I have always shared this analysis, but I think we have to go one more step and consider our allies. First, Europe - especially the former Soviet satellites - would not be thrilled if we left Ukraine hanging. In a confrontation with China, despite Macron, we would be looking to those allies for support - perhaps ships, aircraft, and missiles, but most definitely to enforce a sanctions regime against China. We need them onboard.
Second is the consideration of our allies in the Western Pacific. They are also judging our resolve to help Taiwan through observation of Ukraine. China is doing the same...and has been given a bit of a wake up by the whole thing. The "Wolf Warrior" nonsense and jingoistic arrogance the the Chinese War Boys of the 50 Cent Army was emblematic of where they were. Now they see things might not be so easy - and they might lose - which would be the end of the CCP.
So we are attriting the Russian military, giving a boost to our allies and pause to China. All good.
No one has thought that China, now a growing power would not enact sanctions against the west. All they have to do is stop sending us all that we get Meds, clothing, cheap goods, everything we use comes from China.
So? There is nothing they produce we do not, or could not, produce here - or in Central and South America where many companies leaving China are relocating. We USED them for two reasons: 1) they had cheap slave labor that they exploit to produce cheap goods and our companies took advantage and 2) our government, through the State Department weanies' advice, thought that commerce and helping China develop would bring them into the brotherhood of developed nations smoothly and on a friendly basis. However, opportunists took that to the extreme - like the Clintons allowing Lockheed and Loral to export missile technology for "space programs" that were obviously dual use.
If we stop BUYING from China, though, their economy collapses. In addition, they import 90% of their food and fuel...shut that off and what happens?
If we are going to talk about this, let's be real. Convenience is not need.
Oh, I agree...I think the thought process came from Foggy Bottom, though, and it sounded good and provided a plan for going forward. As we know, the government actually has no ideas or plans in general and then someone comes up with something that sounds good in a white paper and it becomes group think across all the instruments of government...known as policy. Just as Vindman voiced the silly notion that the President wasn't doing what the permanent bureaucracy dictated as "accepted policy", a policy becomes entrenched whether it is good or bad policy (at least until someone comes along to challenge the orthodoxy).
There is definitely blame to go around...but it all came from the group think at the front of the process from all the "smart people" who know better than us. Along that line, we had a deal going back in the mid-2000s to break ships from MARAD with "independent" Chinese shipyards. We went to meet with Sen. Ted Stevens and he put the kibosh on that....he said it sounded too much like shipping steel to Japan before WWII. And he was right! So it went elsewhere.
Why would China implode their own economy? The driving force of the Chinese economy is foreign exchange. So, if they "stop sending us all that we get", the Chinese economy will go into a depression.
It is so frustrating that we failed to learn from COVID. It showed the supply chain and dependence on China. As Yoda would say, "Double down on stupid we did."
Ground ceded is ground with no cost attached. We are giving China ground every day, in every way.
"Europe - especially the former Soviet satellites - would not be thrilled if we left Ukraine hanging."
The American people will not be thrilled if once again America does all the work while Europe does nothing.
"In a confrontation with China, despite Macron, we would be looking to those allies for support"
Europe? Support us against China? Please. They couldn't if they wanted to. And they won't want to. China won't need to twist their arms at all to get them to sit it out.
"They are also judging our resolve to help Taiwan through observation of Ukraine"
They are also judging our CAPABILITY to help Taiwan and how much that is being drained by what we put into Ukraine.
Do you have any friends? Ever support them? Ever need their help? Yeah...that's how the world works from top to bottom. And our friends are on our side...and none have our capabilities. I believe you'll notice I've said Europe - especially Germany and France - have to step up and shoulder the burden with our help. So it isn't an "either/or" decision.
Europe will look after their own interests, as usual. I think they see - historically and realistically - which way things will go and which side they want to be on. So we have to communicate to them what their INTEREST is. And they do have Navy's, and 30 or 40 ships and some expeditionary forces can make a big difference in "being there" - meaning having a presence - when it is most beneficial. Lot of ocean to cover.
As was just pointed out in the article, what we supply to Ukraine - in terms of materials - are not going to affect what we need in a fight over Taiwan. Apples and oranges. Land action vs Naval/Air action.
"Do you have any friends? Ever support them? Ever need their help? Yeah...that's how the world works from top to bottom."
That's not how international politics works. And as I said, they can't help us significantly even if they want to. They don't even care enough about the Russians, who are right next door to them, to rearm, so they are not going to do anything about China thousands of miles away.
"what we supply to Ukraine - in terms of materials - are not going to affect what we need in a fight over Taiwan. Apples and oranges. Land action vs Naval/Air action."
Oh, so what we sent to Ukraine did not cost money that we could use to buy air/naval platforms and munitions to use in the Pacific?
Yeah, humans are humans even in international politics. It comes down to relationships between countries and national interests. I would submit if you don't think they can help us in such a situation with China, militarily and economically, you don't understand international geopolitics OR the military situation.
No, what we sent to Ukraine was DRAWDOWN of currently built systems - sunk costs on older systems, not what we are currently building. The money you see "changing hands" in the news is money we give them to pay us. Is there leakage? Sure. Always is. But you are counting the value of inventory, a lot of it being phased out anyway. Now, you might argue that artillery rounds and missiles need to be replaced - but the advantage has been an increase in production in those areas due to demand. That increased production capability, and the ability to more rapidly build systems, is much more valuable in building up to face China.
I'd also point out the long term savings of reducing the Russian conventional military threat to NATOR for the next couple of decades which allows us to pivot our focus while we get NATO countries to start to increase their military budgets and production. Still a tough get, given their political ideologies and tendencies to buy the people with socialist spending, but it allows us the space to pivot.
" I would submit if you don't think they can help us in such a situation with China, militarily and economically, you don't understand international geopolitics OR the military situation."
Sorry, man, my view is that if you think Europe CAN help us with China, you don't understand geopolitics or the military situation. They're just not going to help us, except at most rhetorically. They're not even willing to help THEMSELVES significantly in Europe.
"what we sent to Ukraine was DRAWDOWN of currently built systems - sunk costs on older systems, not what we are currently building"
Oh I think plenty of it needed replacing.
"I'd also point out the long term savings of reducing the Russian conventional military threat to NATO"
The "threat" did not actually seriously exist so we save nothing.
"while we get NATO countries to start to increase their military budgets and production."
HAHAHAHA, we've been trying to get Europe to do that since 1949 with precious little success, the idea that they are going to ramp up production is ludicrous. It doesn't even rise to the level of "wishful thinking". They are going to say "Russia is defeated, everyone go back to bed". The only thing that MIGHT turn their attitudes around is if we pull the plug and leave.
Well, Ming, nothing can cure your perverse view of the world, your pessimism and negativity. I am well aware of the venal nature of our allies, but I am also aware they are committed to one thing above all others...survival of their countries and thereby their positions. If they thought they could take the US down and take over, they would probably try to regain their position in the world prior to WWI. They know they can't, so they have impotent shows of disdain and opposition on various matters to vex us and show how "independent and enlightened" they are. However, they just as assuredly know they don't want China to be the country they have to deal with as the Alpha dog, just as they were afraid of the Russians.
Much of what we sent was excess equipment. There was a cost, but we are not going to need to replace m113s and mraps. Or 31 of the several thousand spare m1 tanks we have. Our actual cost is shipping.
And in jan 2022 everyone was all cool producing just 270 155mm shells per day and buying 48 lrasms per year, then maybe start building some manpads in 2028. This may have the wakeup call we needed.
But given who we promote to run the military, probably not.
You assume Europe is monolithic it us not. Eastern Europe understands dealing with revisionist imperial powers and supports the US as good allies should. Eastern Europe is more dynamic and foolhearty.
Eastern Europe might support us by saying "yay America" but Eastern Europe is not going to support us by sending ships and aircraft to help us fight China, that's just a fact.
"It is not unreasonable to surmise that suddenly ending US support to Ukraine would also severely damage America’s alliance relationships in Europe and Asia, as many countries have spent significant treasure and political risk to support Ukraine’s success. Lastly, such an abandonment would communicate a lack of US resolve to stand firm against authoritarian imperialism—a message that would certainly be received with gladness in Beijing."
Our allies and our enemies know what we did in Maidan. They know about the money laundering. They know how we pushed NATO expansion past the point of reasonable moderation. They know that we (both Dems and NeverTrump) have demonized Russia for partisan domestic political advantage. They now know with the intel leak (from an 21 year old air nat guardsman with no NTK (LOL)) that we are backing the weak horse and flailing logistically, strategically and tactically like an addict going through withdrawal. So, cutting our losses and realigning our objectives with reality can only help us at this point. Our "allies" might even be happy about that. Maybe not the Poles and the Lithuanians.
Ukraine isn't about resisting authoritarian imperialism. Yes, Putin is an authoritarian. Yes, Russia has some revanchist predilections. But WE made this happen. We accelerated it. By WE I mean the US Nat Sec "Great Minds" that run our "Inter-agency" rats' nest. We should de-escalate this and contain the bushfire that we set. Taiwan is much more important to "resisting authoritarianism" than the morass we've made around the Dneiper.
"Our allies and our enemies know what we did in Maidan."
- What did 'we' do....?
"They know how we pushed NATO expansion past the point of reasonable moderation."
- Whats the problem with independent countries applying, of their own volition, to join a defensive alliance? What exactly was the point of 'reasonable moderation'? Was it by any chance whatever the Russians wanted it to be?
"They know that we (both Dems and NeverTrump) have demonized Russia for partisan domestic political advantage."
- Is it not because of the really shitty things they keep doing?
"Our "allies" might even be happy about that."
- Who might that be? Because everyone in Europe wants Russia to fail in their invasion....they even keep stating this loud and clear....
"Yes, Putin is an authoritarian. Yes, Russia has some revanchist predilections."
- 'Some'.....no comment
"But WE made this happen."
- Wow. Just wow. Poor old Russian's just can't help themselves eh...
Maidan - We overthrew a Russia friendly Yanukovych govt that we didn't like.
"What's the problem with independent countries... .?" -- Are you really that naive?
"Really shitty things." 120k in Facebook ads. That kind of bad? Danchenko and Steele fabulations bad? Er, The Tolstoy Insitute all over US universities and secret police stations in NYC? Er nevermind.
"everyone in Europe wants Russia to fail in their invasion" Listen more closely. You might hear some things. Maybe a buffer zone was a better idea than NATO on the doorstep. Sheesh, I remember the "Partnership for Peace" lol.
"Some...no comment." Yeah, Poland hasn't got any wild ideas. (And I like the Poles just saying) That land has been iron clad locked down by different ethnic groups and tribes for thousands of years. No history. No mass migrations. No wars. Complete stasis. Everybody is happy now with what they've got. Even south of our border, Mexico is thrilled.
Russia doesn't need your fake pity. Russia is going to act in its best interests and so are we. The Obama wizards came into power with the mantra "Don't Do Stupid Shit." We've been doing stupid shit for decades and seem unlikely to stop. Our present situation is probably the stupidest it can get short of a tactical nuke exchange that escalates into something catastrophic. Well pushing oppositional trading blocks together like BRICS and eventually losing the petro dollar will be bad. But that will take time. The impending global recession, maybe depression will only accelerate that. Being King of the Retards is not going to save us. Everybody is waiting to stick the knife in and we are egging them on.
"Maidan - We overthrew a Russia friendly Yanukovych govt that we didn't like."
- No 'We' didn't. The Ukrainian people did. It was them in the square....or are they all 'paid actors'...
""What's the problem with independent countries... .?" -- Are you really that naive?"
- No I'm a realist. Lots of small democracies got an opportunity to thrive and develop. We even gave Russia a chance, and lots of rope, to try and engage and join in...they spurned it.
""Really shitty things." 120k in Facebook ads. That kind of bad? Danchenko and Steele fabulations bad? Er, The Tolstoy Insitute all over US universities and secret police stations in NYC? Er nevermind."
- Invading and occupying Georgia bad...invading Ukraine in 2014 bad....using chemical and nuclear poisons in the UK bad....blowing up military facilities in Bulgaria bad....lots of unexplanined assassinations of Russian opposition figures in Europe bad....shooting down a civilian passenger plane and killing 270 civilians from around the world bad....and thats just paraphrasing....
"Listen more closely. You might hear some things. "
- I live here. And I hear nearly nothing apart from some of the same shrill voices from the extreme far left and far right, who have near zero electoral support, backing the usual fascist regimes...in return for some Russian cash....those voices have dropped away now funding from the Russian's is hard to get....
"Russia doesn't need your fake pity."
- No. It needs a miracle....
"Well pushing oppositional trading blocks together like BRIC"
- I'm sure India and China will join together any moment now, just after they've stopped fighting each other of course......how we must fear Brazil and South Africa....
The end of that border war between cousin's has yet to be written. The Shah of Iran was helped by Jimmy and his failures caused every Islamic troubles we have today right up to our forever war which ended like Vietnam did..
If we fail to help Ukraine it is like a rock in a puddle it all goes into Chaos and we haven't seen what comes after. If we help Ukraine win we start a whole 'nother rock and puddle splash.
Again, further evidence that there are a fair number of commentators here, whose views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine were shaped entirely by RT, Fox News, Truth Social and Qanon 4chan chat rooms.
I get my info about the Russian-Ukraine War from surfing the internet and trust little of what the MSM or the pols say. "A victorious Ukraine, along with a strengthened eastern front of NATO, would provide a bulwark against further Russian aggression." No one wanted to see the Soviet Union expand farther after WWII. NATO was necessary but turned into a free ride for our allies. Europe is never going to put on their Big Boy Pants until we kick them out of our basement and change the locks on our doors. I think Russians sees themselves as better off now than they ever did when the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe. Revanchist? Maybe a little bit, but mostly Nope. I think they want trade more than war. And why wouldn't they see a NATO expansion right up to their borders as a threat, particularly after being promised back in the 90s that that wouldn't happen? This war is one of those "Let's you and him fight" things. We egged it on.
There seems to be two narratives in how the war is going. You get the same story from both sides. "Huge losses of tanks...and men", "on the verge of immanent collapse", "...brutal atrocities by...", "...victory looks certain despite the losses", "...they are even killing puppies". There are no bastions of democracy to be defended or revanchist commies to be defeated over there that I want to see funded or see Americans deployed to intervene. IMO (and I'll admit it may be poorly informed by too much You Tube) this is just another ill-conceived United Fruit Company war.
About Formosa? I am old school. Prefer a mellowed Kuomintang to the Red Chinese. Would be scrambling to throw some roadblocks there.
"And why wouldn't they see a NATO expansion right up to their borders as a threat, particularly after being promised back in the 90s that that wouldn't happen?"
You know that didn't happen...
Right???
Here's Gorbachev, in person, categorically stating that it never happened...
"You know that didn't happen..." No, he probably doesn't. He's clearly learned his foreign policy from Truth Social. I think the American Firsters of today are going to age as poorly as the American Firsters of the interwar period.
I googled Truth Social and saw "App Store, Play Store, Galaxy Store, iOS and Android" and it scared the Begebbus out of me. I don't do cell phones...particularly the kind that you have to rub the screen to make them work. How utterly repulsive. The day they do away with the keyboard I go back to letter writing. Gotta throw another Nope here. Never heard of Truth Social before.
Thanks for the feedback, Rudeboy. "No", I didn't know that didn't happen.
" 'Revanchist? Maybe a little bit, but mostly Nope'
You call invading a sovereign country, with >200k dead 'a little bit'???"
^ I could have parsed that better to prevent a non sequitur. Sorry.
I don't believe revanchism is Russia's main motive for this horrific war and the cause of >200k dead. The main factor, I think, is a paranoid a fear of Russophobes with large armies moving in to what was heretofore a buffer zone. We'd have done better to try to make friends with the bear after the Cold War instead of using them as a political boogeyman. Trade sanctions don't look like they have accomplished their intended purpose. Despite the war, they appear to my eye more buoyant than us, considering our trajectory.
The entire line of 'NATO promised not to expand eastward' has been a Russian propaganda line for over a decade now....despite the fact that there are multiple interviews on video and audio with Gorbachev and other key players stating that no such promise was made, nor was such a promise sought. If you have heard that from an outlet you need to abandon it...because what other nonsense are they saying?
Buffer zone? What on earth is this? Don't you mean independent, sovereign nations that are free to choose their own path? Right? A 'Buffer Zone' or sometimes 'Sphere of Interest' is another line from Russian propaganda. What entitles Russia, above all others, to somehow demand that neighbouring states bend the knee, or have to be subservient to Moscow? Who said they could have a sphere of influence? Who told the populations of these states that they are buffer states and must remain so? Did they have a vote on it? If they have they all appear to be utterly unaware....in fact they downright reject it.
Russophobes? A phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of something....do you think there might be a reason why Eastern European states might have well justified fears of Russia? I'm not aware of any movement or state in Eastern Europe that wants to take territory from Russia. They just want Russia to leave them alone....permanently. Thats not an unreasonable position...
"Trade sanctions don't look like they have accomplished their intended purpose."
Russia's main exports are energy. We don't want to sanction any other raw materials, but compared to energy they're a trifle in value terms.
Russian revenues from their energy exports by value are down by half....they're still supplying oil into the world market (because they can't shut the production facilities down for fear they can't restart them) but could actually be losing money on every barrel of crude as their cost of production is so high (and increasing) with the additional transport costs now that pipelines have gone against a price cap enforced by the West. Indian and Chinese buyers are getting it at a steep discount....income from energy was down 45% in Q1 this year...if thats not working I don't know what is...
They're haemorraging money....their deficit in the first 3 months of the year was as big as their full year forecast and its worsening...the ruble has dropped 35% in the last 4 months, and thats against the USD, Rupee and Yuan...
The Great Game didn't end in 1907. It continues as a 3-dimensional chess game played by small men with big egos and a better plan for the world than you or I have. Sown chaos lubricates it. "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world That has such people in't!" And you know? You're not really rude. Just passionate. Always appreciate feedback.
By your logic, the UK is responsible for Germany invading Poland. Perhaps, your assumptions are wrong, Russia is responsible for Russia's decision to launch a revanchist war of territorial expansion, since you know this is their third attempt in fifteen years. I suspect the American Firster support of Putin in this war is going to age as poorly as the American First position of the 1930s and 40s.
I don't support Putin. I support a US Nat Sec policy built on a framework that assess vital national interests and "Doesn't Do Stupid Shit."
Also, nice Godwin's Law ding. You win the internet today. "We will fight Putin on the beaches!" What's not going to age well is the delusion that a blood letting meat grinder plays to our strategic advantage and ends in anything other than Russia solidifying the Donbas at the least. But sure. Listen to Victoria. She's planning on taken back the Crimea. After she's done in Sudan I guess.
Sure, and Lindburgh didn't support you know who. It just sounded like he did and had the same effect as if he did.
Ensuring that Russia is too weak to engage in expansionist expeditions into Europe is a vital national interest. Ensuring that China is deterred from invading a country that supplies 60% of the worlds semi-conductors and 90% of the most advanced ones, as well as sits across a major geopolitical SLOC and trade route, is a vital national interest.
A foreign policy that "Doesn't Do Stupid Shit" cannot be built around appeasing the revanchist territorial expansion of authoritarian dictators. Unless you believe that a bilateral world order where Xi and Putin have their own sphere of influence is smart foreign policy or somehow support US national interests.
Does doing stupid shit include overthrowing inconvenient governments? Does it include ignoring your opponent's claim that hey if you try and integrate Ukraine into your nifty alliance that's an existential threat and we won't put up with that. How about mocking your opponent for thinking Minsk I and II were good faith efforts to arbitrate a dispute and not breathing space to arm Ukraine. How about trying to force an ethnic Russian speaking majority into Ukraine and then turnign a blind eye to years of shelling and civilian casualties?
Your narrative that this is black and white, good vs. evil, authoritarian vs. scrappy democracy is false or at the very least much more nuanced. Prior to 2013 nobody was worrying about the Russian monster pouring into the Fulda gap again. Nope, they were snickering at how far they could push things with NATO expansion and EU membership and more importantly how much money they could launder.
I'd do a Simon vs. Ehrlich bet with you. In five years this will have ended badly for the West and the US. Wish I was wrong. We played stupid games and won stupid prizes. Hopefully we don't get catastrophic system failure black swan delight. Inshallah, or better yet Дай Бог!
The nice things about it is, you don't have to wish it to be wrong. It already is.
Putin never intended to live by either Minsk agreement and he proved it by not getting his troops and mercenaries out of the Donbas and turning the border back to Ukraine. He's been a liar from the beginning, and anyone that thinks a KGB agent won't lie through his teeth is naïve in the extreme.
The war is a revanchist war. Putin has stated as much. He intends to snuff the existence of Ukraine as a state and as a nation. His stated aim is genocide.
Russia could've been the NATO eastern flank. Or NATO could've been dissolved.
Instead, NATO expansion had everything to do with providing the left an anvil to push US domestic policy alignment (downward) towards Euro social/green lunacies and nothing to do with actual national defense. The proof is the 2020s reaping of the 1990s sowing.
Everything terrible is traceable to a Clinton-ite.
Or maybe...your assumptions are wrong. Russia actually is a threat to its neighbors, since, you know, it's invaded its neighbors three times in the last fifteen years. And NATO is necessary to deter and if deterrence fails, defeat Russian aggression.
I am sorry to say I don't have a dog in the Ukraine vs Russia fight. The facts are the Black Sea is a large but contained body of water, hard to maneuver in with a very small entrance and exit for blue water ships. The only thing to be gained by a Ukraine win would be blocking the Black sea ports for Russian shipping and Navy, that they will fight hard for and as long as it takes. Another Forever war.
All that is necessary to take Taiwan is a solid sea and air blockade, and the way to war is for the US to try to run that blockade. The answer there lies in the Government, Citizens, allies as to whether Taiwan is worth fighting for in a very big war with most likely large casualties and as in Vietnam, finally the Chinese own it.
My view is Ukraine is not worth it, all we gain is Ukraine as a NATO partner and a blockade of Russia to the Med.
As for Taiwan we lose the Western Pacific west of Hawaii.
Agreed. Along with the natural gas as feedstock for the fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. Opening up more, and expanding existing, domestic phosphate and potash mines. And let's not forget the chips for tractor electronics. The young'uns these days have a hard time laying down a straight furrow without GPS.
"The Ukrainians are putting up a hell of a fight and in the process are eliminating Russian conventional power for decades to come or the length of her present republic" -- except, who cares because the war revealed "Russian conventional power" was a chimera.
"One war at a time" -- except the enemy gets a vote in that.
"I have seen no serious person who has outlined any scenario where a triumphant Russian Republic in the war in Ukraine serves the USA or her European allies well." -- there's no scenario where Russia emerges from this war triumphant. At some point (maybe even right now) we should decide we've thrown enough resources at making Russia bleed. No need to overinvest in that when our resources are not unlimited and a huge, growing problem in the Pacific is staring us in the face.
Sorry, I could care less about Ukraine, said to be the most Corrupt Nation in the region, connections to Hunter and Joe, CIA plots to regime change enacted by the US.
I don't need or want anything they sell and we can get it elsewhere and even get it again after Russia wins, if they do.
I want my Nation to stop all aid. I watched Vietnam unfold the same way this is going, from Jr. High school till I was fighting there myself. Eight years, 58,000 US lives, 150,000 Wounded, 1.9 million Vietnamese dead a land polluted by agent orange and UXB and dang, ya know what?
We just sailed away, left 2,000 MIA's there and then spit on us Vets.
That is what Ukraine means to me, another F___en Vietnam debacle.
And Russia makes them look positively good...they're ranked 137th out of 180....and falling.
One thing people miss is that Ukraine has been moving up the corruption index charts (as in corruption is dropping).
Oddly enough that movement started in 2014....after the Ukrainian's had got rid of the Russian stooge Yanukovych....since then they've been climbing up the corruption index....and recent changes will see them get cleaner still...
"Sorry, I could care less about Ukraine, said to be the most Corrupt Nation in the region, connections to Hunter and Joe, CIA plots to regime change enacted by the US."
Wow, someone has drunken deep from the poison chalice of MAGA foreign policy.
"I don't need or want anything they sell and we can get it elsewhere and even get it again after Russia wins, if they do."
You know that Ukraine is one of the largest producers of Grain in the world, right? And Grain is a commodity... but yeah sure you don't want bread...
"That is what Ukraine means to me, another F___en Vietnam debacle."
If I had a nickel for every time I heard a boomer ranting about Vietnam....you know that every foreign war is not another Vietnam, right? Setting aside the obvious that Vietnam was jungle and urban warfare fought with guerrilla tactics and the war Ukraine is on a steppe dominated by Tanks and airpower....if this was Vietnam, which it isn't, we would actually be playing the role of China or the Soviets, not the US. So, it would be more accurate to say that this war is Russia's Vietnam, but that would still be wrong. Since, again, this is not Vietnam.
Exactly. I want Russia to destroy their army, their society and trust in their government before retreating in disgrace while while NATO plays the part of the USSR in Vietnam. Too bad we have Neville Biden and Olaf Mussolini as our leaders.
I don't understand why the Mearsheimer Realists are not chafing at the bit to turn Cuba into a US territory, and dominate Venezuela...
But say that it's a matter of 'Realistic' geopolitics to cast Ukraine into the maw of Russia. That it's our fault Ukraine got invaded in the first place
Yet then are also ready to come to the aid of Taiwan against China with no objection.
Why does that "Realism" turn different shades depending on the angle it's applied.
It was Russia's fault that Ukraine got invaded, because they chose to invade another sovereign country. Or would you argue that it was the UK's fault that Germany invaded Poland? The malefactor is responsible for his own bad acts, not the third party who fails in his sincere attempts at deterrence.
The problems the west (i.e. the US) is having in supplying ground weapons to Ukraine are the same problems the west (i.e. the US) would have in supplying Taiwan...The weapons would be different but the limited supplies and slow production rates are the same.
Add to the Taiwan issue the difficulties in supply across 5000 miles of Pacific ocean, without the numbers of warships needed to protect ships (we lack the numbers of warships needed to protect Capital warships).
I understand the reasoning, but fear that the follow-on to the Ukraine campaign will be a renewed fixation on Europe...at the expense of the Pacific theater.
If the Ukrainians are successful, there will be a push to get them into NATO...and American forces into Ukraine. If the Russians come out on top, there will be a push to increase American forces in Europe to protect our NATO allies. Either way, we will be looking at demands to allocate resources to Europe. And we desperately need those resources to reinforce the Navy and Air Force for a Pacific fight.
Matters are not helped by the dominance of the Army in the Goldwater-Nichols era, nor by the fact that Europe is much more appealing as a deployment location (or a diplomatic posting) than the Far East.
The only way this works out as anything but a disaster for the United States is if we start telling our European "allies" that the United States is limiting our commitment to NATO...or withdrawing from it entirely. The European NATO members dispose of at least three times Russia's population, five times (or more) Russia's finances, and have parity (at least) in technology. Time for them to man up. The USA has business elsewhere.
Indeed, the best thing Europe can do to help us in the Pacific... is get off their dead asses and counter Russia, as they are well able (if not willing) to do.
This contradicts your comment above. Is it or is it not in Europe's interest to have less American troops in Europe? The pretzel logic of the isolationist never fails to entertain.
Absent the Russian threat, it's in the best interest of the US and Europe to remove US troops from Europe and reposition them in the Pacific. Europe wants to take more control over their security. What stops this from happening is the threat of Russian invasion, which has happened three times in the last fifteen years, and Europe's obsession with a social welfare state which consumes their domestic budgets and prevents them from spending meaningfully on their own defense.
You misunderstand the situation: In the case of a Russian victory, more US troops would be sent to keep Europe as a vassal, not to defend against a Russian attack that likely won't happen.
I think there is additional interest in Europe and in the US for Europe to take the lead in its own security. I hope that this is not just talk and that a real effort will be made after the Ukraine War is over.
I was poking around the gulf war history and saw that we fired a 2.5 hour prep before the ground phase started. And in 2.5 hours we fired 90,000 rounds of artillery. About 1/2 year of current production fired in 2.5 hours of combat.
You see the same with the 48 LRASMs per year the Navy has been buying. Every sortie uses up a year of production.
The problem isn’t Taiwan vs Ukraine, it’s that the US military has forgotten how wars actually work. If we don’t fix that we can’t win anything against any reasonably capable opponent.
I have always shared this analysis, but I think we have to go one more step and consider our allies. First, Europe - especially the former Soviet satellites - would not be thrilled if we left Ukraine hanging. In a confrontation with China, despite Macron, we would be looking to those allies for support - perhaps ships, aircraft, and missiles, but most definitely to enforce a sanctions regime against China. We need them onboard.
Second is the consideration of our allies in the Western Pacific. They are also judging our resolve to help Taiwan through observation of Ukraine. China is doing the same...and has been given a bit of a wake up by the whole thing. The "Wolf Warrior" nonsense and jingoistic arrogance the the Chinese War Boys of the 50 Cent Army was emblematic of where they were. Now they see things might not be so easy - and they might lose - which would be the end of the CCP.
So we are attriting the Russian military, giving a boost to our allies and pause to China. All good.
No one has thought that China, now a growing power would not enact sanctions against the west. All they have to do is stop sending us all that we get Meds, clothing, cheap goods, everything we use comes from China.
China is able to enact sanctions too.
So? There is nothing they produce we do not, or could not, produce here - or in Central and South America where many companies leaving China are relocating. We USED them for two reasons: 1) they had cheap slave labor that they exploit to produce cheap goods and our companies took advantage and 2) our government, through the State Department weanies' advice, thought that commerce and helping China develop would bring them into the brotherhood of developed nations smoothly and on a friendly basis. However, opportunists took that to the extreme - like the Clintons allowing Lockheed and Loral to export missile technology for "space programs" that were obviously dual use.
If we stop BUYING from China, though, their economy collapses. In addition, they import 90% of their food and fuel...shut that off and what happens?
If we are going to talk about this, let's be real. Convenience is not need.
Agree with you except for the State Department weenies. It was a while of government approach.
Every one in the executive branch saw big paid days same with the legislative branch. They all cashed in on selling out US workers and security.
Even the R’s forgot the golden rulle from the great RR….”Trust but Verify” became sell out and cash out.
Oh, I agree...I think the thought process came from Foggy Bottom, though, and it sounded good and provided a plan for going forward. As we know, the government actually has no ideas or plans in general and then someone comes up with something that sounds good in a white paper and it becomes group think across all the instruments of government...known as policy. Just as Vindman voiced the silly notion that the President wasn't doing what the permanent bureaucracy dictated as "accepted policy", a policy becomes entrenched whether it is good or bad policy (at least until someone comes along to challenge the orthodoxy).
There is definitely blame to go around...but it all came from the group think at the front of the process from all the "smart people" who know better than us. Along that line, we had a deal going back in the mid-2000s to break ships from MARAD with "independent" Chinese shipyards. We went to meet with Sen. Ted Stevens and he put the kibosh on that....he said it sounded too much like shipping steel to Japan before WWII. And he was right! So it went elsewhere.
Why would China implode their own economy? The driving force of the Chinese economy is foreign exchange. So, if they "stop sending us all that we get", the Chinese economy will go into a depression.
It is so frustrating that we failed to learn from COVID. It showed the supply chain and dependence on China. As Yoda would say, "Double down on stupid we did."
Ground ceded is ground with no cost attached. We are giving China ground every day, in every way.
China is paying for that ground. You know what bank accounts to check...
We could at least make it more expensive! Goodness they are getting it for cheap!
"Europe - especially the former Soviet satellites - would not be thrilled if we left Ukraine hanging."
The American people will not be thrilled if once again America does all the work while Europe does nothing.
"In a confrontation with China, despite Macron, we would be looking to those allies for support"
Europe? Support us against China? Please. They couldn't if they wanted to. And they won't want to. China won't need to twist their arms at all to get them to sit it out.
"They are also judging our resolve to help Taiwan through observation of Ukraine"
They are also judging our CAPABILITY to help Taiwan and how much that is being drained by what we put into Ukraine.
Do you have any friends? Ever support them? Ever need their help? Yeah...that's how the world works from top to bottom. And our friends are on our side...and none have our capabilities. I believe you'll notice I've said Europe - especially Germany and France - have to step up and shoulder the burden with our help. So it isn't an "either/or" decision.
Europe will look after their own interests, as usual. I think they see - historically and realistically - which way things will go and which side they want to be on. So we have to communicate to them what their INTEREST is. And they do have Navy's, and 30 or 40 ships and some expeditionary forces can make a big difference in "being there" - meaning having a presence - when it is most beneficial. Lot of ocean to cover.
As was just pointed out in the article, what we supply to Ukraine - in terms of materials - are not going to affect what we need in a fight over Taiwan. Apples and oranges. Land action vs Naval/Air action.
"Do you have any friends? Ever support them? Ever need their help? Yeah...that's how the world works from top to bottom."
That's not how international politics works. And as I said, they can't help us significantly even if they want to. They don't even care enough about the Russians, who are right next door to them, to rearm, so they are not going to do anything about China thousands of miles away.
"what we supply to Ukraine - in terms of materials - are not going to affect what we need in a fight over Taiwan. Apples and oranges. Land action vs Naval/Air action."
Oh, so what we sent to Ukraine did not cost money that we could use to buy air/naval platforms and munitions to use in the Pacific?
Yeah, humans are humans even in international politics. It comes down to relationships between countries and national interests. I would submit if you don't think they can help us in such a situation with China, militarily and economically, you don't understand international geopolitics OR the military situation.
No, what we sent to Ukraine was DRAWDOWN of currently built systems - sunk costs on older systems, not what we are currently building. The money you see "changing hands" in the news is money we give them to pay us. Is there leakage? Sure. Always is. But you are counting the value of inventory, a lot of it being phased out anyway. Now, you might argue that artillery rounds and missiles need to be replaced - but the advantage has been an increase in production in those areas due to demand. That increased production capability, and the ability to more rapidly build systems, is much more valuable in building up to face China.
I'd also point out the long term savings of reducing the Russian conventional military threat to NATOR for the next couple of decades which allows us to pivot our focus while we get NATO countries to start to increase their military budgets and production. Still a tough get, given their political ideologies and tendencies to buy the people with socialist spending, but it allows us the space to pivot.
" I would submit if you don't think they can help us in such a situation with China, militarily and economically, you don't understand international geopolitics OR the military situation."
Sorry, man, my view is that if you think Europe CAN help us with China, you don't understand geopolitics or the military situation. They're just not going to help us, except at most rhetorically. They're not even willing to help THEMSELVES significantly in Europe.
"what we sent to Ukraine was DRAWDOWN of currently built systems - sunk costs on older systems, not what we are currently building"
Oh I think plenty of it needed replacing.
"I'd also point out the long term savings of reducing the Russian conventional military threat to NATO"
The "threat" did not actually seriously exist so we save nothing.
"while we get NATO countries to start to increase their military budgets and production."
HAHAHAHA, we've been trying to get Europe to do that since 1949 with precious little success, the idea that they are going to ramp up production is ludicrous. It doesn't even rise to the level of "wishful thinking". They are going to say "Russia is defeated, everyone go back to bed". The only thing that MIGHT turn their attitudes around is if we pull the plug and leave.
Well, Ming, nothing can cure your perverse view of the world, your pessimism and negativity. I am well aware of the venal nature of our allies, but I am also aware they are committed to one thing above all others...survival of their countries and thereby their positions. If they thought they could take the US down and take over, they would probably try to regain their position in the world prior to WWI. They know they can't, so they have impotent shows of disdain and opposition on various matters to vex us and show how "independent and enlightened" they are. However, they just as assuredly know they don't want China to be the country they have to deal with as the Alpha dog, just as they were afraid of the Russians.
"They're just not going to help us, except at most rhetorically."
Freaking Pollyanna optimism you got there. The European political class will not even help us with rhetoric on the world stage.
Much of what we sent was excess equipment. There was a cost, but we are not going to need to replace m113s and mraps. Or 31 of the several thousand spare m1 tanks we have. Our actual cost is shipping.
And in jan 2022 everyone was all cool producing just 270 155mm shells per day and buying 48 lrasms per year, then maybe start building some manpads in 2028. This may have the wakeup call we needed.
But given who we promote to run the military, probably not.
You assume Europe is monolithic it us not. Eastern Europe understands dealing with revisionist imperial powers and supports the US as good allies should. Eastern Europe is more dynamic and foolhearty.
Eastern Europe might support us by saying "yay America" but Eastern Europe is not going to support us by sending ships and aircraft to help us fight China, that's just a fact.
If Afghanistan & Iraq are any indication, the US is better off without "European Allies" assistance.
"It is not unreasonable to surmise that suddenly ending US support to Ukraine would also severely damage America’s alliance relationships in Europe and Asia, as many countries have spent significant treasure and political risk to support Ukraine’s success. Lastly, such an abandonment would communicate a lack of US resolve to stand firm against authoritarian imperialism—a message that would certainly be received with gladness in Beijing."
Our allies and our enemies know what we did in Maidan. They know about the money laundering. They know how we pushed NATO expansion past the point of reasonable moderation. They know that we (both Dems and NeverTrump) have demonized Russia for partisan domestic political advantage. They now know with the intel leak (from an 21 year old air nat guardsman with no NTK (LOL)) that we are backing the weak horse and flailing logistically, strategically and tactically like an addict going through withdrawal. So, cutting our losses and realigning our objectives with reality can only help us at this point. Our "allies" might even be happy about that. Maybe not the Poles and the Lithuanians.
Ukraine isn't about resisting authoritarian imperialism. Yes, Putin is an authoritarian. Yes, Russia has some revanchist predilections. But WE made this happen. We accelerated it. By WE I mean the US Nat Sec "Great Minds" that run our "Inter-agency" rats' nest. We should de-escalate this and contain the bushfire that we set. Taiwan is much more important to "resisting authoritarianism" than the morass we've made around the Dneiper.
"Our allies and our enemies know what we did in Maidan."
- What did 'we' do....?
"They know how we pushed NATO expansion past the point of reasonable moderation."
- Whats the problem with independent countries applying, of their own volition, to join a defensive alliance? What exactly was the point of 'reasonable moderation'? Was it by any chance whatever the Russians wanted it to be?
"They know that we (both Dems and NeverTrump) have demonized Russia for partisan domestic political advantage."
- Is it not because of the really shitty things they keep doing?
"Our "allies" might even be happy about that."
- Who might that be? Because everyone in Europe wants Russia to fail in their invasion....they even keep stating this loud and clear....
"Yes, Putin is an authoritarian. Yes, Russia has some revanchist predilections."
- 'Some'.....no comment
"But WE made this happen."
- Wow. Just wow. Poor old Russian's just can't help themselves eh...
Maidan - We overthrew a Russia friendly Yanukovych govt that we didn't like.
"What's the problem with independent countries... .?" -- Are you really that naive?
"Really shitty things." 120k in Facebook ads. That kind of bad? Danchenko and Steele fabulations bad? Er, The Tolstoy Insitute all over US universities and secret police stations in NYC? Er nevermind.
"everyone in Europe wants Russia to fail in their invasion" Listen more closely. You might hear some things. Maybe a buffer zone was a better idea than NATO on the doorstep. Sheesh, I remember the "Partnership for Peace" lol.
"Some...no comment." Yeah, Poland hasn't got any wild ideas. (And I like the Poles just saying) That land has been iron clad locked down by different ethnic groups and tribes for thousands of years. No history. No mass migrations. No wars. Complete stasis. Everybody is happy now with what they've got. Even south of our border, Mexico is thrilled.
Russia doesn't need your fake pity. Russia is going to act in its best interests and so are we. The Obama wizards came into power with the mantra "Don't Do Stupid Shit." We've been doing stupid shit for decades and seem unlikely to stop. Our present situation is probably the stupidest it can get short of a tactical nuke exchange that escalates into something catastrophic. Well pushing oppositional trading blocks together like BRICS and eventually losing the petro dollar will be bad. But that will take time. The impending global recession, maybe depression will only accelerate that. Being King of the Retards is not going to save us. Everybody is waiting to stick the knife in and we are egging them on.
"Maidan - We overthrew a Russia friendly Yanukovych govt that we didn't like."
- No 'We' didn't. The Ukrainian people did. It was them in the square....or are they all 'paid actors'...
""What's the problem with independent countries... .?" -- Are you really that naive?"
- No I'm a realist. Lots of small democracies got an opportunity to thrive and develop. We even gave Russia a chance, and lots of rope, to try and engage and join in...they spurned it.
""Really shitty things." 120k in Facebook ads. That kind of bad? Danchenko and Steele fabulations bad? Er, The Tolstoy Insitute all over US universities and secret police stations in NYC? Er nevermind."
- Invading and occupying Georgia bad...invading Ukraine in 2014 bad....using chemical and nuclear poisons in the UK bad....blowing up military facilities in Bulgaria bad....lots of unexplanined assassinations of Russian opposition figures in Europe bad....shooting down a civilian passenger plane and killing 270 civilians from around the world bad....and thats just paraphrasing....
"Listen more closely. You might hear some things. "
- I live here. And I hear nearly nothing apart from some of the same shrill voices from the extreme far left and far right, who have near zero electoral support, backing the usual fascist regimes...in return for some Russian cash....those voices have dropped away now funding from the Russian's is hard to get....
"Russia doesn't need your fake pity."
- No. It needs a miracle....
"Well pushing oppositional trading blocks together like BRIC"
- I'm sure India and China will join together any moment now, just after they've stopped fighting each other of course......how we must fear Brazil and South Africa....
The end of that border war between cousin's has yet to be written. The Shah of Iran was helped by Jimmy and his failures caused every Islamic troubles we have today right up to our forever war which ended like Vietnam did..
If we fail to help Ukraine it is like a rock in a puddle it all goes into Chaos and we haven't seen what comes after. If we help Ukraine win we start a whole 'nother rock and puddle splash.
Same with Taiwan.
Deep Kimchee comes to mind.
Yeah, our involvement in the middle east started with Carter......
Not going to Fisk this. Although, I have one snarky comment:
" No 'We' didn't. The Ukrainian people did. It was them in the square....or are they all 'paid actors'..."
Dr. Evil: "Right"
Also tell Victoria to keep her big fat mouth shut next time when using an unsecure line.
Not the Victoria Nuland conspiracy line....
Please....
TBF, she DID say some things you shouldn't say over a secure phone.
Again, further evidence that there are a fair number of commentators here, whose views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine were shaped entirely by RT, Fox News, Truth Social and Qanon 4chan chat rooms.
"We even gave Russia a chance, and lots of rope, to try and engage and join in...they spurned it"
If by democracy you mean a bunch of paid off oligarchs while corporate interests carve up the country, yeah we gave them a chance.
I'm sure Germany felt very independent when they were told the Nord Stream was going to be blown up.
I get my info about the Russian-Ukraine War from surfing the internet and trust little of what the MSM or the pols say. "A victorious Ukraine, along with a strengthened eastern front of NATO, would provide a bulwark against further Russian aggression." No one wanted to see the Soviet Union expand farther after WWII. NATO was necessary but turned into a free ride for our allies. Europe is never going to put on their Big Boy Pants until we kick them out of our basement and change the locks on our doors. I think Russians sees themselves as better off now than they ever did when the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe. Revanchist? Maybe a little bit, but mostly Nope. I think they want trade more than war. And why wouldn't they see a NATO expansion right up to their borders as a threat, particularly after being promised back in the 90s that that wouldn't happen? This war is one of those "Let's you and him fight" things. We egged it on.
There seems to be two narratives in how the war is going. You get the same story from both sides. "Huge losses of tanks...and men", "on the verge of immanent collapse", "...brutal atrocities by...", "...victory looks certain despite the losses", "...they are even killing puppies". There are no bastions of democracy to be defended or revanchist commies to be defeated over there that I want to see funded or see Americans deployed to intervene. IMO (and I'll admit it may be poorly informed by too much You Tube) this is just another ill-conceived United Fruit Company war.
About Formosa? I am old school. Prefer a mellowed Kuomintang to the Red Chinese. Would be scrambling to throw some roadblocks there.
"And why wouldn't they see a NATO expansion right up to their borders as a threat, particularly after being promised back in the 90s that that wouldn't happen?"
You know that didn't happen...
Right???
Here's Gorbachev, in person, categorically stating that it never happened...
https://twitter.com/splendid_pete/status/1650735533826375680
"Revanchist? Maybe a little bit, but mostly Nope"
You call invading a sovereign country, with >200k dead "a little bit"???
"I think they want trade more than war."
Hows that turning out for them?
"You know that didn't happen..." No, he probably doesn't. He's clearly learned his foreign policy from Truth Social. I think the American Firsters of today are going to age as poorly as the American Firsters of the interwar period.
I googled Truth Social and saw "App Store, Play Store, Galaxy Store, iOS and Android" and it scared the Begebbus out of me. I don't do cell phones...particularly the kind that you have to rub the screen to make them work. How utterly repulsive. The day they do away with the keyboard I go back to letter writing. Gotta throw another Nope here. Never heard of Truth Social before.
Thanks for the feedback, Rudeboy. "No", I didn't know that didn't happen.
" 'Revanchist? Maybe a little bit, but mostly Nope'
You call invading a sovereign country, with >200k dead 'a little bit'???"
^ I could have parsed that better to prevent a non sequitur. Sorry.
I don't believe revanchism is Russia's main motive for this horrific war and the cause of >200k dead. The main factor, I think, is a paranoid a fear of Russophobes with large armies moving in to what was heretofore a buffer zone. We'd have done better to try to make friends with the bear after the Cold War instead of using them as a political boogeyman. Trade sanctions don't look like they have accomplished their intended purpose. Despite the war, they appear to my eye more buoyant than us, considering our trajectory.
The entire line of 'NATO promised not to expand eastward' has been a Russian propaganda line for over a decade now....despite the fact that there are multiple interviews on video and audio with Gorbachev and other key players stating that no such promise was made, nor was such a promise sought. If you have heard that from an outlet you need to abandon it...because what other nonsense are they saying?
Buffer zone? What on earth is this? Don't you mean independent, sovereign nations that are free to choose their own path? Right? A 'Buffer Zone' or sometimes 'Sphere of Interest' is another line from Russian propaganda. What entitles Russia, above all others, to somehow demand that neighbouring states bend the knee, or have to be subservient to Moscow? Who said they could have a sphere of influence? Who told the populations of these states that they are buffer states and must remain so? Did they have a vote on it? If they have they all appear to be utterly unaware....in fact they downright reject it.
Russophobes? A phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of something....do you think there might be a reason why Eastern European states might have well justified fears of Russia? I'm not aware of any movement or state in Eastern Europe that wants to take territory from Russia. They just want Russia to leave them alone....permanently. Thats not an unreasonable position...
"Trade sanctions don't look like they have accomplished their intended purpose."
Russia's main exports are energy. We don't want to sanction any other raw materials, but compared to energy they're a trifle in value terms.
Russian revenues from their energy exports by value are down by half....they're still supplying oil into the world market (because they can't shut the production facilities down for fear they can't restart them) but could actually be losing money on every barrel of crude as their cost of production is so high (and increasing) with the additional transport costs now that pipelines have gone against a price cap enforced by the West. Indian and Chinese buyers are getting it at a steep discount....income from energy was down 45% in Q1 this year...if thats not working I don't know what is...
They're haemorraging money....their deficit in the first 3 months of the year was as big as their full year forecast and its worsening...the ruble has dropped 35% in the last 4 months, and thats against the USD, Rupee and Yuan...
The Great Game didn't end in 1907. It continues as a 3-dimensional chess game played by small men with big egos and a better plan for the world than you or I have. Sown chaos lubricates it. "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world That has such people in't!" And you know? You're not really rude. Just passionate. Always appreciate feedback.
By your logic, the UK is responsible for Germany invading Poland. Perhaps, your assumptions are wrong, Russia is responsible for Russia's decision to launch a revanchist war of territorial expansion, since you know this is their third attempt in fifteen years. I suspect the American Firster support of Putin in this war is going to age as poorly as the American First position of the 1930s and 40s.
I don't support Putin. I support a US Nat Sec policy built on a framework that assess vital national interests and "Doesn't Do Stupid Shit."
Also, nice Godwin's Law ding. You win the internet today. "We will fight Putin on the beaches!" What's not going to age well is the delusion that a blood letting meat grinder plays to our strategic advantage and ends in anything other than Russia solidifying the Donbas at the least. But sure. Listen to Victoria. She's planning on taken back the Crimea. After she's done in Sudan I guess.
Sure, and Lindburgh didn't support you know who. It just sounded like he did and had the same effect as if he did.
Ensuring that Russia is too weak to engage in expansionist expeditions into Europe is a vital national interest. Ensuring that China is deterred from invading a country that supplies 60% of the worlds semi-conductors and 90% of the most advanced ones, as well as sits across a major geopolitical SLOC and trade route, is a vital national interest.
A foreign policy that "Doesn't Do Stupid Shit" cannot be built around appeasing the revanchist territorial expansion of authoritarian dictators. Unless you believe that a bilateral world order where Xi and Putin have their own sphere of influence is smart foreign policy or somehow support US national interests.
Does doing stupid shit include overthrowing inconvenient governments? Does it include ignoring your opponent's claim that hey if you try and integrate Ukraine into your nifty alliance that's an existential threat and we won't put up with that. How about mocking your opponent for thinking Minsk I and II were good faith efforts to arbitrate a dispute and not breathing space to arm Ukraine. How about trying to force an ethnic Russian speaking majority into Ukraine and then turnign a blind eye to years of shelling and civilian casualties?
Your narrative that this is black and white, good vs. evil, authoritarian vs. scrappy democracy is false or at the very least much more nuanced. Prior to 2013 nobody was worrying about the Russian monster pouring into the Fulda gap again. Nope, they were snickering at how far they could push things with NATO expansion and EU membership and more importantly how much money they could launder.
I'd do a Simon vs. Ehrlich bet with you. In five years this will have ended badly for the West and the US. Wish I was wrong. We played stupid games and won stupid prizes. Hopefully we don't get catastrophic system failure black swan delight. Inshallah, or better yet Дай Бог!
The nice things about it is, you don't have to wish it to be wrong. It already is.
Putin never intended to live by either Minsk agreement and he proved it by not getting his troops and mercenaries out of the Donbas and turning the border back to Ukraine. He's been a liar from the beginning, and anyone that thinks a KGB agent won't lie through his teeth is naïve in the extreme.
The war is a revanchist war. Putin has stated as much. He intends to snuff the existence of Ukraine as a state and as a nation. His stated aim is genocide.
Bravo, Sal. Bravo.
Thank you. I felt the need to put down a marker.
Russia could've been the NATO eastern flank. Or NATO could've been dissolved.
Instead, NATO expansion had everything to do with providing the left an anvil to push US domestic policy alignment (downward) towards Euro social/green lunacies and nothing to do with actual national defense. The proof is the 2020s reaping of the 1990s sowing.
Everything terrible is traceable to a Clinton-ite.
Or maybe...your assumptions are wrong. Russia actually is a threat to its neighbors, since, you know, it's invaded its neighbors three times in the last fifteen years. And NATO is necessary to deter and if deterrence fails, defeat Russian aggression.
It is now, it wasn't then.
I am sorry to say I don't have a dog in the Ukraine vs Russia fight. The facts are the Black Sea is a large but contained body of water, hard to maneuver in with a very small entrance and exit for blue water ships. The only thing to be gained by a Ukraine win would be blocking the Black sea ports for Russian shipping and Navy, that they will fight hard for and as long as it takes. Another Forever war.
All that is necessary to take Taiwan is a solid sea and air blockade, and the way to war is for the US to try to run that blockade. The answer there lies in the Government, Citizens, allies as to whether Taiwan is worth fighting for in a very big war with most likely large casualties and as in Vietnam, finally the Chinese own it.
My view is Ukraine is not worth it, all we gain is Ukraine as a NATO partner and a blockade of Russia to the Med.
As for Taiwan we lose the Western Pacific west of Hawaii.
Quite a pickle we are in right now.
Keeps the bread basket on our side.
We have a huge Breadbasket ourselves and can feed ourselves. Ukraine in my view is a European Union Problem.
Frankly, Ukraine so far has done nothing for the US.
Russia hasn't either.
So, who cares who wins?
I do not.
Keep My Son and Grandsons out of this European war.
Russia is not a NATO member, nor is Ukraine.
What I see is another run up to Vietnam step by step, and it will end the same way.
SO when the hordes of migrants come even faster, what's the plan?
DMZ between the US and Mexico, CG can pick up and repatriate anyone on boats.
Assistance mission on Mexico's southern border. Easier to block.
Bet the other way is infinitely cheaper and less detrimental to "We people."
Agreed. Along with the natural gas as feedstock for the fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. Opening up more, and expanding existing, domestic phosphate and potash mines. And let's not forget the chips for tractor electronics. The young'uns these days have a hard time laying down a straight furrow without GPS.
"The Ukrainians are putting up a hell of a fight and in the process are eliminating Russian conventional power for decades to come or the length of her present republic" -- except, who cares because the war revealed "Russian conventional power" was a chimera.
"One war at a time" -- except the enemy gets a vote in that.
"I have seen no serious person who has outlined any scenario where a triumphant Russian Republic in the war in Ukraine serves the USA or her European allies well." -- there's no scenario where Russia emerges from this war triumphant. At some point (maybe even right now) we should decide we've thrown enough resources at making Russia bleed. No need to overinvest in that when our resources are not unlimited and a huge, growing problem in the Pacific is staring us in the face.
"there's no scenario where Russia emerges from this war triumphant"
The most likely outcome is that Russia comes out triumphant. It's just reality.
Wee done, Sal! Spot on.
Or even more cynically, give Ukraine enough aid to tie up Russia in fighting, and too busy to get more pipelines built to go East and South.
It's a manpower problem now. Don't be surprise if Ukraine collapses by the end of the year.
I'm thinking more end of 2024, myself.
Sorry, I could care less about Ukraine, said to be the most Corrupt Nation in the region, connections to Hunter and Joe, CIA plots to regime change enacted by the US.
I don't need or want anything they sell and we can get it elsewhere and even get it again after Russia wins, if they do.
I want my Nation to stop all aid. I watched Vietnam unfold the same way this is going, from Jr. High school till I was fighting there myself. Eight years, 58,000 US lives, 150,000 Wounded, 1.9 million Vietnamese dead a land polluted by agent orange and UXB and dang, ya know what?
We just sailed away, left 2,000 MIA's there and then spit on us Vets.
That is what Ukraine means to me, another F___en Vietnam debacle.
Ukraine is nowhere near the most corrupt nation in the region -
depending on region, that would be Belarus, or Kyrgyzstan
Can we call it a 3-way tie? And why didn't you include any of the Balkan countries?
And Russia makes them look positively good...they're ranked 137th out of 180....and falling.
One thing people miss is that Ukraine has been moving up the corruption index charts (as in corruption is dropping).
Oddly enough that movement started in 2014....after the Ukrainian's had got rid of the Russian stooge Yanukovych....since then they've been climbing up the corruption index....and recent changes will see them get cleaner still...
"Sorry, I could care less about Ukraine, said to be the most Corrupt Nation in the region, connections to Hunter and Joe, CIA plots to regime change enacted by the US."
Wow, someone has drunken deep from the poison chalice of MAGA foreign policy.
"I don't need or want anything they sell and we can get it elsewhere and even get it again after Russia wins, if they do."
You know that Ukraine is one of the largest producers of Grain in the world, right? And Grain is a commodity... but yeah sure you don't want bread...
"That is what Ukraine means to me, another F___en Vietnam debacle."
If I had a nickel for every time I heard a boomer ranting about Vietnam....you know that every foreign war is not another Vietnam, right? Setting aside the obvious that Vietnam was jungle and urban warfare fought with guerrilla tactics and the war Ukraine is on a steppe dominated by Tanks and airpower....if this was Vietnam, which it isn't, we would actually be playing the role of China or the Soviets, not the US. So, it would be more accurate to say that this war is Russia's Vietnam, but that would still be wrong. Since, again, this is not Vietnam.
Russia and Ukraine are big competitors in the grain markets. We don't need to worry about running out of food in North America.
Exactly. I want Russia to destroy their army, their society and trust in their government before retreating in disgrace while while NATO plays the part of the USSR in Vietnam. Too bad we have Neville Biden and Olaf Mussolini as our leaders.
I don't understand why the Mearsheimer Realists are not chafing at the bit to turn Cuba into a US territory, and dominate Venezuela...
But say that it's a matter of 'Realistic' geopolitics to cast Ukraine into the maw of Russia. That it's our fault Ukraine got invaded in the first place
Yet then are also ready to come to the aid of Taiwan against China with no objection.
Why does that "Realism" turn different shades depending on the angle it's applied.
Because nobody listens to Mearsheimer. Cuba & Venezuela can wait, Mexico needs to be resolved first.
It was Russia's fault that Ukraine got invaded, because they chose to invade another sovereign country. Or would you argue that it was the UK's fault that Germany invaded Poland? The malefactor is responsible for his own bad acts, not the third party who fails in his sincere attempts at deterrence.
It was the US faults that Ukraine got invaded.
So, it was the UK's fault Poland got invaded?
Usually, we blame the revanchist authoritarian invasion on the country that, you know, did the invading...
If it were only so simple...
So you blame the US for the invasion of Iraq? How about the us Invasion of Syria?
Luzhkov.
That is all, carry on.
Bolton
That is all, carry on.
Bolton didn't invade Ukraine after agreeing not to.
Has there been any war Bolton didn't want to send others people's kid to fight? The definition of chickenhawk.
The problems the west (i.e. the US) is having in supplying ground weapons to Ukraine are the same problems the west (i.e. the US) would have in supplying Taiwan...The weapons would be different but the limited supplies and slow production rates are the same.
Add to the Taiwan issue the difficulties in supply across 5000 miles of Pacific ocean, without the numbers of warships needed to protect ships (we lack the numbers of warships needed to protect Capital warships).
Excellent analysis. Now, if only we had maintained an industrial base worthy of a first rate power.
It's almost like the "Taiwan Firsters" aren't on the level.
Read the latest analysis by Jeff Nyquist.
I understand the reasoning, but fear that the follow-on to the Ukraine campaign will be a renewed fixation on Europe...at the expense of the Pacific theater.
If the Ukrainians are successful, there will be a push to get them into NATO...and American forces into Ukraine. If the Russians come out on top, there will be a push to increase American forces in Europe to protect our NATO allies. Either way, we will be looking at demands to allocate resources to Europe. And we desperately need those resources to reinforce the Navy and Air Force for a Pacific fight.
Matters are not helped by the dominance of the Army in the Goldwater-Nichols era, nor by the fact that Europe is much more appealing as a deployment location (or a diplomatic posting) than the Far East.
The only way this works out as anything but a disaster for the United States is if we start telling our European "allies" that the United States is limiting our commitment to NATO...or withdrawing from it entirely. The European NATO members dispose of at least three times Russia's population, five times (or more) Russia's finances, and have parity (at least) in technology. Time for them to man up. The USA has business elsewhere.
Indeed, the best thing Europe can do to help us in the Pacific... is get off their dead asses and counter Russia, as they are well able (if not willing) to do.
Best thing for the US, not for Europe.
This contradicts your comment above. Is it or is it not in Europe's interest to have less American troops in Europe? The pretzel logic of the isolationist never fails to entertain.
It's in the US' best interest to keep troops in Europe to protect their vassals.
For Europe, the cost of having US troops is beginning to get too high. They are surrendering too much sovereignty for the benefits they get.
Absent the Russian threat, it's in the best interest of the US and Europe to remove US troops from Europe and reposition them in the Pacific. Europe wants to take more control over their security. What stops this from happening is the threat of Russian invasion, which has happened three times in the last fifteen years, and Europe's obsession with a social welfare state which consumes their domestic budgets and prevents them from spending meaningfully on their own defense.
No what stops Europe from taking more control over their security is the loss for the US protection racket.
I’m trying to figure out how a heavy brigade in Guam is useful against China. Can you clarify?
You misunderstand the situation: In the case of a Russian victory, more US troops would be sent to keep Europe as a vassal, not to defend against a Russian attack that likely won't happen.
I think there is additional interest in Europe and in the US for Europe to take the lead in its own security. I hope that this is not just talk and that a real effort will be made after the Ukraine War is over.
I was poking around the gulf war history and saw that we fired a 2.5 hour prep before the ground phase started. And in 2.5 hours we fired 90,000 rounds of artillery. About 1/2 year of current production fired in 2.5 hours of combat.
You see the same with the 48 LRASMs per year the Navy has been buying. Every sortie uses up a year of production.
The problem isn’t Taiwan vs Ukraine, it’s that the US military has forgotten how wars actually work. If we don’t fix that we can’t win anything against any reasonably capable opponent.
Wars work by having the most diverse force ever, you neanderthal.