this is a great piece. I read it and it renewed all the anger I've tried to keep down for American leadership.
Incredible to imagine that the U.S. and western Europe were handed an opportunity with a developing, investment-ready, democracy yearning nation with both the courage and the martial skill to fight the Russians, something that could have (and still can be!) a new bulwark of NATO, and so far we've treated it like an afterthought.
Or worse, some are eager to give it to the Russians.
On a totally random note, does anyone else think that Senator JD Vance probably reeks of cheap vodka from St. Petersburg?
The Ukrainians were trying to solve the corruption problem, but they have learned the hard way that the corruption is systemic. Russia has exactly the same problem. It seems that a border guard is worth about $300 when you want to illegally escape from the country. Catch if few taking such bribes and hang them. It's very likely the problem will come to an end.
Historians will damn the addiction to the Sacred Status Quo by politicians in Berlin and Washington that delayed a Ukrainian victory at considerable cost.
What I really wish Biden had the courage to say clearly is that this *is* our war. At this point, I don't think there's any way to avoid a major world war within the next five years ("The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.") But would you rather it be the War of the Russian Succession or NATO fighting Russian armies in Lithuania and Poland? This should not be a hard question to answer.
This was never a US war. Ukraine is not a vital US interest. And no, unless the dying Western Empire provokes it, a major world war can be easily avoided.
I disagree with your position, Baker indicated to Gorbo Ukraine would NOT be a NATO state, Obama and Brennan used that threat - as well as brutal actions by the now state armed Azov nazis against russians in east Ukraine - to goad Putin into a war.
That said, 10 points for the quote.
I expect we can agree, as in all things polmil, the truth about Ukraine is a three edged sword.
A. Baker didn't have authority? Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner ...
No, Baker did not have that authority. Another problem pops up as well. Unless it is the form of a treaty, it does not bind another administration.
For Putin, and his imperial antecedents, war is something they engage in because of their ideology.
If NATO membership was a trip wire, then why did the other members vote to accept eastern European countries. Recall, it requires a unanimous vote to accept a new member.
"Unless it is the form of a treaty, it does not bind another administration."
"Ha ha, you didn't get it in writing!" turns out to not be that effective of a way to justify your actions. Got us into this war, didn't it? Pretty dishonorable to now claim that Putin should accept getting cheated with a shrug.
And by what criteria does this make this "our war?" You see the President prepared to go before Congress to declare war? Or a congress prepared to vote for such a declaration? Or is this going to be another one of those "short" conflicts where the dollars flow in another open-ended military excursion that twists and turns based on current events?
Funny you should mention Vance. His book was terrible: self-serving, condescending and poorly written, and he hasn't changed. Worse, he's aided and abetted by editors who take his fatuous statement and turn it into a headline about all senators and republicans.
Lidia, funny that you should be so opinionated about this subject. Your country is kind of a parasite when it comes to the whole NATO/defense spending issue. Maybe you should hang around Canadian military blogs and see if y’all can increase your spending to 2, maybe even 3% of your GDP.
Funny you should be so personal about someone you know nothing about, Tom. I was discussing a book by JD Vance. Maybe come up with a pertinent response and not personalized drivel.
So sorry Lidia. I guess I could have chosen any of the multiple comments you have posted in order to ask my question. I had just not seen previous posts of yours in the past so I wondered, “Who IS this defense expert?” I clicked on your name and your substack page identified you as a “Canadian living in Ukraine”. Is your nationality like that whole “gender fluid” thing that’s all the rage nowadays? How bigoted of me to assume that someone who identifies themselves as “Canadian” is not actually a Canadian. So again, any chance that your self-identified country of origin can put up a couple bucks for the effort? Or do you figure “Ukrainian blood and American money” is your cause and you’re sticking to it?
So much wrong with your comments. Ukraine is not a democracy. They are a kleptocracy, not ready for foreign investment. And they will never be in NATO.
As for Vance, just because he doesn't want to waste money on a neocon crusade doesn't make him a Russian stooge.
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. In the last 32 years, Ukraine has had 7 legitiimate presidential elections with the peaceful transfer of power., unlike the US (Jan. 6, 2021 ring a bell? "Stop the steal" campaigns?). russia is a kelptocracy ("a society or system ruled by people who use their power to steal their country's resources"), Ukraine is not. Unlike Putin, our president isn't considered one of the richest people in the world and is not in control of all the country's energy and resource companies. Zelenskiy's only business is a TV and film production company.
As to Vance, he's a lousy writer and an even poorer politician. He's out for the main chance and no more, whatever that might be, a follower, not a leader.
"Zelenskiy fires slew of top officials, cites need to clean up Ukraine.....
.....A long-running battle against corruption in Ukraine....
....The outgoing officials include five regional governors, four deputy ministers and a senior presidential office official seen as close to Zelenskiy."
Can’t say I’ve seen many of your posts before Mike, but I note that you are self-identified as a “Former Political Campaign field manager”. So would you be from the party of DEI, “The Squad”, and 10% for the Big Guy? It just helps when sorting things out.
Many in the US who are against Ukraine aid are making their decisions based on these things:
(1) Administration is defending their border but not ours
(2) Administration is exceedingly corrupt and Ukraine has been part of that corruption
There's no need to bash people who see points 1 and 2 and conclude we shouldn't help Ukraine. They are wrong, but they don't 'reek of cheap vodka from St Petersburg'
Thank you. I had a phone call on Sunday night with a volunteer on the front, and she talked about how there's some fear of running low on ammo, but the men are confident they'll hold the line with counting their shots, or they joke, sticks and stones.
It's amazing, heroic resistance, but there's no reason that these people should ever even THINK of running low on ammo.
right, because they would be so much better off living under a Russian jackboot?
How stupid are you? Do you really think Putin is some good guy?
Just because the corrupt western elite support Ukraine does NOT mean that Putin is good.
You have failed to grasp that Putin, like XI, is an even GREATER threat than the western elites.
Ukraine, like Poland, if free, would naturally gravitate more toward conservative politics, since Eastern European populations are still far more culturally conservative than western Europe.
Supporting Ukraine DOES NOT = agreeing with Biden.
Your too stupid to recognize that Biden WANTED Ukraine to fail, since that would return status quo, and empower China.
Let Putin win in Ukraine and I guarantee within a generation, Russia will re-take, hard or soft, most of Eastern Europe, and China will take most of Asia, and we will be very alone in the world when our debts get called in.
You can see common sense and the need for global trade and allies without being a neocon.
Neocons think you can change people, make democracies out of tribal goat rapists.
That was always a fools hope. Majority Islamic nations are a LOST CAUSE culturally.
But Ukraine is one of those that COULD be saved, except idiots like you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I care not for either Ukraine or Russia, it is their little war not mine, not my grandsons and not on my dime. Both can go urinate up a line made of rope.
Don't you wish. Shows how little you have been following this war and how non-existent is your understanding of Ukrainians. I just wonder where all that meanness in you comes from.
If Biden keeps slow rolling his failure to supply what Ukraine needs, they will lose. I think if what Ukraine needed early had ben supplied, the war would be over, and Putin would be living in Venezuela to escape the wrath of his own people.
Mike, your point is valid; your invective, not so much. Calling someone a "moron," while it feels good in the moment, does little to advance the discussion.
Now, we all know that the Trump ties to Russia are as far from a hoax as we can get; because we can practically see the strings that Putin pulls to move his puppets, but calling folks tricked by lies "morons" isn't going to cause the scales from their eyes. Calm, rational, argument may.
You’re not wrong. Heck, you’re right. It takes great energy to not leap across the table when some talks like that in person. I struggle to expend that effort online.
"Trump is Putin's puppet"? Really? Where have you been the past 7 years? Holding on to this lie in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary really discredits your entire worldview and opinions.
2) Are you seriously suggesting that Trump was in fact beholden to Russia? After ALL the investigations, all the clear shenanigans, all the abuse of authority by FBI, DOJ, etc?
This is the problem. Damn near everyone has predefined their opinion on Ukraine based on opinions on Trump.
I hate Trump. I voted for him twice and will again, because what many neocons and never trumpers can't get over is that while Trump IS a narcissist, he's NOT an authoritarian.
Hell. before Trump, Republicans KNEW that the executive was supposed to exert strong control over the EXECUTIVE branch.
Weak presidents with a non-accountable executive bureaucracy are what get us into the messes we've been in.
So no matter what an ass Trump is, is he really worse that Biden selling out to China? Than Biden turning us into a gender fluid nations of spineless race-baiting pussies?
Never-trumpers lost their friggin minds!!!!
Never in 1,000 years could a 2nd Trump admin have been HALF as bad as the disaster Biden has brought us.
and I repeat, I HATE Trump. I'm a DeSantis guy, 100%
A CNN investigation recently found that a 10-inch-thick binder containing Russian intelligence from the CIA went missing toward the end of Donald Trump's time in office.
2) I worked at CIA, as both a contractor and staffer, for the better part of a decade (no, this isn't my real name). Do you know how often they lose shit?
3) CIA does not produce ANYTHING directly for POTUS. CIA submits intel to NSC and the PDB team which produce the PDB and daily read books. While they are highly classified, there is rarely anything groundbreaking in them.
4) A missing binder means Trump did it? Have you not see all the voluminous indications that the entire Russia canard was paid for by the Clinton campaign from the start and fabricated? Where was ANY evidence? As opposed to the mountains of evidence against Biden and his son.
Those issues you describe are the salacious crap peddled by Trump hating media who know that 99.9% of their audience will 1) assume Trump is guilty of anything they say and 2) don't have a single clue how the internal workings of government function, and therefore are not in a position to question what may sound incriminating on the surface, but which to an insider sounds like total made up bullshit
Seriously. Think about that for a second. That is a binder nearly 1 foot thick.
The largest binders in common use are usually 3".
You really think the CIA is going to send an intelligence product to POTUS that is so thick it can barely be carried by the average staffer?
It screams "bullshit" right on it's face.
I repeat - I hate Trump. He annoys the shit out of me and he is definitely a narcissist. But he was never most of the things he was accused of. Racist? Nazi? Give me a break. His grandkids are Jewish.
The stuff about immigration from majority Muslim countries? HE WAS RIGHT!!
Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Convince me otherwise. I distinguish between Islam, the system, and Muslims, who as individuals are like most other people. Most are good and just want a decent life. But they are part of a system that preaches religious hatred that liberals in this country enamored with the boogeyman of "Christian Nationalism" can't even begin to understand.
Try reading just a little bit of history on that topic.
But no, Trump is not a Russian stooge. 10 inch binder my ass.
Nobody gives any finished intelligence product to POTUS that is anything more than 30'000 foot overview, except where it is a specific decision-brief recommending COA, and even then, your looking at a 15-20 page document at most.
There was some validity to that theory way back when Marxism was the motivating ideology behind all that domino toppling. Now, without the declared goal of world domination of Marxism, it is rather ridiculous to state that Russia seeks to fulfill some manifest destiny to expand its borders from Pacific to Atlantic---and even beyond.
Except that the Russians themselves pretty much say this all the damn time.
They think the entire Warsaw Pact is theirs to do with as they please.
Tell me, what message do you think it sends to the smaller nations of the world living in the shadow of Russia or China if we bail on Ukraine?
It says the US won't have your back, your on your own, make the best deal you can.
And they will.
And in a generation, we will be isolated and alone.
The only reason authoritarianism doesn't rule the world today is that the US cast off our foolish isolationism to win WW2 and the Cold War.
That is NOT the same thing as the NEoCons. You are lumping 2 different things together.
The NEcons would try to make the rest of the world - especially the Islamic world, into miniature versions of the US, on the stupid theory that you can export culture and civilization to goat raping tribal savages.
That is NOT the same as saying "we won't let dictators conquer you" and helping other countries, even imperfect ones, stand up to outside agression.
Ergo, let me simplify
1) Invade Afghanistan and kill Al Qaida and Taliban helpers = rational
2) Stay in Afghanistan and create "democracy" = NeOcOn Bullshit
1) Bomb the shit out of WMD and military targets in Iraq to keep Saddam in line = rational
2) Invade Iraq thinking we will create stable democracy to off-set Iran = NeOcOn Bullshite
1) Arm Ukraine with weapons we would otherwise use to oppose Russia and keep them in the fight, weakening Russia and sending a message of support to other small nations that fear Russia or China = rational
2) Sending US troops to die in Ukraine = stupid. But so is letting Russia win.
" what message do you think it sends to the smaller nations of the world living in the shadow of Russia or China if we bail on Ukraine? It says the US won't have your back, your on your own, make the best deal you can."
Like Finland, maybe? They seem to have done all right living "in the shadow of Russia". At any rate that argument is pretty much irrelevant as every European country "in the shadow of Russia" except Ukraine is a NATO member.
"the US cast off our foolish isolationism to win WW2 and the Cold War."
The alleged isolationism of the US before WWII is much exaggerated. The Washington Naval Treaty (1922) and the Second London Naval Treaty (1936) are just two examples of US interwar involvement in international affairs.
Tim, you seem like a reasonable fellow (as opposed to Billy who seems like a troll)
You are, IMHO, falling prey to the same logical fallacies that bedevil the boys (and gender fluid whatevers) at Foggy Bottom.
You are expecting Russian logic to make sense to Western thinking. This is why State always thinks sanctions and treaties will work, because it's logical.
Russians don't play by our rules, or see the world the same way. They - and the Chin ese - see the world in exclusively zero-sum terms.
In that world view, they may not need to 'conquer' the world.
But they do wish to be THE global superpower. And both of them know that THEY cannot be the superpower as long as WE ARE.
And to that end, they will never stop trying to topple us off our perch.
The irony is that, even if we don't see the world in zero-sum terms, the fact that our adversaries do requires us to respond as if it is, or risk being taken down by them.
That is not as simplistic as invasion and conquering. It is mostly economic warfare, hybrid warfare, the likes of which both countries have already been waging against us for over a decade.
But make no mistake - the day the dollar is knocked off as the default currency, or Europe turns to China or Russia (either from greed OR fear) is the day we watch our standard of living start a rapid and inescapable fall into levels of despair not seen even during the Great Depression.
See, we created the awesome fiction, that the world was civilized, because we did civilize a small portion of it (Europe, Japan, a few of our and the Brits former colonies).
But the rest of the world, especially China and Russia, don't see our rules as worth following except when they have to. Russia will ALWAYS lie, cheat, steal, sign false peace treaties, bide their time, etc..
And yes, in that sense, they and China are very real threats to us.
I may not be worried about Russian and Cuban paratroopers in Colorado, but I AM worried about destabilization of the dollar as fiat currency and our ability to sustain our debt levels, and the fact that there are less than 100 people in the entire United States capable of building a steam engine should the shit really hit the fan.
Because if you understand Russian history and the Russian imperila mindset, you know the next Russian steps—under Putin, under his successor, under that successor's successor—will be to go through Belarus, Georgia and Moldova, then Romania, and the Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
And then its our boys and girls over there.
You might think that won't happen, but you'd be wrong. It's fine, many Americans don't understand Russia. But it's neighbors do. Warsaw is warning about it in three years. It's understandable to not know that, but now you do.
If you think even then it still won't matter to Americans, there is something deeply wrong in how you few everything from economics and trade to basic morality. I don't want to accuse you of that, so please head my first comment.
Sluggo, you are beyond ignorant. If you really don't care, stop writing drivel in response to articles on this war and work to get out the vote instead.
It's hard to "dislike" something that is simpoly ignorant and ignorance at least can be cured. For instance, I've lived here for 31 years, had a business, own property and drive a car, and I've yet to be asked for a bribe, let alone pay one. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen somewhere, but I have not experienced it. I didn't grow up paying bribes, so it was not something I ever considered doing. But I remember my father telling me in the early sixties that he was regularly hit up by the traffic police (in our big city in North America) because he drove with an MD license plate and they assumed he had money to spare.
Am I to assume you are claiming to have lived in Ukraine for 31 years? If so, perhaps you can tell me how a culture steeped in the corruption and inefficiency and brutality of a few hundred years of Czarist rule and about 70 years of even more corrupt and brutal Soviet rule has transformed, in the space of less than one generation, into a model of capitalist integrity and efficiency and democratic governance? I find that truly remarkable to contemplate--even unlikely.
Pretty sure there was plenty of that in South Korea and Taiwan back in the day. It couldn't be overcome in Vietnam. Here all signs point to nurturing the seed and letting it grow.
The piss is gonna land on you and yours, though. The world is round, and it's getting smaller every year. Leaving the Czechs to their fate didn't work last century, and leaving the Ukrainians to theirs won't work in this one.
Thankfully, the country as a whole has not proved so forgetful as you.
Think of it as you don't have to pick and have to give one. I choose the dime. The ferryman's business is coins and souls. Throw the coins such he looks he other way on the fact the ferry is empty.
I have similar opinions, but I have had a lifelong antipathy for the Russian gov't – based mostly on an early hatred of the Soviets, who would have killed my grandfathers if they hadn't fled westward in 1944.
Much as the thought of kneecapping the Bear via a third party like Ukraine appeals to my emotions, I haven't yet seen a persuasive reason to do more to defend NATO's frontier than our NATO "allies" are prepared to do.
I would like someone to explain this to me as if I'm a selfish bastard with very limited financial resources, a good understanding of US and world history, a back yard that butts up against our border with Mexico, and only one child ... who just so happens to be around 20 and in prime physical condition to be a stellar infantry soldier.
Treat me as if I'm that guy, and then persuade me how it's in my interest for America to risk getting roped into a ground war in Europe against Russia.
If that's too high a hurdle to clear, then can someone please explain to Hypothetical Selfish Me why I should subordinate my very concrete interests to the alleged interests of America in this war?
Barring that, can anybody tell me clearly why it benefits America to stop Russia from invading Europe? Sure, any such invasion would be morally unjustifiable, and would result in death and tyranny. But please tell me why America should send my hypothetical son over there to stop the Russians, especially when guys like Hypothetical Me who happen to live in Germany and France and Spain and Turkey and Greece and other "allied countries" seem less willing to put their posterity on the line than I.
It seems like nowadays many people want bonafides of what a person believes before they'll listen. You seem like a decent guy, so I'll do my best to answer your question as honestly as I can.
First, my bonafides. Former Marine Infantry officer and CIA paramilitary guy (not my real name on here). Now I do Emergency Managment.
I have 4 teenagers, 2 in college, 2 in high school. half of them interested in military service (Infantry or SOCOM)
I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. I know the Russia Hoax was a hoax and that the bureaucracy in this country is heavily D corrupt - I'm still in gov service now.
I voted Trump 2x, I don't like him, but will again, because he is FAR better than Biden.
Now that you know which way I lean...
I 100% support Arming Ukraine to the teeth and doing everything short of sending US troops into combat in Ukraine.
Why? (Other than the moral "do the right thing" arguments)
Our (America) standard of living is based 100% on global trade and our position as THE dominant economy. Do we have problems? Hell yeah. Border, wokeism, all the issues you listed. We would 100% agree on all those issues and most of the needed solutions.
But I'm a geopolitical realist. Isolationism cannot work. It would result in the dollar being devalued, and China taking over the world economy.
We don't make enough shit anymore. Not like we did in WW2. We CAN'T stand alone.
This isn't about being able to hold off foreign invaders like Red Dawn.
This is about the smaller countries of the world aligning with Russia or China, and our trade dries up.
We can't import critical minerals for making high tech? Our economy implodes.
We can't sell our high tech, our military tech, because we can't make enough of it? Our cars, etc.. We implode.
IN short, we have the standard of living we currently enjoy BECAUSE we came out of WW2 as the powerhouse and WE set the rules for the global economy. However many problems we have, it is still better here than anywhere else.
If we walk away from that, we will be economically crushed.
This country needs to be rejuvenated. I'm not sure we can do it. It may be a lost cause. Every empire fails eventually.
But for damn sure we can't do it if we are in the middle of an even worse "Greater Depression" and the 25% of our youth who now favor socialism or marxism are taking us apart from within.
We NEED a stable global economy based on the rules that WE built, to maintain a chance at having the breathing space to fix our problems here at home.
In addition, Europe is under 3 critical threats.
1) Russia - mid-term. Ukraine loses, Russia eventually comes for the rest of the Warsaw pact, our trade partners get crushed
2) China - China is the devil, and tempts Europe with cheap trade, to co-opt corrupt politicians more interested in a quick buck than long term interests. Hell, we have that here in our country with President Sniffy.
3) Islam - unchecked immigration will result in Islam's conquest of Europe. The day Germany becomes 51% Muslim, everything changes, and shit get's real in a hurry
So, while you may not care about Europe, It will eventually have critical consequences for your son.
If Islam becomes dominant, we WILL be at war constantly. Islam seeks nothing less than global dominance. The Islamic apologists simply don't understand the Koran. Individual Muslims may be peaceful, but they are a beholden to a system that is 100% about violent conquest. It is an EVIL religion.
So yes, I personally see preserving Europe as in the US best interest, as worth myself or my sons or daughters fighting, and if needed, dying to protect.
Not because I love the Europeans. But because the alternatives are cataclysmically bad.
I hope that provided some level of answer. Appreciate your fair and open-minded question.
I missed the part where there are American troops in Ukraine. American troops will have to defend NATO members if Putin notches Ukraine on his belt and moves on to the next country on his list.
Cherry picking again, There are none and will not be if we the people have anything to do about it, you think the Vietnam anti-war riots were bad wait till the Government tries to put US forces ashore in Ukraine..
Putin is not a threat to the US, he only wants that part of Russia that voted to be Russian and end the war Ukraine started in 2014.
Putin can have every stinky corrupt part of Ukraine and hell, Europe too.
It ain't like the euro's ever armed up and instead hated American and wanted us to die for them again like we did twice so far.
I don't care if Putin gets all of Ukraine.
American troops will NOT fight and die for Ukraine's silly ass war.
That’s a low blow amigo. Capt Mongo has proven his integrity for years on the porch. I disagree with a lot of positions regarding this war but I also deeply respect most of the people whom I disagree with. Capt Mongo is one of them and of course Sal. I also happen to agree with your position on this war but I don’t condone your comment that Capt Mongo is a somehow a sycophant. He isn’t.
Not a sycophant, but to be in good standing in the tribe, there are core issues in which there can be little dissent. Russia is one of them. I suspect both he and CDR, if they rationally analyzed the issue, would conclude that the whole Ukraine thing was a mistake. But until it's cool in the tribe to consider that maybe Russia is not the threat it is being made out to be, they should occasionally give their harumph, lest they lose their standing.
I stand opposed to both of their positions but I still highly respect them and an interested in their views. I’m certain they are open to debate and opposing views as well. It is what made them the officers they became and are.
There are very good people that have done the analysis you think you have done, and have reached a far different conclusion that you. Most of those people have served in Europe and know the Russians and Ukrainians quite well and understand the geopolitical issues you do not understand. Instead, people like you rave on myths and misinformation. Both Phib and Mongo understand the stakes. You do not, and are no willing to actually look at what the stakes are.
We had your sort during Vietnam, who protested a war for their Soviet masters, and they knew who they were supporting. Unlike them, you simply carry on from a position of abysmal ignorance and think it's patriotism.
And we had a boatload of your sort--" very good people that have done the analysis you think you have done,---and understand the geopolitical issues you do not understand.". --the "best and brightest" who got us into Vietnam, spent years fumbling around, and ended up losing after wasting tens of thousands of lives and untold amounts of money. The same "best and brightest" who got us into Afghanistan, spent 20 years fumbling around, and created an Army and government that didn't last 90 days after the last American left. Some people are slow learners.
The people that have been dealing with Ukraine are not the same people as the left's brain trust on Vietnam, nor are they even of anything like their character. They are people that have been in the trenches and have had to deal with the geopolitical issues that affect military planning and decisions.
Those that tried nation building in the AFG were idiots. They got closer in Iraq, but I don't think they succeeded there either. Ukraine is already a nation.
The fate of Ukraine is not up to a wishy-washy USA, but a test of Europe's resolve and will. It's up to them if Russia will be allowed to do this, as they will inevitably endeavor to do again and again if given the chance. Poland and Lithuania know what's at stake, but the fat and comfortable nations to their west are always more than capable of ignoring evidence.
This is the gist of it...”At a relatively modest cost in our treasure and almost none of our blood, we are wearing down Russia’s ability to project power for a generation, perhaps two.”
Ukraine being part of NATO was an existential threat for Russia.
Please note that countries decide what constitutes an existential threat for themselves. In 2014, when Ukraine asked for NATO membership, Russia was very clear on this being unacceptable.
I don’t excuse or support Russia invading Ukraine, but if we had told Ukraine “No NATO” in 2014 (or later) this war wouldn’t have happened.
Now that they have, and Ukraine can’t throw Russia out, they need to make a deal, and wait for another day.
I don’t fear Russia invading a NATO country, because NATO is a nuclear armed peer competitor.
Further, Ukraine lost my support (which I thought would be impossible given what the suffered under the USSR) when they told the FBI to lean on social media companies to censor Americans.
Please read up a little history before quoting it. Ukraine applied to get the NATO MAP, along with Geogia, in April 2008 (the tail end of Bush's presidency). They were turned down and four months later, in August 2008, russia invaded Georgia. The West did not get the message. NATO rejected both countries again that November and russia started planning its takeover of Ukraine, which it started in 2014. When you know the correct sequence of events, the lessons are a lot easier to recognize. Unfortunately, the West and NATO failed to draw the right conclusions. You show weakness to a bully and the bully will beat you up. It's that simple. Right now, the US is showing weakness and there are TWO bullies sharpening knives, even if russia's are very rusty.
The rest of what you wrote is baloney. Ukraine doesn't censor at home, let alone abroad. It hasn't even leaned on FB to stop banning and restricting Ukrainian users who are constantly blocked for posts about this war. Frankly, this country and this president have more to worry about since February 2022. You're probably reading conspiracy sites.
You might want to read up a bit more on the Pechersk Lavra, whose main church, the Dormition Cathedral, was destroyed by Stalin, blamed on the Germans, and rebuilt by Kuchma. The MP Orthodox Church had a lease on the use of the territory that has been terminated. Its adherents refused to leave the premises and were systematically stealing precious items that belonged to the monastery, not to the MP Orthodox Church. Attempts have been made to evict these people. Do you have a problem with that? Your belligerene towards Ukraine suggests that your real name is the second half in the avatar. You don't like Ukraine? No problem. Go work for some russian propaganda outlet instead—if you don't already...
I have no belligerence towards Ukraine. In fact I think it's criminal what has been done to them, especially in the loss of life and limb. Boris Johnson and whomever sent him to stop the April 2022 peace process should be tried and hung for the cost in Ukrainian lives.
The Monastery was held by Russian connected Orthodox monks. They lost it because the Moscow Patriarchate Church was caught giving direct support to Russia. The Moscow patriarchate was banned for that very reason. Other Churches, including the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is doing well. You are misinformed as to what is going on because you are listening to Putin's propaganda network.
If you think their information is inaccurate, I am open to any evidence you have.
#2 - January 2022 - Biden administration re-affirms Ukraine’s “right to join NATO”. Even at that late date, the war could have been avoided if they had said “No, Ukraine will not be joining NATO, now, or ever.” Ukraine in NATO would be a massive strategic liability, and I am puzzled as to why any except Ukraine would think it is a good idea. Do you have any thoughts ?
#3 Russia will probably be satisfied with the Donbas region. Russia conquering all of Ukraine and trying to govern it is a recipe for disaster. Ukraine can’t retake the Donbas. It’s a bitter pill, but the other option is to grind on in a war with no hope of victory. Ukraine needs to cut their losses and build nuclear weapons.
#4 On what basis do you believe Russia is going to invade a NATO country after the war in Ukraine is over?
#5 I have no illusions about Putin. He’s a bad guy who kills his political opponents. Regardless of that, NO Russian leader would accept Ukraine in NATO, not even whoever is in charge of the liberal opposition in Russia. It’s a non-negotiable position for Russia, regardless of who is in charge.
You have posted a lot of junk. The planning for war in Ukraine started in Moscow at least as far back as 2008. That is well before Yanukovych ran for Moscow, and it was long before anything was going on in the Donbas. Anyone that wants to tell you that Putin invaded to protect Russian speakers/ethnics, is lying to you.
Biden knows there is no "right to join NATO." It depends on every member of NATO and requires some serious hoops to just get to the point of the actual application to join NATO. Ukraine was no where close to that. their military was a joke and they were more corrupt than Russia.
I'm glad you think you have no illusions about Putin, but you are still geopolitically blind. The Sudetenland was nonnegotiable for Hitler, and we know where that led. NATO was not an issue in the war. The issue is Putin's desire to return Russia to the borders of Tsarist Russia. That was his intention when he came to power, and that is what he is working towards.
If Ukraine gets the aid they need, Putin can be forced out of Ukraine.
Why was 2008 the year planning began? Because that’s the year Ukraine first applied for NATO membership.
That was the turning point. I haven’t mentioned Yanukovych at all, and I only mentioned Donbas as what Russia will settle for, along with a neutral Ukraine. Protecting Russians wasn’t worth a general war. Keeping Ukraine out of NATO clearly was.
I have posted no junk.
Biden’s insisted that Ukraine joining NATO was still an open question throughout the Russian buildup of late ‘21 and ‘22.
Russia took him at his word and invaded.
Putin may indeed want a return to USSR borders, but he can’t get the NATO members back. The USSR would have loved to have conquered Western Europe, but NATO made sure the risk outweighed the reward, and that hasn’t changed at all.
What aid does Ukraine need to drive the Russians out of their country?
I have said "as early as." It is known that planning was going on in 2008, but it may have been earlier. Alas, most of what you said was junk. as for the time when it started ask Putin. It was his intention to take Ukraine. as it has been said repeatedly, Russia is not an empire without Ukraine. Putin wants it all, and simply pausing the war, cutting a deal or otherwise, will simply result in a renewed war.
You underestimate Putin's intentions. The geopolitical demands he is listening to do not include your limited thinking on the issue. His goals include Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics, A large chunk of Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland to the Vistula. You can doubt this if you like, but you are welcome to join the same ilk that did everything they could to see that the efforts in Vietnam and Korea failed.
As for what aid is needed, the best that can be said is you have not paid attention to what is going on.
I’m sure planning goes back to the independence of Ukraine in 1991.
Why did you use 2008 as the year that planning had “at least” begun by?
In May of this year, we said Russia had 20k KIA. We are now saying over 300k KIA. That is quite a variance in 7 months. Although 315k dead supports my position that Russia will need a lot of time to recover for anything they might want to do, I can’t trust it.
Putin’s goals don’t matter.
Even if he wants full restoration of the USSR’s borders at their World War II heights, he’s not going to risk nuclear war to achieve them.
It doesn’t follow at all that my appraisal of Russia’s strategy and intentions means I opposed US victory in Korea and Viet Nam. The Russians are no longer infected with the disease of communism. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous or without national ambition, but they are no longer seeking a world revolution where “Soviets” administer “People’s Justice” via a bullet to the back of the head. We should have used nuclear weapons against the PRC as MacArthur recommended. We also should have invaded North Viet Nam and over thrown the communists.
I’ve been specific in my answers. Can you lay out what aid Ukraine needs to defeat Russia? If you won’t reciprocate, I will not continue the discussion.
You can figure that Putin had his eyes on Ukraine a long time before 2008 - he's following the path set out in this - https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics And part of Dugin's book is amazingly prescient, almost if there was a plan in place: "Within the United States itself, there is a need for the Russian special services and their allies "to provoke all forms of instability and separatism within the borders of the United States (it is possible to make use of the political forces of Afro-American racists)" (248). "It is especially important," Dugin adds, "to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements-- extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics" (367)." That was in 1997, by the way...
As you know, intention and plans are two different things. I do believe that Putin's intentions form the start of his dictatorship , were to take Ukraine and reintegrate it back into the Russian Empire. War planning, however, is supposed to take into account logistics and other problems they may face in the actual execution of military operations. You know that already, I'm sure.
The earliest year I have come across for war plans in Ukraine is 2008. There may well have been work before that, but I have not seen anything that points to an earlier date.
"On Saturday and Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky invoked his emergency powers under martial law to suppress several opposition political parties and implement a "unified information policy."
"Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that the country’s presidential election, that in peacetime would be expected next March, will not be taking place while Ukraine remains under martial law and is in a state of war with Russia."
"President Zelenskyy has consolidated all TV platforms in Ukraine into one state broadcast and restricted political rivals. Political opposition fears such civil liberty constraints could continue."
#1 - Suspends Moscow tied political parties. I suppose we should have approved of the German-American Bund. Don't be silly.
#2 - In Ukraine, elections are not lawful under martial law. Quit being silly.
#3 - The opposition that worries about censorship being continued are tied to Moscow. In WW2 the US had a similar policy. They allowed the networks to continue operating, but when they got out of line, they got squeezed. The news was routinely censored. usually it was cast as a request, but the news organs knew what could happen if they did not cooperate.
Since what you have posted come directly from Putin's propaganda network, Russian disinformation is exactly what it is. Reading the idiocy coming out of Moscow alerts you to where the nonsense you posted originates.
If a party showed up in the US that was intent on supporting an adversary and undermining the US, I suspect it might also not last long. That's not a genuine "opposition." That's known as traitors.
The Baltic states are part of NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all.
We don’t have a “tripwire” nuclear policy, at least not anymore.
Any NATO - Russia war would start conventionally. Both sides having nuclear weapons makes things incredibly dangerous. Either side can say to themselves “they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons if we did X”, but that’s an awfully big risk.
That's why we had a hundred thousand or more troops in Germany---hostages. Hard to write off that many brothers, husbands, sons, ......and their families.
I don’t know if the phrase “such action as it deems necessary” supports your assertion.
No action short of armed force is going to “restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
If you are saying that one or more countries could abandon their NATO obligations, you are right, but that’s still a huge risk for Russia to take, given nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, any NATO-Russia war would be awfully close to the borders of Russia. I would seriously consider using nukes to defend the borders of the US, and I assume the Russians would do the same. So how do you defeat a country if you cannot cross its borders? The Ukrainians (and its supporters) should probably consider that.
Countries can be defeated without crossing their borders. Perhaps they cross your borders without a shot being fired and defeat you in turn; I reference the SW border of the USA.
Best duty I ever had. No one bothers you when you are on leave. Not At The Office and Not After Two O'clock. Life can be very good if you are stationed in Germany or Italy. Those NATO coupons made gasoline affordable.
Serious countries decide what constitutes an existential threat for themselves. If the US was a serious country they would pay their border the attention they're paying to Ukraine's border.
It's not a two sided coin. It's not even a Mendel square. You have to look at its political nature in three dimensions - a cube. One Y/N axis is US Border Security funding, second axis is Ukraine support funding, with the third axis being Israel support funding. While there are eight permutations, the clustering becomes obvious.
I respectfully disagree. The people determined to leave our own border open to invasion by all comers are the same people demanding we defend Ukraine's border against a Russian invasion.
If I were a cynical man, I might suspect these same people of wanting to weaken American society via domestic invasion, and wanting to weaken America's military via a foreign adventure (defending a country that ever-so-coincidentally serves as their money laundering paradise).
Both Putin and Xi have ties to the problems at the southern border. A large component of the invaders from the south are Chinese, Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban, and Nicaraguan. Several years ago, there was a cargo container discovered in California with Chinese made infantry weapons (I do not recall if it also held explosives). Wanna bet that a goodly number of those from the countries listed above are actually troops and simply waiting for the order to move, draw weapons and start strikes?
Geopolitical problems rarely occur in isolation. The lines go back to Peking and Moscow.
Nobody's "defending Ukraine's border." Ukraine's border was violated by russia back in 2014 and Ukraine's been doing all the fighting ever since. All our allies are providing material support only. No boots on the grounnd. In the case of the US, it's coming out of the Pentagon's budget (3%), not related to Homeland or border agencies.
BS. Ukraine in NATO was no threat to Russia. The Ukrainians should build nukes as Russia has violated the Budapest Memorandum and deserves nothing less.
The only thing "a deal" will yield is a short pause in the war. It is willful ignorance to think Russia will not retool and come back again. That is Russian history and took them from the small duchy of Muscovy to the pacific littoral. To think Putin is any different than the Tsars he trying to emulate is silly. At best.
Whether or not Ukraine in NATO would or wouldn’t be a threat doesn’t matter, because Russia saw it as an existential threat. That’s what they’ve said, and that’s how they’ve acted.
I appreciate your agreement that Putin is acting no different than any Russian leader would.
Although I view all casualty figures and reports of equipment destruction very skeptically, I do believe a lot of Russian and Ukrainian fighting men have been killed, too many for a “short pause” after the war is over. Ukrainian nuclear weapons will deter future invasions by Russia.
It was politically convenient to see NATO as such a threat. It was a a simple minded lie that anyone familiar with history knows to be a lie.
Putin is acting like a Bolshevik, or a Tsarist. To say such behavior is to condoned, as you imply, is not acceptable and betrays a basic misinformed world view of geopolitics. Either Putin loses, or the problem will return because that's how people of his ilk operate. Cutting a deal and renuclearizing will not solve the problem. Once they know Ukraine has nukes, it will restart immediately. You have not been paying attention.
Based on death benefits paid, about 320K Russian troops have been killed. The amount of equipment destroyed is even easier to deal with. Aerial photos will tell you that story and is likely to be the most accurate.
Stop buying into all the nonsense about an "existential threat" for russia. It's about as serious as all the rumors of putin's bad health. (Somehow, having Finland's long border added to the previous 200 miles or so of NATO borders that actually touched on russia didn't seem to faze Putin at all.) The only existential threat to russia is a sovereign, successful Ukraine. The takeover of Crimea was to grab all the resources (mostly gas) in the Black Sea shelf. There are considerable deposits there that would have made Ukraine independent of russia for natural gas. There's also a huge shale gas field running from Sloviansk to Kharkiv. Now take a look at a map of the frontline since 2014... that's what's "existential" to russia.
Russia signed a treaty in 1997 (NATO Russia Founding Act) that said all its neighbors can make their own national security decisions and Russia will not resort to violence.
So Ukraine in NATO should not have been a red line for Moscow. Sure, it's a premature idea at best, but Ukraine in NATO is fully consistent with the 1997 treaty.
"So Ukraine in NATO should not have been a red line for Moscow. "
That's your opinion. Moscow obviously disagrees. Nothing in the document mentions Ukraine or NATO expansion. Perhaps it should have been, but it wasn't. That does not mean there were no side-agreements or understandings.
NATO and Russia will base their relations on a shared commitment to the following principles ...
refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence ...
respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination
"refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence"
Ukraine is a state, and was before 1997. All states get sovereignty, so Ukraine gets sovereignty.
"respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination"
Ukraine is a state. All states have the inherent right to choose how to be secure, so they all can join alliances. Thus, Ukraine can join NATO, or CSTO, or whatever alliance will take them.
Elsewhere it says NATO will not store nuclear weapons in new member states. NATO never agreed not to admit new members, just agreed to limit the weapons stored there.
If you want to argue that NATO expansion was a bad idea, fine. But the 1997 treaty implicitly allowed expansion, as long as NATO did not move nuclear weapons to the East.
Ukraine is in Europe, so Europe must step in. Germany, France, Spain, Poland, all the eastern Europe nations, must act, because the United States cannot do it ALL. Germany, especially, (but really ALL of them) have been free-riding on the US to keep NATO running. But with our own economy in the tank (FJB) and the US under literal invasion from the south, we can't strip our own defenses bare to give Zelinskyy another yacht (he has two!) and another million dollar shopping spree for his wife.
And it's terrible that the Democrats had been using Ukraine as the place to launder their money. But I can't manage to feel sorry for them there.
What are your sources for your claiim that "the Democrats have been using Ukraine as a place to launder their money"? First time I hear that one. If it's about Burisma, try doing a little research about that subject.
Your comments about the Zelenskys are shameful and make no sense. He does not have two yachts and she does not go on "shopping sprees.' You must have confused her with Melania and Ivanka. Stop listening to russian propaganda.
If Europe doesn't want to, then why should we? The United States has pulled Europe's butt out of the fire twice before; I'm old and tired and I'm not willing to sacrifice my grandchildren to save France and Germany any longer.
The Yacht story was debunked by a man that tracks sales of the Yachts that Zelensky supposedly bought. The original site that published the story withdrew it shortly afterward. The actual origin of the story was Moscow.
There was maybe an argument for slow walking certain types of aid in the name of caution and salami-slicing, but at this point I think that's run through most of not all the credibility it had.
This will be a long war. Ukraine should have all the material it needs.
I think European and American reserves of support are deeper than the commentariat can make it seem, but that doesn't excuse our sloth.
We have so much money. We have the most money of anyone. As a big rich nation with a relatively low tax burden, we can easily get more money when needed. Our debt ratio is not especially great, it's also not especially bad. It's certainly nowhere near 'broke' - look around the world for some actual examples of what that looks like.
Ask China how ephemeral our military & and those of our friends is - because they sure seem to believe it still means something. Or do you think Xi Jinping hasn't invaded Taiwan yet out of a sincere commitment to peaceful reunification? Do you think Russia would just watch and whine as weapons and money flow into Ukraine if they felt NATO was a hollow shell?
What is this domestic & NA threat that is going to topple us? The transgender white supremacist french-canadian latino immigrant grand terrorist alliance? The dumbasses who got a decade in prison for doing Capitol crimes on live TV? Or the wannabe-anarchists who spray-paint buildings and paintings to feel tough?
These are new threats? I seem to remember them existing for quite a while now - haven't toppled the republic yet, and it's not clear to me why they are so threatening right now that we can't afford to do anything else at the same time.
We have a lot of money, and can afford to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. Doesn't mean we can do everything all the time - but we have enough govt capacity to improve border security and also do important foreign policy. The obstacles are political, not practical. This is a both-and, not either-or, question.
Russia was, and is, our greatest enemy. There are few better uses of our tax dollars than using them to murder Russian soldiers occupying another nation's land.
Lidia said it better; Russia is much more dangerous because they have a former president, and half of a major political party, doing the bidding of their leader.
That's true of anyone drinking Putin's Kool-aid. There are a lot of them out there who just love Putin's nicely packaged lies, and some of those have been posted here as though they are facts.
Russia is no more Christian than western Europe. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is a tool of the regime and has long been such. The Eastern Orthodox, in general, knelt at the altar of government centuries ago. Kirill, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is as corrupt as Putin, and is also KGB.
Russia persecutes non-ROC Christians and they are doing all they can to end the existence of evangelical churches. It is beyond silly to think that a country whose population is only about 10% churched is Christian.
Nonsense. At the moment, Islam is our greatest enemy (Yeah, I said it out loud!). China is probably second. Russia is an irritation, a threat only to those who think the US should have undisputed dominance of Europe right up to the borders of Russia, and maybe beyond.
Russia is still in the mix. Putin is a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. Putin is also part of the circle that includes China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. It is, at best, naïve to think Russia is not among our greatest enemies.
You must have. Both George Friedman and Peter Zeihan have a lot of stuff on Your tube. Both have admitted they were wrong about Ukraine folding quickly. The issues are very important to the US, and if you actually think that we are isolated from the problem that Russia presents in Ukraine, then I guess the NWC served you poorly.
Perhaps they expect you to know things you obviously do not. Comment threads are not the place to get an education, however. That does not mean they have nothing to learn, but the sort of ignorance I've seen can not be corrected by comment threads. The problem can be brought to your intention, but it is up to you to correct it. It took years for me to get where I am.
Well done, CDR S. Why we, as a nation, are burdened with elites who have an unbreakable record of mishandling war, I’ll never understand. The recent release of intelligence that the Russians continue to experience great losses of troops and equipment makes a very strong case that Russia may be crazy to persist in loosing people and gear. So, let them be crazy! The sad case is national leaders who have no understanding of the value of an enemy bleeding and bleeding without a single American fatality.
The price is cheap for an effective cost-imposing strategy.
America, be patient. Help the democracy (at least an attempted democracy) with war material. Stalling hasn’t and won’t help. At best, it will only contribute to our stupidity in allowing the Hamas fans to work on the anti-Semitic urges of that same American elite.
Thank you for such a lucid statement. America is being hijacked by third-rate, self-serving "writer-politicians" like JD Vance, pseudo-Ukrainans like Victoria Spartz, and ignoramuses who worship the ground the Orange Menace walks on. We need lucidity and boldness.
Well I know how lucidity and boldness are defined in the dictionary but I suspect there is going to be a lack of consensus on what those terms would look like specifically as regards Uk. It's not unreasonable to ask questions like what's the end game in Uk? And the wizards of smart haven't exactly had the best track record going back to Viet Nam. Interestingly Pres. George H.W. Bush (a WWII combat pilot) seemed to have a better grasp on such things than those who followed him... funny that.
Not bloody likely. he has said that he will demand Russia leave Ukraine and if Putin does not, that he will give them everything they ask for. Even with slow rolled aid, they have done serious damage to Russia's military.
Whilst I tend to align with CDR Sal on stopping Russia (who still uses the maps of 1988), our current level of funding Ukraine winds up being a cost of $336, 507 per Russian soldier killed/seriously wounded and out of commission. Can we just pay them $400K per and call it a day? We don't need to send M-1 Abrams, just send them 1000 drones per day and eventually Putin will realize that 30,000 casualties per month is not sustainable.
And in a "Eureka" moment (doubtlessly enabled by a generous pouring of Henry McKenna 10 yr - thanks Matt-add another log please) why don't we corral all the 18-30 year old illegal immigrants on the southern border and ship them to Ukraine? Including all those 20-something Chinese). 2 weeks of basic and off to the trenches they go.
That might work. As I understand it, anybody could enlist in the French Foreign Legion, and on completion of his service, would be granted French citizenship. But before then, the Legionnaire was forbidden to enter France. We could create an American Foreign Legion, and enlist all the illegal aliens into it - serve for 20 years and become American citizens with a military pension. But you couldn't come to America until then. Send them to Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all the crappy places where we want to kill people and break things.
Not just anyone can enlist in the Legion. They reject far more than they enlist.
It has been suggested that the US start a foreign legion. I have no problems with that, but you have to be very selective as to who you let in. Most will fail selection.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Asymmetric pain is still pain. Ukraine hasn’t really laid a glove on Russia as of yet. That gives Putin considerable capital.
Sending F-16s, M1 Tanks, ATACMs, Patriots, and all the DPICMs (i.e., cluster munitions) that Ukraine can take is low risk to the US. It is a cliché, but Iran and China is watching -- we need to stop looking weak
Sorry. We've being invaded here in Texas and that should be our number 1 national defense priority.
As for Ukraine, George Friedman, Founder and CEO of Stratfor, said the overthrow of Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 "... really was the most blatant coup in history.”
I'd have to agree.
Obama, Brennan, and team Davos were behind the coup which used so called "neonazis" as the street muscle. And just as the CIA support- albeit via our good, pro west, friends in the ISA - to Al-Quaeda brought increased islamic terrorism to the US, the CIA supported training of nazis in Ukraine has brought us 'Boneface' McLellan and, in New Zealand, the Mosque shooter.
Now the FBI (conviently) says white supremicists are the greatest threat to the US.
As Ambassador Molari would say, "Good job".
Let Zelenski and Victoria Nuand pass a hat among the billionaires for support.
Don't forget the National Endowment for Democracy---your tax dollars at work. (Of course we do not interfere in the domestic policies of foreign countries! That's Putin talk!)
"Nadia has asked me to reflect on Ukraine’s experience – and its success – after 25 years. NED was there from the beginning, nurturing the active roots of civil society in the 1980’s."
Friedman was wrong. It was not a coup. Yanukovych ousted himself when he ran for Moscow and his puppet master. the Ukrainian people were not going to tolerate being betrayed back to Russia.
No court tried him. He did not give one a chance. He was to be arrested and he ran before the arrest warrant could be executed. He had no intention of standing trial. He is still a fugitive from justice.
this is a great piece. I read it and it renewed all the anger I've tried to keep down for American leadership.
Incredible to imagine that the U.S. and western Europe were handed an opportunity with a developing, investment-ready, democracy yearning nation with both the courage and the martial skill to fight the Russians, something that could have (and still can be!) a new bulwark of NATO, and so far we've treated it like an afterthought.
Or worse, some are eager to give it to the Russians.
On a totally random note, does anyone else think that Senator JD Vance probably reeks of cheap vodka from St. Petersburg?
The opportunity cost alone of not getting in on the ground floor of rebuilding Ukraine post-Russian failure is absolutely massive.
Whether Ukraine can purge its corruption, especially in the face of a massive influx of Western money and industry, is another matter.
The Ukrainians were trying to solve the corruption problem, but they have learned the hard way that the corruption is systemic. Russia has exactly the same problem. It seems that a border guard is worth about $300 when you want to illegally escape from the country. Catch if few taking such bribes and hang them. It's very likely the problem will come to an end.
Historians will damn the addiction to the Sacred Status Quo by politicians in Berlin and Washington that delayed a Ukrainian victory at considerable cost.
What I really wish Biden had the courage to say clearly is that this *is* our war. At this point, I don't think there's any way to avoid a major world war within the next five years ("The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.") But would you rather it be the War of the Russian Succession or NATO fighting Russian armies in Lithuania and Poland? This should not be a hard question to answer.
This was never a US war. Ukraine is not a vital US interest. And no, unless the dying Western Empire provokes it, a major world war can be easily avoided.
I disagree with your position, Baker indicated to Gorbo Ukraine would NOT be a NATO state, Obama and Brennan used that threat - as well as brutal actions by the now state armed Azov nazis against russians in east Ukraine - to goad Putin into a war.
That said, 10 points for the quote.
I expect we can agree, as in all things polmil, the truth about Ukraine is a three edged sword.
all could Baker could do was give his own opinion. he did not have the authority to bind the US government on the issue.
Putin was not goaded into war. He went to war for his own reasons, imperial reasons.
A. Baker didn't have authority? Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner ...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
B. Team OBiden national security 'experts' were told by allies NATO membership was a trip wire. War was a feature, not a bug.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/dozens-wikileaks-cables-show-us-knew-nato-expansion-was-russias-bright-red-line
No, Baker did not have that authority. Another problem pops up as well. Unless it is the form of a treaty, it does not bind another administration.
For Putin, and his imperial antecedents, war is something they engage in because of their ideology.
If NATO membership was a trip wire, then why did the other members vote to accept eastern European countries. Recall, it requires a unanimous vote to accept a new member.
"Unless it is the form of a treaty, it does not bind another administration."
"Ha ha, you didn't get it in writing!" turns out to not be that effective of a way to justify your actions. Got us into this war, didn't it? Pretty dishonorable to now claim that Putin should accept getting cheated with a shrug.
If you trust Zero Hedge you get what you deserve. :D
And by what criteria does this make this "our war?" You see the President prepared to go before Congress to declare war? Or a congress prepared to vote for such a declaration? Or is this going to be another one of those "short" conflicts where the dollars flow in another open-ended military excursion that twists and turns based on current events?
Not my war.
Not my war!
Funny you should mention Vance. His book was terrible: self-serving, condescending and poorly written, and he hasn't changed. Worse, he's aided and abetted by editors who take his fatuous statement and turn it into a headline about all senators and republicans.
Lidia, funny that you should be so opinionated about this subject. Your country is kind of a parasite when it comes to the whole NATO/defense spending issue. Maybe you should hang around Canadian military blogs and see if y’all can increase your spending to 2, maybe even 3% of your GDP.
Funny you should be so personal about someone you know nothing about, Tom. I was discussing a book by JD Vance. Maybe come up with a pertinent response and not personalized drivel.
So sorry Lidia. I guess I could have chosen any of the multiple comments you have posted in order to ask my question. I had just not seen previous posts of yours in the past so I wondered, “Who IS this defense expert?” I clicked on your name and your substack page identified you as a “Canadian living in Ukraine”. Is your nationality like that whole “gender fluid” thing that’s all the rage nowadays? How bigoted of me to assume that someone who identifies themselves as “Canadian” is not actually a Canadian. So again, any chance that your self-identified country of origin can put up a couple bucks for the effort? Or do you figure “Ukrainian blood and American money” is your cause and you’re sticking to it?
So much wrong with your comments. Ukraine is not a democracy. They are a kleptocracy, not ready for foreign investment. And they will never be in NATO.
As for Vance, just because he doesn't want to waste money on a neocon crusade doesn't make him a Russian stooge.
Poor attempt to troll.
Except, and this is a problem for you, he is a Russian stooge. geopolitically, he's an utter drooling moron.
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. In the last 32 years, Ukraine has had 7 legitiimate presidential elections with the peaceful transfer of power., unlike the US (Jan. 6, 2021 ring a bell? "Stop the steal" campaigns?). russia is a kelptocracy ("a society or system ruled by people who use their power to steal their country's resources"), Ukraine is not. Unlike Putin, our president isn't considered one of the richest people in the world and is not in control of all the country's energy and resource companies. Zelenskiy's only business is a TV and film production company.
As to Vance, he's a lousy writer and an even poorer politician. He's out for the main chance and no more, whatever that might be, a follower, not a leader.
How soon they forget;
"Zelenskiy fires slew of top officials, cites need to clean up Ukraine.....
.....A long-running battle against corruption in Ukraine....
....The outgoing officials include five regional governors, four deputy ministers and a senior presidential office official seen as close to Zelenskiy."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/deputy-head-ukraines-presidential-office-tymoshenko-tenders-his-resignation-2023-01-24/
Your assumption being that they were all absolutely above-board. Must be fun sitting wherever and assuming day in and day out... Troll much?
Yes. Maybe he doesn't drink the skull pop, but given his level of intelligence and knowledge, he might as well.
Can’t say I’ve seen many of your posts before Mike, but I note that you are self-identified as a “Former Political Campaign field manager”. So would you be from the party of DEI, “The Squad”, and 10% for the Big Guy? It just helps when sorting things out.
Many in the US who are against Ukraine aid are making their decisions based on these things:
(1) Administration is defending their border but not ours
(2) Administration is exceedingly corrupt and Ukraine has been part of that corruption
There's no need to bash people who see points 1 and 2 and conclude we shouldn't help Ukraine. They are wrong, but they don't 'reek of cheap vodka from St Petersburg'
Spectacular, my friend.
Thank you. I had a phone call on Sunday night with a volunteer on the front, and she talked about how there's some fear of running low on ammo, but the men are confident they'll hold the line with counting their shots, or they joke, sticks and stones.
It's amazing, heroic resistance, but there's no reason that these people should ever even THINK of running low on ammo.
Criminal waste of Ukrainian lives.
The criminal is Putin. he started the war and no one else.
right, because they would be so much better off living under a Russian jackboot?
How stupid are you? Do you really think Putin is some good guy?
Just because the corrupt western elite support Ukraine does NOT mean that Putin is good.
You have failed to grasp that Putin, like XI, is an even GREATER threat than the western elites.
Ukraine, like Poland, if free, would naturally gravitate more toward conservative politics, since Eastern European populations are still far more culturally conservative than western Europe.
Supporting Ukraine DOES NOT = agreeing with Biden.
Your too stupid to recognize that Biden WANTED Ukraine to fail, since that would return status quo, and empower China.
Let Putin win in Ukraine and I guarantee within a generation, Russia will re-take, hard or soft, most of Eastern Europe, and China will take most of Asia, and we will be very alone in the world when our debts get called in.
You can see common sense and the need for global trade and allies without being a neocon.
Neocons think you can change people, make democracies out of tribal goat rapists.
That was always a fools hope. Majority Islamic nations are a LOST CAUSE culturally.
But Ukraine is one of those that COULD be saved, except idiots like you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Biden wanted Ukraine to fail? I'm not down with wasting money on something that's not going to work.
you and the other pro-Russia's have been saying the same thing from the start.
We waste money on far less meaningful things.
Spending money to weaken Russia, even if you don't care about the global issues, is not a waste. It's money well spent.
I will agree that we, the US, should not be providing cash aid. Europe should cover the non-military costs.
But the majority of the $ spent on weapons by the US goes to US defense firms, so that is actually helping our industries.
And those weapons were built to fight Russia in Europe, so they are doing the job they were built for.
If you give Putin an inch, he will take a mile. his track record is 25 years long in that respect.
Maybe helping our industries makes the US stronger, it doesn't make Russia weaker.
Has all the Ukrainian blood spilled and the billions spent made Russia weaker? Or has the US showed them how to fight them?
I care not for either Ukraine or Russia, it is their little war not mine, not my grandsons and not on my dime. Both can go urinate up a line made of rope.
Amen. The second-most corrupt nation in Europe (after Russia) - the Ukraine - is not worth a single drop of American blood. Not one.
This nation is beyond broke. Enough of the “forever wars” and the Eisenhower-warned Military-Industrial Complex. Enough.
hey i have good news, you moron. it's cost no american blood.
if Ukraine falls, it will.
It will, and the Ukrainians will hunt zelensky down like a criminal and give him the Gadhafi treatment.
Don't you wish. Shows how little you have been following this war and how non-existent is your understanding of Ukrainians. I just wonder where all that meanness in you comes from.
Maybe, or maybe he ends up in Florida.
If Biden keeps slow rolling his failure to supply what Ukraine needs, they will lose. I think if what Ukraine needed early had ben supplied, the war would be over, and Putin would be living in Venezuela to escape the wrath of his own people.
Mike, your point is valid; your invective, not so much. Calling someone a "moron," while it feels good in the moment, does little to advance the discussion.
Now, we all know that the Trump ties to Russia are as far from a hoax as we can get; because we can practically see the strings that Putin pulls to move his puppets, but calling folks tricked by lies "morons" isn't going to cause the scales from their eyes. Calm, rational, argument may.
You’re not wrong. Heck, you’re right. It takes great energy to not leap across the table when some talks like that in person. I struggle to expend that effort online.
You still believe that? Like the fine people hoax, it has been debunked.
"Trump is Putin's puppet"? Really? Where have you been the past 7 years? Holding on to this lie in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary really discredits your entire worldview and opinions.
1) I support Ukraine
2) Are you seriously suggesting that Trump was in fact beholden to Russia? After ALL the investigations, all the clear shenanigans, all the abuse of authority by FBI, DOJ, etc?
This is the problem. Damn near everyone has predefined their opinion on Ukraine based on opinions on Trump.
I hate Trump. I voted for him twice and will again, because what many neocons and never trumpers can't get over is that while Trump IS a narcissist, he's NOT an authoritarian.
Hell. before Trump, Republicans KNEW that the executive was supposed to exert strong control over the EXECUTIVE branch.
Weak presidents with a non-accountable executive bureaucracy are what get us into the messes we've been in.
So no matter what an ass Trump is, is he really worse that Biden selling out to China? Than Biden turning us into a gender fluid nations of spineless race-baiting pussies?
Never-trumpers lost their friggin minds!!!!
Never in 1,000 years could a 2nd Trump admin have been HALF as bad as the disaster Biden has brought us.
and I repeat, I HATE Trump. I'm a DeSantis guy, 100%
A CNN investigation recently found that a 10-inch-thick binder containing Russian intelligence from the CIA went missing toward the end of Donald Trump's time in office.
1) Do you expect CNN to produce anything honest?
2) I worked at CIA, as both a contractor and staffer, for the better part of a decade (no, this isn't my real name). Do you know how often they lose shit?
3) CIA does not produce ANYTHING directly for POTUS. CIA submits intel to NSC and the PDB team which produce the PDB and daily read books. While they are highly classified, there is rarely anything groundbreaking in them.
4) A missing binder means Trump did it? Have you not see all the voluminous indications that the entire Russia canard was paid for by the Clinton campaign from the start and fabricated? Where was ANY evidence? As opposed to the mountains of evidence against Biden and his son.
Those issues you describe are the salacious crap peddled by Trump hating media who know that 99.9% of their audience will 1) assume Trump is guilty of anything they say and 2) don't have a single clue how the internal workings of government function, and therefore are not in a position to question what may sound incriminating on the surface, but which to an insider sounds like total made up bullshit
Sorry, I have to write one more thing on here.
Have you ever seen a 10 inch thick binder?
Seriously. Think about that for a second. That is a binder nearly 1 foot thick.
The largest binders in common use are usually 3".
You really think the CIA is going to send an intelligence product to POTUS that is so thick it can barely be carried by the average staffer?
It screams "bullshit" right on it's face.
I repeat - I hate Trump. He annoys the shit out of me and he is definitely a narcissist. But he was never most of the things he was accused of. Racist? Nazi? Give me a break. His grandkids are Jewish.
The stuff about immigration from majority Muslim countries? HE WAS RIGHT!!
Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Convince me otherwise. I distinguish between Islam, the system, and Muslims, who as individuals are like most other people. Most are good and just want a decent life. But they are part of a system that preaches religious hatred that liberals in this country enamored with the boogeyman of "Christian Nationalism" can't even begin to understand.
Try reading just a little bit of history on that topic.
But no, Trump is not a Russian stooge. 10 inch binder my ass.
Nobody gives any finished intelligence product to POTUS that is anything more than 30'000 foot overview, except where it is a specific decision-brief recommending COA, and even then, your looking at a 15-20 page document at most.
Put the domino theory back in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
There was some validity to that theory way back when Marxism was the motivating ideology behind all that domino toppling. Now, without the declared goal of world domination of Marxism, it is rather ridiculous to state that Russia seeks to fulfill some manifest destiny to expand its borders from Pacific to Atlantic---and even beyond.
The Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to push an ideology worldwide, I'm sure there's a lesson for the US in there somewhere.
Conquest boils down to making money, not sure that Russia would find it profitable to go any farther than their historical borders.
Except that the Russians themselves pretty much say this all the damn time.
They think the entire Warsaw Pact is theirs to do with as they please.
Tell me, what message do you think it sends to the smaller nations of the world living in the shadow of Russia or China if we bail on Ukraine?
It says the US won't have your back, your on your own, make the best deal you can.
And they will.
And in a generation, we will be isolated and alone.
The only reason authoritarianism doesn't rule the world today is that the US cast off our foolish isolationism to win WW2 and the Cold War.
That is NOT the same thing as the NEoCons. You are lumping 2 different things together.
The NEcons would try to make the rest of the world - especially the Islamic world, into miniature versions of the US, on the stupid theory that you can export culture and civilization to goat raping tribal savages.
That is NOT the same as saying "we won't let dictators conquer you" and helping other countries, even imperfect ones, stand up to outside agression.
Ergo, let me simplify
1) Invade Afghanistan and kill Al Qaida and Taliban helpers = rational
2) Stay in Afghanistan and create "democracy" = NeOcOn Bullshit
1) Bomb the shit out of WMD and military targets in Iraq to keep Saddam in line = rational
2) Invade Iraq thinking we will create stable democracy to off-set Iran = NeOcOn Bullshite
1) Arm Ukraine with weapons we would otherwise use to oppose Russia and keep them in the fight, weakening Russia and sending a message of support to other small nations that fear Russia or China = rational
2) Sending US troops to die in Ukraine = stupid. But so is letting Russia win.
" what message do you think it sends to the smaller nations of the world living in the shadow of Russia or China if we bail on Ukraine? It says the US won't have your back, your on your own, make the best deal you can."
Like Finland, maybe? They seem to have done all right living "in the shadow of Russia". At any rate that argument is pretty much irrelevant as every European country "in the shadow of Russia" except Ukraine is a NATO member.
"the US cast off our foolish isolationism to win WW2 and the Cold War."
The alleged isolationism of the US before WWII is much exaggerated. The Washington Naval Treaty (1922) and the Second London Naval Treaty (1936) are just two examples of US interwar involvement in international affairs.
Tim, you seem like a reasonable fellow (as opposed to Billy who seems like a troll)
You are, IMHO, falling prey to the same logical fallacies that bedevil the boys (and gender fluid whatevers) at Foggy Bottom.
You are expecting Russian logic to make sense to Western thinking. This is why State always thinks sanctions and treaties will work, because it's logical.
Russians don't play by our rules, or see the world the same way. They - and the Chin ese - see the world in exclusively zero-sum terms.
In that world view, they may not need to 'conquer' the world.
But they do wish to be THE global superpower. And both of them know that THEY cannot be the superpower as long as WE ARE.
And to that end, they will never stop trying to topple us off our perch.
The irony is that, even if we don't see the world in zero-sum terms, the fact that our adversaries do requires us to respond as if it is, or risk being taken down by them.
That is not as simplistic as invasion and conquering. It is mostly economic warfare, hybrid warfare, the likes of which both countries have already been waging against us for over a decade.
But make no mistake - the day the dollar is knocked off as the default currency, or Europe turns to China or Russia (either from greed OR fear) is the day we watch our standard of living start a rapid and inescapable fall into levels of despair not seen even during the Great Depression.
See, we created the awesome fiction, that the world was civilized, because we did civilize a small portion of it (Europe, Japan, a few of our and the Brits former colonies).
But the rest of the world, especially China and Russia, don't see our rules as worth following except when they have to. Russia will ALWAYS lie, cheat, steal, sign false peace treaties, bide their time, etc..
And yes, in that sense, they and China are very real threats to us.
I may not be worried about Russian and Cuban paratroopers in Colorado, but I AM worried about destabilization of the dollar as fiat currency and our ability to sustain our debt levels, and the fact that there are less than 100 people in the entire United States capable of building a steam engine should the shit really hit the fan.
Notice how my comments are serious and well thought-out, and yours a silly slogans?
No.
Wait, you tried to be thoughtful and serious and the best you could do was call someone a moron?
Delete your account.
Why would Ukraine's defeat cost any American lives unless we go in to prop it up?
Because if you understand Russian history and the Russian imperila mindset, you know the next Russian steps—under Putin, under his successor, under that successor's successor—will be to go through Belarus, Georgia and Moldova, then Romania, and the Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
And then its our boys and girls over there.
You might think that won't happen, but you'd be wrong. It's fine, many Americans don't understand Russia. But it's neighbors do. Warsaw is warning about it in three years. It's understandable to not know that, but now you do.
If you think even then it still won't matter to Americans, there is something deeply wrong in how you few everything from economics and trade to basic morality. I don't want to accuse you of that, so please head my first comment.
When I see Russian battleships off Cape Ann I will start to worry.
To paraphrase Bismarck, the Baltics, the Balkans and Eastern Europe are not worth one American lance corporal.
We have enough problems at home - illegal immigration, crime, narcotics, deindustrialization, decaying infrastructure, inflation and massive deficits.
I offered you the chance to not reveal that you’re a lower form of life than a house fly. You did not take it.
Sluggo, you are beyond ignorant. If you really don't care, stop writing drivel in response to articles on this war and work to get out the vote instead.
When it involves MY tax dollars getting sent to a corrupt nation when that money belongs here at home, I’ll comment all I want.
And if you don’t like it, pack sand.
It's hard to "dislike" something that is simpoly ignorant and ignorance at least can be cured. For instance, I've lived here for 31 years, had a business, own property and drive a car, and I've yet to be asked for a bribe, let alone pay one. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen somewhere, but I have not experienced it. I didn't grow up paying bribes, so it was not something I ever considered doing. But I remember my father telling me in the early sixties that he was regularly hit up by the traffic police (in our big city in North America) because he drove with an MD license plate and they assumed he had money to spare.
" I've lived here ..."
Am I to assume you are claiming to have lived in Ukraine for 31 years? If so, perhaps you can tell me how a culture steeped in the corruption and inefficiency and brutality of a few hundred years of Czarist rule and about 70 years of even more corrupt and brutal Soviet rule has transformed, in the space of less than one generation, into a model of capitalist integrity and efficiency and democratic governance? I find that truly remarkable to contemplate--even unlikely.
There is a wee bit of room between the extremes you have described.
Pretty sure there was plenty of that in South Korea and Taiwan back in the day. It couldn't be overcome in Vietnam. Here all signs point to nurturing the seed and letting it grow.
it's a shame your parents brought such a moral slug into the world.
Fanbois are a PITA, I said what I feel, Ukraine lost their war, wasted their men's lives, arms legs eyes and OUR money.
Get a life fanboi.
You should talk, you PITA.
The piss is gonna land on you and yours, though. The world is round, and it's getting smaller every year. Leaving the Czechs to their fate didn't work last century, and leaving the Ukrainians to theirs won't work in this one.
Thankfully, the country as a whole has not proved so forgetful as you.
well, I have news for you, Bearboi. We don't care about you, personally. But if your country drops the ball, it WILL be your war, you can bet on that.
Think of it as you don't have to pick and have to give one. I choose the dime. The ferryman's business is coins and souls. Throw the coins such he looks he other way on the fact the ferry is empty.
I have similar opinions, but I have had a lifelong antipathy for the Russian gov't – based mostly on an early hatred of the Soviets, who would have killed my grandfathers if they hadn't fled westward in 1944.
Much as the thought of kneecapping the Bear via a third party like Ukraine appeals to my emotions, I haven't yet seen a persuasive reason to do more to defend NATO's frontier than our NATO "allies" are prepared to do.
I would like someone to explain this to me as if I'm a selfish bastard with very limited financial resources, a good understanding of US and world history, a back yard that butts up against our border with Mexico, and only one child ... who just so happens to be around 20 and in prime physical condition to be a stellar infantry soldier.
Treat me as if I'm that guy, and then persuade me how it's in my interest for America to risk getting roped into a ground war in Europe against Russia.
If that's too high a hurdle to clear, then can someone please explain to Hypothetical Selfish Me why I should subordinate my very concrete interests to the alleged interests of America in this war?
Barring that, can anybody tell me clearly why it benefits America to stop Russia from invading Europe? Sure, any such invasion would be morally unjustifiable, and would result in death and tyranny. But please tell me why America should send my hypothetical son over there to stop the Russians, especially when guys like Hypothetical Me who happen to live in Germany and France and Spain and Turkey and Greece and other "allied countries" seem less willing to put their posterity on the line than I.
Ohio,
It seems like nowadays many people want bonafides of what a person believes before they'll listen. You seem like a decent guy, so I'll do my best to answer your question as honestly as I can.
First, my bonafides. Former Marine Infantry officer and CIA paramilitary guy (not my real name on here). Now I do Emergency Managment.
I have 4 teenagers, 2 in college, 2 in high school. half of them interested in military service (Infantry or SOCOM)
I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. I know the Russia Hoax was a hoax and that the bureaucracy in this country is heavily D corrupt - I'm still in gov service now.
I voted Trump 2x, I don't like him, but will again, because he is FAR better than Biden.
Now that you know which way I lean...
I 100% support Arming Ukraine to the teeth and doing everything short of sending US troops into combat in Ukraine.
Why? (Other than the moral "do the right thing" arguments)
Our (America) standard of living is based 100% on global trade and our position as THE dominant economy. Do we have problems? Hell yeah. Border, wokeism, all the issues you listed. We would 100% agree on all those issues and most of the needed solutions.
But I'm a geopolitical realist. Isolationism cannot work. It would result in the dollar being devalued, and China taking over the world economy.
We don't make enough shit anymore. Not like we did in WW2. We CAN'T stand alone.
This isn't about being able to hold off foreign invaders like Red Dawn.
This is about the smaller countries of the world aligning with Russia or China, and our trade dries up.
We can't import critical minerals for making high tech? Our economy implodes.
We can't sell our high tech, our military tech, because we can't make enough of it? Our cars, etc.. We implode.
IN short, we have the standard of living we currently enjoy BECAUSE we came out of WW2 as the powerhouse and WE set the rules for the global economy. However many problems we have, it is still better here than anywhere else.
If we walk away from that, we will be economically crushed.
This country needs to be rejuvenated. I'm not sure we can do it. It may be a lost cause. Every empire fails eventually.
But for damn sure we can't do it if we are in the middle of an even worse "Greater Depression" and the 25% of our youth who now favor socialism or marxism are taking us apart from within.
We NEED a stable global economy based on the rules that WE built, to maintain a chance at having the breathing space to fix our problems here at home.
In addition, Europe is under 3 critical threats.
1) Russia - mid-term. Ukraine loses, Russia eventually comes for the rest of the Warsaw pact, our trade partners get crushed
2) China - China is the devil, and tempts Europe with cheap trade, to co-opt corrupt politicians more interested in a quick buck than long term interests. Hell, we have that here in our country with President Sniffy.
3) Islam - unchecked immigration will result in Islam's conquest of Europe. The day Germany becomes 51% Muslim, everything changes, and shit get's real in a hurry
So, while you may not care about Europe, It will eventually have critical consequences for your son.
If Islam becomes dominant, we WILL be at war constantly. Islam seeks nothing less than global dominance. The Islamic apologists simply don't understand the Koran. Individual Muslims may be peaceful, but they are a beholden to a system that is 100% about violent conquest. It is an EVIL religion.
So yes, I personally see preserving Europe as in the US best interest, as worth myself or my sons or daughters fighting, and if needed, dying to protect.
Not because I love the Europeans. But because the alternatives are cataclysmically bad.
I hope that provided some level of answer. Appreciate your fair and open-minded question.
I missed the part where there are American troops in Ukraine. American troops will have to defend NATO members if Putin notches Ukraine on his belt and moves on to the next country on his list.
Cherry picking again, There are none and will not be if we the people have anything to do about it, you think the Vietnam anti-war riots were bad wait till the Government tries to put US forces ashore in Ukraine..
Putin is not a threat to the US, he only wants that part of Russia that voted to be Russian and end the war Ukraine started in 2014.
Putin can have every stinky corrupt part of Ukraine and hell, Europe too.
It ain't like the euro's ever armed up and instead hated American and wanted us to die for them again like we did twice so far.
I don't care if Putin gets all of Ukraine.
American troops will NOT fight and die for Ukraine's silly ass war.
Slope off.
The government has not and will not put troops in Ukraine. Do you have any evidence to support this fear of yours?
The government will have to put troops into the Baltic states if Putin prevails in Ukraine because they will be next on his expansion list.
You seem to have more trust in elections run by Russian troops than in your own country. How sad.
Cogently put. I agree with all f the points made. Thank you.
Of course you do. You have to, any dissent will get you ejected from the tribe.
We've entertained your "dissent" for some time now, Billy.
Or, you know, he might just genuinely disagree with you.
My suspicion is that he went to High School and college in America, and is now writing propaganda at home in the former Leningrad.
Or maybe served for over 30 years and had a Smedley Butler revelation.
That’s a low blow amigo. Capt Mongo has proven his integrity for years on the porch. I disagree with a lot of positions regarding this war but I also deeply respect most of the people whom I disagree with. Capt Mongo is one of them and of course Sal. I also happen to agree with your position on this war but I don’t condone your comment that Capt Mongo is a somehow a sycophant. He isn’t.
Not a sycophant, but to be in good standing in the tribe, there are core issues in which there can be little dissent. Russia is one of them. I suspect both he and CDR, if they rationally analyzed the issue, would conclude that the whole Ukraine thing was a mistake. But until it's cool in the tribe to consider that maybe Russia is not the threat it is being made out to be, they should occasionally give their harumph, lest they lose their standing.
I stand opposed to both of their positions but I still highly respect them and an interested in their views. I’m certain they are open to debate and opposing views as well. It is what made them the officers they became and are.
And I concur with your overall assessment of this shitshow.
There are very good people that have done the analysis you think you have done, and have reached a far different conclusion that you. Most of those people have served in Europe and know the Russians and Ukrainians quite well and understand the geopolitical issues you do not understand. Instead, people like you rave on myths and misinformation. Both Phib and Mongo understand the stakes. You do not, and are no willing to actually look at what the stakes are.
We had your sort during Vietnam, who protested a war for their Soviet masters, and they knew who they were supporting. Unlike them, you simply carry on from a position of abysmal ignorance and think it's patriotism.
Remind me, how did Vietnam work out?
Much different situation. I don't expect anyone that just spews Putin's propaganda to understand.
"We had your sort during Vietnam, "
And we had a boatload of your sort--" very good people that have done the analysis you think you have done,---and understand the geopolitical issues you do not understand.". --the "best and brightest" who got us into Vietnam, spent years fumbling around, and ended up losing after wasting tens of thousands of lives and untold amounts of money. The same "best and brightest" who got us into Afghanistan, spent 20 years fumbling around, and created an Army and government that didn't last 90 days after the last American left. Some people are slow learners.
The people that have been dealing with Ukraine are not the same people as the left's brain trust on Vietnam, nor are they even of anything like their character. They are people that have been in the trenches and have had to deal with the geopolitical issues that affect military planning and decisions.
Those that tried nation building in the AFG were idiots. They got closer in Iraq, but I don't think they succeeded there either. Ukraine is already a nation.
The fate of Ukraine is not up to a wishy-washy USA, but a test of Europe's resolve and will. It's up to them if Russia will be allowed to do this, as they will inevitably endeavor to do again and again if given the chance. Poland and Lithuania know what's at stake, but the fat and comfortable nations to their west are always more than capable of ignoring evidence.
Sian: Alas, the words "resolve" and "Europe" no longer go together, if they ever did
The fate of Ukraine is up to the Russians. Europe no longer has a say in the matter.
This is the gist of it...”At a relatively modest cost in our treasure and almost none of our blood, we are wearing down Russia’s ability to project power for a generation, perhaps two.”
Ukraine being part of NATO was an existential threat for Russia.
Please note that countries decide what constitutes an existential threat for themselves. In 2014, when Ukraine asked for NATO membership, Russia was very clear on this being unacceptable.
I don’t excuse or support Russia invading Ukraine, but if we had told Ukraine “No NATO” in 2014 (or later) this war wouldn’t have happened.
Now that they have, and Ukraine can’t throw Russia out, they need to make a deal, and wait for another day.
I don’t fear Russia invading a NATO country, because NATO is a nuclear armed peer competitor.
Further, Ukraine lost my support (which I thought would be impossible given what the suffered under the USSR) when they told the FBI to lean on social media companies to censor Americans.
We shouldn’t give them any more money.
They should cut a deal and build nuclear weapons.
Please read up a little history before quoting it. Ukraine applied to get the NATO MAP, along with Geogia, in April 2008 (the tail end of Bush's presidency). They were turned down and four months later, in August 2008, russia invaded Georgia. The West did not get the message. NATO rejected both countries again that November and russia started planning its takeover of Ukraine, which it started in 2014. When you know the correct sequence of events, the lessons are a lot easier to recognize. Unfortunately, the West and NATO failed to draw the right conclusions. You show weakness to a bully and the bully will beat you up. It's that simple. Right now, the US is showing weakness and there are TWO bullies sharpening knives, even if russia's are very rusty.
The rest of what you wrote is baloney. Ukraine doesn't censor at home, let alone abroad. It hasn't even leaned on FB to stop banning and restricting Ukrainian users who are constantly blocked for posts about this war. Frankly, this country and this president have more to worry about since February 2022. You're probably reading conspiracy sites.
Well that's one narrative...
Anyway how's the Orthodox Church in Ukraine doing these days? Where's Goncalo Lira?
The Russian Orthodox church, the one run by an ex-KGB stooge of Putin? Not so good.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church? It's fine.
You might want to read up on what's going on with the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery, as well as recent votes to ban the church.
You might want to read up a bit more on the Pechersk Lavra, whose main church, the Dormition Cathedral, was destroyed by Stalin, blamed on the Germans, and rebuilt by Kuchma. The MP Orthodox Church had a lease on the use of the territory that has been terminated. Its adherents refused to leave the premises and were systematically stealing precious items that belonged to the monastery, not to the MP Orthodox Church. Attempts have been made to evict these people. Do you have a problem with that? Your belligerene towards Ukraine suggests that your real name is the second half in the avatar. You don't like Ukraine? No problem. Go work for some russian propaganda outlet instead—if you don't already...
I have no belligerence towards Ukraine. In fact I think it's criminal what has been done to them, especially in the loss of life and limb. Boris Johnson and whomever sent him to stop the April 2022 peace process should be tried and hung for the cost in Ukrainian lives.
The Monastery was held by Russian connected Orthodox monks. They lost it because the Moscow Patriarchate Church was caught giving direct support to Russia. The Moscow patriarchate was banned for that very reason. Other Churches, including the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is doing well. You are misinformed as to what is going on because you are listening to Putin's propaganda network.
#1 House Judiciary Committee says Ukraine got the FBI to censor Americans who expressed opinions they didn’t like.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/documents-reveal-fbi-colluded-compromised-ukrainian-intelligence-agency-0
If you think their information is inaccurate, I am open to any evidence you have.
#2 - January 2022 - Biden administration re-affirms Ukraine’s “right to join NATO”. Even at that late date, the war could have been avoided if they had said “No, Ukraine will not be joining NATO, now, or ever.” Ukraine in NATO would be a massive strategic liability, and I am puzzled as to why any except Ukraine would think it is a good idea. Do you have any thoughts ?
#3 Russia will probably be satisfied with the Donbas region. Russia conquering all of Ukraine and trying to govern it is a recipe for disaster. Ukraine can’t retake the Donbas. It’s a bitter pill, but the other option is to grind on in a war with no hope of victory. Ukraine needs to cut their losses and build nuclear weapons.
#4 On what basis do you believe Russia is going to invade a NATO country after the war in Ukraine is over?
#5 I have no illusions about Putin. He’s a bad guy who kills his political opponents. Regardless of that, NO Russian leader would accept Ukraine in NATO, not even whoever is in charge of the liberal opposition in Russia. It’s a non-negotiable position for Russia, regardless of who is in charge.
You have posted a lot of junk. The planning for war in Ukraine started in Moscow at least as far back as 2008. That is well before Yanukovych ran for Moscow, and it was long before anything was going on in the Donbas. Anyone that wants to tell you that Putin invaded to protect Russian speakers/ethnics, is lying to you.
Biden knows there is no "right to join NATO." It depends on every member of NATO and requires some serious hoops to just get to the point of the actual application to join NATO. Ukraine was no where close to that. their military was a joke and they were more corrupt than Russia.
I'm glad you think you have no illusions about Putin, but you are still geopolitically blind. The Sudetenland was nonnegotiable for Hitler, and we know where that led. NATO was not an issue in the war. The issue is Putin's desire to return Russia to the borders of Tsarist Russia. That was his intention when he came to power, and that is what he is working towards.
If Ukraine gets the aid they need, Putin can be forced out of Ukraine.
Why was 2008 the year planning began? Because that’s the year Ukraine first applied for NATO membership.
That was the turning point. I haven’t mentioned Yanukovych at all, and I only mentioned Donbas as what Russia will settle for, along with a neutral Ukraine. Protecting Russians wasn’t worth a general war. Keeping Ukraine out of NATO clearly was.
I have posted no junk.
Biden’s insisted that Ukraine joining NATO was still an open question throughout the Russian buildup of late ‘21 and ‘22.
Russia took him at his word and invaded.
Putin may indeed want a return to USSR borders, but he can’t get the NATO members back. The USSR would have loved to have conquered Western Europe, but NATO made sure the risk outweighed the reward, and that hasn’t changed at all.
What aid does Ukraine need to drive the Russians out of their country?
I have said "as early as." It is known that planning was going on in 2008, but it may have been earlier. Alas, most of what you said was junk. as for the time when it started ask Putin. It was his intention to take Ukraine. as it has been said repeatedly, Russia is not an empire without Ukraine. Putin wants it all, and simply pausing the war, cutting a deal or otherwise, will simply result in a renewed war.
You underestimate Putin's intentions. The geopolitical demands he is listening to do not include your limited thinking on the issue. His goals include Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics, A large chunk of Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland to the Vistula. You can doubt this if you like, but you are welcome to join the same ilk that did everything they could to see that the efforts in Vietnam and Korea failed.
As for what aid is needed, the best that can be said is you have not paid attention to what is going on.
I’m sure planning goes back to the independence of Ukraine in 1991.
Why did you use 2008 as the year that planning had “at least” begun by?
In May of this year, we said Russia had 20k KIA. We are now saying over 300k KIA. That is quite a variance in 7 months. Although 315k dead supports my position that Russia will need a lot of time to recover for anything they might want to do, I can’t trust it.
Putin’s goals don’t matter.
Even if he wants full restoration of the USSR’s borders at their World War II heights, he’s not going to risk nuclear war to achieve them.
It doesn’t follow at all that my appraisal of Russia’s strategy and intentions means I opposed US victory in Korea and Viet Nam. The Russians are no longer infected with the disease of communism. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous or without national ambition, but they are no longer seeking a world revolution where “Soviets” administer “People’s Justice” via a bullet to the back of the head. We should have used nuclear weapons against the PRC as MacArthur recommended. We also should have invaded North Viet Nam and over thrown the communists.
I’ve been specific in my answers. Can you lay out what aid Ukraine needs to defeat Russia? If you won’t reciprocate, I will not continue the discussion.
You can figure that Putin had his eyes on Ukraine a long time before 2008 - he's following the path set out in this - https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics And part of Dugin's book is amazingly prescient, almost if there was a plan in place: "Within the United States itself, there is a need for the Russian special services and their allies "to provoke all forms of instability and separatism within the borders of the United States (it is possible to make use of the political forces of Afro-American racists)" (248). "It is especially important," Dugin adds, "to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements-- extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics" (367)." That was in 1997, by the way...
As you know, intention and plans are two different things. I do believe that Putin's intentions form the start of his dictatorship , were to take Ukraine and reintegrate it back into the Russian Empire. War planning, however, is supposed to take into account logistics and other problems they may face in the actual execution of military operations. You know that already, I'm sure.
The earliest year I have come across for war plans in Ukraine is 2008. There may well have been work before that, but I have not seen anything that points to an earlier date.
Yes, there was video and other evidence that in early 2009, russia already was training people for the establishment of "Nova Rossiya."
"Ukraine doesn't censor at home,"
https://www.businessinsider.com/zelesnkyy-suspends-ukrainian-opposition-parties-with-ties-to-russia-2022-3?op=1
"On Saturday and Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky invoked his emergency powers under martial law to suppress several opposition political parties and implement a "unified information policy."
https://news.yahoo.com/zelensky-nationalizes-tv-news-restricts-173820471.html
"Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that the country’s presidential election, that in peacetime would be expected next March, will not be taking place while Ukraine remains under martial law and is in a state of war with Russia."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/11/17/ukraine-elections-war-russia-zelensky/
"President Zelenskyy has consolidated all TV platforms in Ukraine into one state broadcast and restricted political rivals. Political opposition fears such civil liberty constraints could continue."
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
Took me less than a minute to find these . All lies and Russian disinformastion, I'm sure, right?
Somehow we managed to have free elections during both World Wars and the Civil War!
Democrats: Have to cancel elections to save democracy.
Did the US have a law that forbade elections while under martial law?
Does Ukraine?
Yes.
Note
#1 - Suspends Moscow tied political parties. I suppose we should have approved of the German-American Bund. Don't be silly.
#2 - In Ukraine, elections are not lawful under martial law. Quit being silly.
#3 - The opposition that worries about censorship being continued are tied to Moscow. In WW2 the US had a similar policy. They allowed the networks to continue operating, but when they got out of line, they got squeezed. The news was routinely censored. usually it was cast as a request, but the news organs knew what could happen if they did not cooperate.
Since what you have posted come directly from Putin's propaganda network, Russian disinformation is exactly what it is. Reading the idiocy coming out of Moscow alerts you to where the nonsense you posted originates.
If a party showed up in the US that was intent on supporting an adversary and undermining the US, I suspect it might also not last long. That's not a genuine "opposition." That's known as traitors.
We call it the Democratic Party.
That's funny as heck... you must be a GOPer.
" I suspect it might also not last long."
LOL
Like the Communist party?
Are you willing to nuke Moscow in response to a Russian 'incursion' into the Baltic States? Putin knows our leadership isn't.
No, that would be stupid, the Baltics are not a vital US interest.
The Baltic states are part of NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all.
We don’t have a “tripwire” nuclear policy, at least not anymore.
Any NATO - Russia war would start conventionally. Both sides having nuclear weapons makes things incredibly dangerous. Either side can say to themselves “they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons if we did X”, but that’s an awfully big risk.
Pay heed to the fine print on Article 5. An attack on one doesn't mean all NATO countries are at war. They still get to choose if they want to fight.
That's why we had a hundred thousand or more troops in Germany---hostages. Hard to write off that many brothers, husbands, sons, ......and their families.
I don’t know if the phrase “such action as it deems necessary” supports your assertion.
No action short of armed force is going to “restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
If you are saying that one or more countries could abandon their NATO obligations, you are right, but that’s still a huge risk for Russia to take, given nuclear weapons.
When it comes to the Baltics you can count Turkey out, probably Hungary and some others.
It's a shame you can't post memes on Substrack. I have a NATO world map where all the water is the North Atlantic.
On the other hand, any NATO-Russia war would be awfully close to the borders of Russia. I would seriously consider using nukes to defend the borders of the US, and I assume the Russians would do the same. So how do you defeat a country if you cannot cross its borders? The Ukrainians (and its supporters) should probably consider that.
Countries can be defeated without crossing their borders. Perhaps they cross your borders without a shot being fired and defeat you in turn; I reference the SW border of the USA.
I am not willing to have American soldiers die for Estonia.
Fair enough. I suggest you lobby your representatives and candidates of your choice to get the US out of NATO.
Best duty I ever had. No one bothers you when you are on leave. Not At The Office and Not After Two O'clock. Life can be very good if you are stationed in Germany or Italy. Those NATO coupons made gasoline affordable.
I'm 3/4 Estonian and 1/4 Latvian, and I agree with you.
I am of Teutonic origin and I feel nothing whatsoever for Germany except as a nice place to visit.
Serious countries decide what constitutes an existential threat for themselves. If the US was a serious country they would pay their border the attention they're paying to Ukraine's border.
Not disagreeing with you, but that’s a separate issue.
I am not so sure. Seems the people who favor open borders are the ones pushing Ukraine aid. Must be some ideology behind their actions.
Certainly possible. If they won’t make the deal for Ukraine because it would close the US border, then their priorities will be made absolutely clear.
It's not a two sided coin. It's not even a Mendel square. You have to look at its political nature in three dimensions - a cube. One Y/N axis is US Border Security funding, second axis is Ukraine support funding, with the third axis being Israel support funding. While there are eight permutations, the clustering becomes obvious.
There is an internal dimension to consider as well. Our own internal problems.
I respectfully disagree. The people determined to leave our own border open to invasion by all comers are the same people demanding we defend Ukraine's border against a Russian invasion.
If I were a cynical man, I might suspect these same people of wanting to weaken American society via domestic invasion, and wanting to weaken America's military via a foreign adventure (defending a country that ever-so-coincidentally serves as their money laundering paradise).
Odacer agrees with you.
Both Putin and Xi have ties to the problems at the southern border. A large component of the invaders from the south are Chinese, Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban, and Nicaraguan. Several years ago, there was a cargo container discovered in California with Chinese made infantry weapons (I do not recall if it also held explosives). Wanna bet that a goodly number of those from the countries listed above are actually troops and simply waiting for the order to move, draw weapons and start strikes?
Geopolitical problems rarely occur in isolation. The lines go back to Peking and Moscow.
"and Nicaraguan."
Gee, I thought we solved that problem a few years back with one of our patented pro-Democracy Nation-Building efforts.
Nope. Ortega is back in charge.
Nobody's "defending Ukraine's border." Ukraine's border was violated by russia back in 2014 and Ukraine's been doing all the fighting ever since. All our allies are providing material support only. No boots on the grounnd. In the case of the US, it's coming out of the Pentagon's budget (3%), not related to Homeland or border agencies.
Both need to be done. Both are serious geopolitical problems for the US.
BS. Ukraine in NATO was no threat to Russia. The Ukrainians should build nukes as Russia has violated the Budapest Memorandum and deserves nothing less.
The only thing "a deal" will yield is a short pause in the war. It is willful ignorance to think Russia will not retool and come back again. That is Russian history and took them from the small duchy of Muscovy to the pacific littoral. To think Putin is any different than the Tsars he trying to emulate is silly. At best.
Whether or not Ukraine in NATO would or wouldn’t be a threat doesn’t matter, because Russia saw it as an existential threat. That’s what they’ve said, and that’s how they’ve acted.
I appreciate your agreement that Putin is acting no different than any Russian leader would.
Although I view all casualty figures and reports of equipment destruction very skeptically, I do believe a lot of Russian and Ukrainian fighting men have been killed, too many for a “short pause” after the war is over. Ukrainian nuclear weapons will deter future invasions by Russia.
It was politically convenient to see NATO as such a threat. It was a a simple minded lie that anyone familiar with history knows to be a lie.
Putin is acting like a Bolshevik, or a Tsarist. To say such behavior is to condoned, as you imply, is not acceptable and betrays a basic misinformed world view of geopolitics. Either Putin loses, or the problem will return because that's how people of his ilk operate. Cutting a deal and renuclearizing will not solve the problem. Once they know Ukraine has nukes, it will restart immediately. You have not been paying attention.
Based on death benefits paid, about 320K Russian troops have been killed. The amount of equipment destroyed is even easier to deal with. Aerial photos will tell you that story and is likely to be the most accurate.
Stop buying into all the nonsense about an "existential threat" for russia. It's about as serious as all the rumors of putin's bad health. (Somehow, having Finland's long border added to the previous 200 miles or so of NATO borders that actually touched on russia didn't seem to faze Putin at all.) The only existential threat to russia is a sovereign, successful Ukraine. The takeover of Crimea was to grab all the resources (mostly gas) in the Black Sea shelf. There are considerable deposits there that would have made Ukraine independent of russia for natural gas. There's also a huge shale gas field running from Sloviansk to Kharkiv. Now take a look at a map of the frontline since 2014... that's what's "existential" to russia.
Russia signed a treaty in 1997 (NATO Russia Founding Act) that said all its neighbors can make their own national security decisions and Russia will not resort to violence.
So Ukraine in NATO should not have been a red line for Moscow. Sure, it's a premature idea at best, but Ukraine in NATO is fully consistent with the 1997 treaty.
"So Ukraine in NATO should not have been a red line for Moscow. "
That's your opinion. Moscow obviously disagrees. Nothing in the document mentions Ukraine or NATO expansion. Perhaps it should have been, but it wasn't. That does not mean there were no side-agreements or understandings.
NATO and Russia will base their relations on a shared commitment to the following principles ...
refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence ...
respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination
If that's a quote please use quotation marks.
Again, nothing there mentions Ukraine and NATO expansion.
"refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence"
Ukraine is a state, and was before 1997. All states get sovereignty, so Ukraine gets sovereignty.
"respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination"
Ukraine is a state. All states have the inherent right to choose how to be secure, so they all can join alliances. Thus, Ukraine can join NATO, or CSTO, or whatever alliance will take them.
Elsewhere it says NATO will not store nuclear weapons in new member states. NATO never agreed not to admit new members, just agreed to limit the weapons stored there.
If you want to argue that NATO expansion was a bad idea, fine. But the 1997 treaty implicitly allowed expansion, as long as NATO did not move nuclear weapons to the East.
Ukraine is in Europe, so Europe must step in. Germany, France, Spain, Poland, all the eastern Europe nations, must act, because the United States cannot do it ALL. Germany, especially, (but really ALL of them) have been free-riding on the US to keep NATO running. But with our own economy in the tank (FJB) and the US under literal invasion from the south, we can't strip our own defenses bare to give Zelinskyy another yacht (he has two!) and another million dollar shopping spree for his wife.
And it's terrible that the Democrats had been using Ukraine as the place to launder their money. But I can't manage to feel sorry for them there.
What are your sources for your claiim that "the Democrats have been using Ukraine as a place to launder their money"? First time I hear that one. If it's about Burisma, try doing a little research about that subject.
Your comments about the Zelenskys are shameful and make no sense. He does not have two yachts and she does not go on "shopping sprees.' You must have confused her with Melania and Ivanka. Stop listening to russian propaganda.
...and if Europe decides that they're not willing to expend blood and treasure on Ukraine, what then?
If Europe doesn't want to, then why should we? The United States has pulled Europe's butt out of the fire twice before; I'm old and tired and I'm not willing to sacrifice my grandchildren to save France and Germany any longer.
France and Germany (Europe generally) needs saving, but it's not Russia that threatens them.
The Yacht story was debunked by a man that tracks sales of the Yachts that Zelensky supposedly bought. The original site that published the story withdrew it shortly afterward. The actual origin of the story was Moscow.
Absolutely.
There was maybe an argument for slow walking certain types of aid in the name of caution and salami-slicing, but at this point I think that's run through most of not all the credibility it had.
This will be a long war. Ukraine should have all the material it needs.
I think European and American reserves of support are deeper than the commentariat can make it seem, but that doesn't excuse our sloth.
America is broke. We have no money. We are a debtor nation, whose foreign muscle is a fading shadow of what it once was.
We must focus on domestic and North American threats, which are numerous and able to topple us.
Lol, lmao
We have so much money. We have the most money of anyone. As a big rich nation with a relatively low tax burden, we can easily get more money when needed. Our debt ratio is not especially great, it's also not especially bad. It's certainly nowhere near 'broke' - look around the world for some actual examples of what that looks like.
Ask China how ephemeral our military & and those of our friends is - because they sure seem to believe it still means something. Or do you think Xi Jinping hasn't invaded Taiwan yet out of a sincere commitment to peaceful reunification? Do you think Russia would just watch and whine as weapons and money flow into Ukraine if they felt NATO was a hollow shell?
What is this domestic & NA threat that is going to topple us? The transgender white supremacist french-canadian latino immigrant grand terrorist alliance? The dumbasses who got a decade in prison for doing Capitol crimes on live TV? Or the wannabe-anarchists who spray-paint buildings and paintings to feel tough?
Have a sense of proportion.
The threat is walking across our border every day
And a bunch of poor latin immigrants is gonna topple the republic any day now? Do elaborate
I guess everybody but you knows that there have been Chinese nationals, Middle Eastern terror group members, etc. walking across that same border.
These are new threats? I seem to remember them existing for quite a while now - haven't toppled the republic yet, and it's not clear to me why they are so threatening right now that we can't afford to do anything else at the same time.
We have a lot of money, and can afford to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. Doesn't mean we can do everything all the time - but we have enough govt capacity to improve border security and also do important foreign policy. The obstacles are political, not practical. This is a both-and, not either-or, question.
Russia was, and is, our greatest enemy. There are few better uses of our tax dollars than using them to murder Russian soldiers occupying another nation's land.
China is worse and infinitely more dangerous (and evil).
Fix russia and China will quiet down.
How so? China sets it's own destiny and Russia serves either as a convenience or annoyance to Xi.
Lidia said it better; Russia is much more dangerous because they have a former president, and half of a major political party, doing the bidding of their leader.
The Mueller report did not prove that President Trump was a Russian agent or that he colluded with them to steal the election.
Manafort got busted on some campaign finance laws and that was about it.
The Steele report was always just raw HUMINT, not proven allegations and had to be eventually recognised as such.
So where does your assertion come from that Putin controls Trump and half the Republican party?
I applaud your effort, but some people will rather believe the lie they like than the truth they don't.
There will always be those who will blindly get in line and drink the Kool-aid.
That's true of anyone drinking Putin's Kool-aid. There are a lot of them out there who just love Putin's nicely packaged lies, and some of those have been posted here as though they are facts.
You mean the fake dossier that was made up and paid for by the Clinton campaign.
No truth to any of it at all.
No, Tom, they do not. Trump is undoubtedly a fool, but he is no mastermind, criminal or traitorous. The GOP are not allies of Putin. Nonsense.
Kremlin propagandists are cheering the GOP, as they do Putin’s bidding.
Okay Rachel.
What a bunch of fucking nonsense. You should try getting your news from somebody other then MSNBC some time.
I want to believe that, but the people chanting that have been wrong about so many things...
And we drove Russia into their arms with out support for Ukraine.
Why, because they chucked godless communism for a religious renaissance? Is it the gay thing?
Ah, there it is. There is no religious renaissance in Russia. Sorry.
Russia is no more Christian than western Europe. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is a tool of the regime and has long been such. The Eastern Orthodox, in general, knelt at the altar of government centuries ago. Kirill, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is as corrupt as Putin, and is also KGB.
Russia persecutes non-ROC Christians and they are doing all they can to end the existence of evangelical churches. It is beyond silly to think that a country whose population is only about 10% churched is Christian.
"Russia was, and is, our greatest enemy. "
Nonsense. At the moment, Islam is our greatest enemy (Yeah, I said it out loud!). China is probably second. Russia is an irritation, a threat only to those who think the US should have undisputed dominance of Europe right up to the borders of Russia, and maybe beyond.
I like the way you think, but Islam is only a threat because of the America Haters that are trying to bring the country down.
Islam IS an America hater---we are the "Great Satan", after all. read their User's Guide.
Russia is still in the mix. Putin is a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. Putin is also part of the circle that includes China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. It is, at best, naïve to think Russia is not among our greatest enemies.
Why is Russia our enemy?
We haven't lost a single factory or job to Russia.
Learn geopolitics.
Enlighten me. I must have slept through that class at the NWC.
You must have. Both George Friedman and Peter Zeihan have a lot of stuff on Your tube. Both have admitted they were wrong about Ukraine folding quickly. The issues are very important to the US, and if you actually think that we are isolated from the problem that Russia presents in Ukraine, then I guess the NWC served you poorly.
Maybe. They made me read Clausewitz and Sun Tzu and refight Leyte.
Clausewitz Sun Tzu are good reading. Refighting Leyte may also be profitable.
You actually read Clausewitz? The whole thing? You are a better man than I. I tried, though. Really, I tried.
I have read only a little Sun Tzu, but I did see the Karate Kid a couple of times.
Leyte? Do you really believe "The World Wonders" was just padding?
"The issues are very important to the US, "
People keep saying that, but they never quite get around to explaining why.
Perhaps they expect you to know things you obviously do not. Comment threads are not the place to get an education, however. That does not mean they have nothing to learn, but the sort of ignorance I've seen can not be corrected by comment threads. The problem can be brought to your intention, but it is up to you to correct it. It took years for me to get where I am.
Why is Russia our enemy?
How many factories and jobs have we lost to Russia?
Are millions of Russians illegally crossing our border?
Are they giving weapons to Mexico and Canada to use against us?
Don't we have enough problems without creating more for no good reason?
Godspeed
Well done, CDR S. Why we, as a nation, are burdened with elites who have an unbreakable record of mishandling war, I’ll never understand. The recent release of intelligence that the Russians continue to experience great losses of troops and equipment makes a very strong case that Russia may be crazy to persist in loosing people and gear. So, let them be crazy! The sad case is national leaders who have no understanding of the value of an enemy bleeding and bleeding without a single American fatality.
The price is cheap for an effective cost-imposing strategy.
America, be patient. Help the democracy (at least an attempted democracy) with war material. Stalling hasn’t and won’t help. At best, it will only contribute to our stupidity in allowing the Hamas fans to work on the anti-Semitic urges of that same American elite.
What democracy!? Are you kidding?!
You're being naïve.
Thank you for such a lucid statement. America is being hijacked by third-rate, self-serving "writer-politicians" like JD Vance, pseudo-Ukrainans like Victoria Spartz, and ignoramuses who worship the ground the Orange Menace walks on. We need lucidity and boldness.
Well I know how lucidity and boldness are defined in the dictionary but I suspect there is going to be a lack of consensus on what those terms would look like specifically as regards Uk. It's not unreasonable to ask questions like what's the end game in Uk? And the wizards of smart haven't exactly had the best track record going back to Viet Nam. Interestingly Pres. George H.W. Bush (a WWII combat pilot) seemed to have a better grasp on such things than those who followed him... funny that.
Why didn't Putin invade Ukraine when Trump was president?
Trump prefers peace to war. Maybe, its because he is in the hospitality business.
"Why didn't Putin invade Ukraine when Trump was president?" Because Trump was going to hand it over in the second term.
Not bloody likely. he has said that he will demand Russia leave Ukraine and if Putin does not, that he will give them everything they ask for. Even with slow rolled aid, they have done serious damage to Russia's military.
Come on, Tom. That was not a serious comment. Do you get all your opinions from Colbert?
The planning for the invasion had been taking place since at least 2008.
I do envy your access to the inner workings of the Kremlin.
Whilst I tend to align with CDR Sal on stopping Russia (who still uses the maps of 1988), our current level of funding Ukraine winds up being a cost of $336, 507 per Russian soldier killed/seriously wounded and out of commission. Can we just pay them $400K per and call it a day? We don't need to send M-1 Abrams, just send them 1000 drones per day and eventually Putin will realize that 30,000 casualties per month is not sustainable.
And in a "Eureka" moment (doubtlessly enabled by a generous pouring of Henry McKenna 10 yr - thanks Matt-add another log please) why don't we corral all the 18-30 year old illegal immigrants on the southern border and ship them to Ukraine? Including all those 20-something Chinese). 2 weeks of basic and off to the trenches they go.
No McKenna here, but I second the suggestion in your second paragraph.
I'm all for getting those invaders out of the US, but that may not work how you think it will.
That might work. As I understand it, anybody could enlist in the French Foreign Legion, and on completion of his service, would be granted French citizenship. But before then, the Legionnaire was forbidden to enter France. We could create an American Foreign Legion, and enlist all the illegal aliens into it - serve for 20 years and become American citizens with a military pension. But you couldn't come to America until then. Send them to Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all the crappy places where we want to kill people and break things.
That didn't work for Rome, won't work for the US.
Rome did not do it as the French do.
[Gaius Marius has entered the chat]
Will his mules get a say?
Not just anyone can enlist in the Legion. They reject far more than they enlist.
It has been suggested that the US start a foreign legion. I have no problems with that, but you have to be very selective as to who you let in. Most will fail selection.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Asymmetric pain is still pain. Ukraine hasn’t really laid a glove on Russia as of yet. That gives Putin considerable capital.
Great Essay -- thanks Sal!
Sending F-16s, M1 Tanks, ATACMs, Patriots, and all the DPICMs (i.e., cluster munitions) that Ukraine can take is low risk to the US. It is a cliché, but Iran and China is watching -- we need to stop looking weak
Any country that needs to show it is strong is not strong. Anyway, how can you project strength with Brandon?
Sorry. We've being invaded here in Texas and that should be our number 1 national defense priority.
As for Ukraine, George Friedman, Founder and CEO of Stratfor, said the overthrow of Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 "... really was the most blatant coup in history.”
I'd have to agree.
Obama, Brennan, and team Davos were behind the coup which used so called "neonazis" as the street muscle. And just as the CIA support- albeit via our good, pro west, friends in the ISA - to Al-Quaeda brought increased islamic terrorism to the US, the CIA supported training of nazis in Ukraine has brought us 'Boneface' McLellan and, in New Zealand, the Mosque shooter.
Now the FBI (conviently) says white supremicists are the greatest threat to the US.
As Ambassador Molari would say, "Good job".
Let Zelenski and Victoria Nuand pass a hat among the billionaires for support.
I'm all for sending Neuland, Kristol, the Vindmans, heck the whole lot to the front lines.
I would certainly deport the Vindmans.
Don't forget the National Endowment for Democracy---your tax dollars at work. (Of course we do not interfere in the domestic policies of foreign countries! That's Putin talk!)
"Nadia has asked me to reflect on Ukraine’s experience – and its success – after 25 years. NED was there from the beginning, nurturing the active roots of civil society in the 1980’s."
https://www.ned.org/ukraines-success-after-25-years/
Just what is Samantha "Color Revolution" Power doing in Hungary?
Same thing she normally does. Eat.
Friedman was wrong. It was not a coup. Yanukovych ousted himself when he ran for Moscow and his puppet master. the Ukrainian people were not going to tolerate being betrayed back to Russia.
Ousted himself? Sort of like hanging yourself in your jail cell while the guards are asleep and the cameras aren't working?
When Yanukovych ran for Moscow, he abandoned his office. To say he ousted himself is not the silly thing you wish to make it out to be.
OTOH, you are being silly.
If you say so. Perhaps, he did not want to end up like Colonel Ghadaffi. What court tried him?
No court tried him. He did not give one a chance. He was to be arrested and he ran before the arrest warrant could be executed. He had no intention of standing trial. He is still a fugitive from justice.
Arrested by whom? By what authority? Whose justice? BTW, what is justice? Plato took an entire book to answer that question.
Folks pay Stratfor for their opinion - apparently it's worth the money or they'd be gone by now. So, what's your source of cred?
People also know that Stratfor was not perfect. Neither Friedman nor Zeihan are associated with Stratfor now.
Lol. Someone is IN LOVE with Zeihan. LMAO.