putin based on appeasement, he may waive a piece of paper in the air with Vlad's signature on it, but those who know better will see a chasm opening beneath the US system of alliances and China getting a greenlight to act with impunity with the hope that Trump will view Taiwan as "unnecessary" to US national security.
We have other ways of dealing with China that won't involve CINCPac becoming SunkPac.
Don't confuse kow towing and appeasing with "dealing".
No one said tariffs and trade restrictions are kow towing and appeasing. The fact China hasn't already taken over Taiwan and commandeered every computer chip factory we depend on by now in the face of Biden's global weakness is not due to Biden's "great deals" with China. Well except for the money the Chinese gave to Hunter, but that's another story.....
Oh, I see. Your "solution" is to raise prices on the American people. I'm sure that will work...
China hasn't moved against Taiwan because they aren't ready yet. Their military modernization project is not complete; they are dealing with a financial crisis and Xi is busy purging his generals. Two years from now, maybe a different story. Especially if Trump sends them a strong signal that he will not defend countries that he doesn't think are "necessary" to US vital interests. A deal screwing Ukraine will send China a bright greenlight.
How many American lives is Taiwan worth?