Ah, just what I was looking for—an apologia for appeasement rife with unchallenged and dubious assumptions with a side of gratuitous Biden bashing. I subscribed to this substack in accordance with JS Mill’s dictum that if you only know one side of the argument you scarcely understand that. But if this is the best the other side can offer, perhaps it’s time to look elsewhere. Thomas Sowell also can’t resist digs at Biden but at least he credibly states his coherently and credibly. Russia is winning? Some evidence please. It will use tactical nukes (which are far more useful as a dare than a weapon)? Yeah, elsewhere is looking pretty darn inviting of late. Just because someone is a contrarian doesn’t mean their position merits the label “expertise.”
The insistence on evidence is wholly bogus when commonsense can tell you all you need to know. The Russian took 27,000,000 casualties against the Nazis. The US had something under 300,000. Arming an ally against an opponent they have no hope of defeating is tantamount to murder. That's Joe Biden.
Clearly your understanding of common sense and mine differ vastly. Comparing the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, creating a battle for the Soviet Union’s very existence, and an invasion BY Russia of a neighboring country where it’s Ukraine’s existence at stakes turns “common sense” on its head.
Why is there cultivated uncertainty about the number of Ukraine dead when other commentators put it at around 500,000? The answer is: if the issue is funding Ukraine, the administration understands that a casualty report like that will not generate continued support. The fog of war is particularly thick in this conflict for a good reason. The Soviet casualties during W2 is a legitimate indication of the relative size of the antagonists, as well as of their will. Russian sees Nato incursion as a red-line. Why not believe them? There are multiple reports that Ukraine is already done. Why argue when we can just wait and see? It is just a shame that we helped Ukraine wreck their own country, that we pushed the Russians into the arms of the CCP.
Russia's primary goals were to keep Ukraine out of NATO and grab some territory. Putin is achieving both those goals.
Obviously they did not take Kyiv and install a puppet government. However, they have taken four oblasts and Ukraine has not been able to dislodge them. Russia has claimed territory that has been disputed for almost a decade. That's a win for them.
Ukraine cannot join NATO during a hot war; that would be too much of an escalation. Russia's goal there has been accomplished as well.
Ukraine is in a weak position at this point. Absent some unforeseen circumstance, this war will continue indefinitely.
What you describe is a botched invasion becoming at best a stalemate. Russian troops are poorly trained and equipped. Support for the war inside Russia is waning. Casualties to the Black Sea fleet have caused Russia to withdraw its ships. Evidence of hideous Russian war crimes continues to mount. Ukrainian morale and its new cache of weaponry belie your claim of a “weak position.” Whatever you’re reading, stop and look for more credible sources.
I am not following the war in detail; my sources are MSM. I read about a highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive but not much once it actually started, which tells me it was a dud. As you say, Ukraine has done damage to the Russian fleet.
My mental framework for the war is conventional and consists of two commonly accepted premises:
First, to remove an entrenched defender requires a significant tactical advantage: firepower, maneuvering, manpower, etc. The fizzle of the Ukrainian counteroffensive indicates that they don't yet have that advantage.
Second, a nation does not control disputed territory until it has grunts on the ground. I don't think Ukraine has enough grunts to kick the Russians out.
My prediction is that the tactical situation in eastern Ukraine will be largely unchanged when the next President is inaugurated in just over a year. Russia will still be entrenched in those four oblasts; Ukraine certainly will not be a member of NATO.
Ukraine is in the position of a counterinsurgency, and stalemates favor the counterinsurgents, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. (Or consider US experience there or in Iraq, Vietnam.) for a credible source on this war, good, bad, indifferent, see Tymofiy Mylovanov.
Ah, just what I was looking for—an apologia for appeasement rife with unchallenged and dubious assumptions with a side of gratuitous Biden bashing. I subscribed to this substack in accordance with JS Mill’s dictum that if you only know one side of the argument you scarcely understand that. But if this is the best the other side can offer, perhaps it’s time to look elsewhere. Thomas Sowell also can’t resist digs at Biden but at least he credibly states his coherently and credibly. Russia is winning? Some evidence please. It will use tactical nukes (which are far more useful as a dare than a weapon)? Yeah, elsewhere is looking pretty darn inviting of late. Just because someone is a contrarian doesn’t mean their position merits the label “expertise.”
The insistence on evidence is wholly bogus when commonsense can tell you all you need to know. The Russian took 27,000,000 casualties against the Nazis. The US had something under 300,000. Arming an ally against an opponent they have no hope of defeating is tantamount to murder. That's Joe Biden.
Clearly your understanding of common sense and mine differ vastly. Comparing the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, creating a battle for the Soviet Union’s very existence, and an invasion BY Russia of a neighboring country where it’s Ukraine’s existence at stakes turns “common sense” on its head.
Why is there cultivated uncertainty about the number of Ukraine dead when other commentators put it at around 500,000? The answer is: if the issue is funding Ukraine, the administration understands that a casualty report like that will not generate continued support. The fog of war is particularly thick in this conflict for a good reason. The Soviet casualties during W2 is a legitimate indication of the relative size of the antagonists, as well as of their will. Russian sees Nato incursion as a red-line. Why not believe them? There are multiple reports that Ukraine is already done. Why argue when we can just wait and see? It is just a shame that we helped Ukraine wreck their own country, that we pushed the Russians into the arms of the CCP.
"Russia is winning? Some evidence please."
Russia's primary goals were to keep Ukraine out of NATO and grab some territory. Putin is achieving both those goals.
Obviously they did not take Kyiv and install a puppet government. However, they have taken four oblasts and Ukraine has not been able to dislodge them. Russia has claimed territory that has been disputed for almost a decade. That's a win for them.
Ukraine cannot join NATO during a hot war; that would be too much of an escalation. Russia's goal there has been accomplished as well.
Ukraine is in a weak position at this point. Absent some unforeseen circumstance, this war will continue indefinitely.
What you describe is a botched invasion becoming at best a stalemate. Russian troops are poorly trained and equipped. Support for the war inside Russia is waning. Casualties to the Black Sea fleet have caused Russia to withdraw its ships. Evidence of hideous Russian war crimes continues to mount. Ukrainian morale and its new cache of weaponry belie your claim of a “weak position.” Whatever you’re reading, stop and look for more credible sources.
I am not following the war in detail; my sources are MSM. I read about a highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive but not much once it actually started, which tells me it was a dud. As you say, Ukraine has done damage to the Russian fleet.
My mental framework for the war is conventional and consists of two commonly accepted premises:
First, to remove an entrenched defender requires a significant tactical advantage: firepower, maneuvering, manpower, etc. The fizzle of the Ukrainian counteroffensive indicates that they don't yet have that advantage.
Second, a nation does not control disputed territory until it has grunts on the ground. I don't think Ukraine has enough grunts to kick the Russians out.
My prediction is that the tactical situation in eastern Ukraine will be largely unchanged when the next President is inaugurated in just over a year. Russia will still be entrenched in those four oblasts; Ukraine certainly will not be a member of NATO.
Ukraine is in the position of a counterinsurgency, and stalemates favor the counterinsurgents, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. (Or consider US experience there or in Iraq, Vietnam.) for a credible source on this war, good, bad, indifferent, see Tymofiy Mylovanov.