For those of you who follow Glenn Greenwald, last night's guest, Prof John Mearshimer, was decidedly negative on the chances of Ukraine prevailing in the war. The Ukraine's prospects would improve if the Biden administration allowed its army to attack and destroy Russian supply areas behind the lines.
It’s interesting that such gloomy prognostications, mine among them, dropped just before news of the Ukrainian offensive into Russia’s Kursk Oblast, which seems to have caught the Russian Army flat-footed. I’m reminded, indeed, of the Battle of the Bulge—which admittedly didn’t turn out well for Germans. Still, it shows that the Ukrainians are still full of fight.
The objective of this Ukrainian operation is not yet clear. It may be in the nature of a raid, to take pressure off Ukrainian forces elsewhere. What is certain is that unless the Russians can turn things around quickly in the Kursk Oblast, V. Putin and his regime will have sustained a humiliating blow.
How do you ignore the truth that Zelensky was installed by Obama? Then Trump was never fully briefed on the continuing covert actions under Nuland and others based on his “Russian Collusion” and the 2016 “stolen election?” All false accusations.
I see nothing but propaganda when the core of the puppet government that enforces totalitarian rule without free elections in Ukraine is entirely ignored and bumped out of its rightful significance before you begin.
What’s happened in Ukraine was entirely predictable. After the American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn’t it have been obvious that large swaths of the American public wouldn’t have the stomach to support a protracted war in Ukraine even if Americans were not doing the fighting and dying?
Putin was itching for a fight in Ukraine; wouldn’t it have been better if instead of trying to instigate an invasion to prove that “America was back” after the Trump years, Biden had made a good faith effort to talk Russia out of invading by taking Ukraine’s membership in NATO off the table?
Isn’t it obvious that whatever the differences Americans may have with each other, a set of common values and aspirations are prerequisites for the successful commitment to military engagements, especially those that are likely to be difficult and long-lasting?
By inviting millions of illegal immigrants into the country, didn’t the Democrats set our country on a course that would make the unity necessary for sustained support of Ukraine more difficult? By impeaching Trump twice for no reason, didn’t the Democrats alienate a large part of the country whose support would be needed to devote significant resources to the Ukraine effort?
By insisting that the difference between males and females is a fiction and that boys should be as welcome in girls locker rooms as girls are, didn’t Biden undermine the comity needed to undergird complex undertakings as difficult and problematic as the war in Ukraine?
Here’s the reality that hasn’t been squarely faced; thanks to the Democratic Party, Americans are more divided and angry at each other than ever. In these circumstances, the idea that a consensus or near-consensus could be reached about devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to the Ukrainian war effort was always a pipe dream.
Americans should watch what’s happening in the UK last week and this week. There’s a reasonably good chance that we will face the same thing next. If we do, Americans can kiss the idea of supporting our allies good bye. Americans who hate each other shouldn’t engage in military conflicts that we are bound to lose.
If I lived in Taiwan right now, I would be planning my exit strategy.
Since the United States isn’t fighting a war but merely supporting a nation that was attacked by a predatory neighbor, I fail to see the relevance of Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s no downside for America in this situation. But people on the isolationist Right seem to have made a major investment in a Russian victory over Ukraine. What is that?
Fair enough. But there was no isolationist right a quarter century ago. Or if there was one at all, it was marginalized. Now their number has grown to the point that many millions of Americans cleave to the isolationist point of view.
Why is the isolationist right so much bigger than it was in years past? I think the American defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq must have played a role. I also think that the fact that the decision-makers who decided to fight those wars were mostly of a different social class from the soldiers who did the fighting must have played a role as well.
Americans aren’t stupid; they were surely aware that our country squandered trillions fighting those wars. Surely that must have increased skepticism about devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to the war in Ukraine notwithstanding the fact that we had no combatants on the ground.
In the last four years things have gotten much worse. Just as we lost in Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a President who urges Israel to follow in our footsteps and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the Middle East. We also have a President who’s insisted that the Ukrainians who were already out-gunned fight with one hand tied behind their back.
We don’t agree about anything in this country. I think that’s because the Democrats have ripped the United States apart. The end result is that we have consensus about almost nothing. That being the case, how could we have consensus about what we should be doing in Ukraine?
Maybe Americans have gotten more skeptical about foreign entanglements because our leaders insist that we and our allies fight according to Marquis of Queensberry Rules while our enemies happily adopt the rules of the WWF, which is to say no rules at all.
In the run-up to his first campaign, Trump famously said “America never wins any more.” Tens of millions of Americans know that he was right then and that it’s still true now. Maybe there’s a lack of enthusiasm for helping Ukraine prevail because Americans already know how the story ends. It ends the same way it always does as long as it’s our Uniparty leaders calling the shots.
For those of you who follow Glenn Greenwald, last night's guest, Prof John Mearshimer, was decidedly negative on the chances of Ukraine prevailing in the war. The Ukraine's prospects would improve if the Biden administration allowed its army to attack and destroy Russian supply areas behind the lines.
It’s interesting that such gloomy prognostications, mine among them, dropped just before news of the Ukrainian offensive into Russia’s Kursk Oblast, which seems to have caught the Russian Army flat-footed. I’m reminded, indeed, of the Battle of the Bulge—which admittedly didn’t turn out well for Germans. Still, it shows that the Ukrainians are still full of fight.
The objective of this Ukrainian operation is not yet clear. It may be in the nature of a raid, to take pressure off Ukrainian forces elsewhere. What is certain is that unless the Russians can turn things around quickly in the Kursk Oblast, V. Putin and his regime will have sustained a humiliating blow.
How do you ignore the truth that Zelensky was installed by Obama? Then Trump was never fully briefed on the continuing covert actions under Nuland and others based on his “Russian Collusion” and the 2016 “stolen election?” All false accusations.
I see nothing but propaganda when the core of the puppet government that enforces totalitarian rule without free elections in Ukraine is entirely ignored and bumped out of its rightful significance before you begin.
Excuse me, but what has any of that got to do with V. Putin’s blatant act of aggression? Nothing, that’s what.
What’s happened in Ukraine was entirely predictable. After the American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn’t it have been obvious that large swaths of the American public wouldn’t have the stomach to support a protracted war in Ukraine even if Americans were not doing the fighting and dying?
Putin was itching for a fight in Ukraine; wouldn’t it have been better if instead of trying to instigate an invasion to prove that “America was back” after the Trump years, Biden had made a good faith effort to talk Russia out of invading by taking Ukraine’s membership in NATO off the table?
Isn’t it obvious that whatever the differences Americans may have with each other, a set of common values and aspirations are prerequisites for the successful commitment to military engagements, especially those that are likely to be difficult and long-lasting?
By inviting millions of illegal immigrants into the country, didn’t the Democrats set our country on a course that would make the unity necessary for sustained support of Ukraine more difficult? By impeaching Trump twice for no reason, didn’t the Democrats alienate a large part of the country whose support would be needed to devote significant resources to the Ukraine effort?
By insisting that the difference between males and females is a fiction and that boys should be as welcome in girls locker rooms as girls are, didn’t Biden undermine the comity needed to undergird complex undertakings as difficult and problematic as the war in Ukraine?
Here’s the reality that hasn’t been squarely faced; thanks to the Democratic Party, Americans are more divided and angry at each other than ever. In these circumstances, the idea that a consensus or near-consensus could be reached about devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to the Ukrainian war effort was always a pipe dream.
Americans should watch what’s happening in the UK last week and this week. There’s a reasonably good chance that we will face the same thing next. If we do, Americans can kiss the idea of supporting our allies good bye. Americans who hate each other shouldn’t engage in military conflicts that we are bound to lose.
If I lived in Taiwan right now, I would be planning my exit strategy.
Since the United States isn’t fighting a war but merely supporting a nation that was attacked by a predatory neighbor, I fail to see the relevance of Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s no downside for America in this situation. But people on the isolationist Right seem to have made a major investment in a Russian victory over Ukraine. What is that?
Fair enough. But there was no isolationist right a quarter century ago. Or if there was one at all, it was marginalized. Now their number has grown to the point that many millions of Americans cleave to the isolationist point of view.
Why is the isolationist right so much bigger than it was in years past? I think the American defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq must have played a role. I also think that the fact that the decision-makers who decided to fight those wars were mostly of a different social class from the soldiers who did the fighting must have played a role as well.
Americans aren’t stupid; they were surely aware that our country squandered trillions fighting those wars. Surely that must have increased skepticism about devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to the war in Ukraine notwithstanding the fact that we had no combatants on the ground.
In the last four years things have gotten much worse. Just as we lost in Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a President who urges Israel to follow in our footsteps and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the Middle East. We also have a President who’s insisted that the Ukrainians who were already out-gunned fight with one hand tied behind their back.
We don’t agree about anything in this country. I think that’s because the Democrats have ripped the United States apart. The end result is that we have consensus about almost nothing. That being the case, how could we have consensus about what we should be doing in Ukraine?
Maybe Americans have gotten more skeptical about foreign entanglements because our leaders insist that we and our allies fight according to Marquis of Queensberry Rules while our enemies happily adopt the rules of the WWF, which is to say no rules at all.
In the run-up to his first campaign, Trump famously said “America never wins any more.” Tens of millions of Americans know that he was right then and that it’s still true now. Maybe there’s a lack of enthusiasm for helping Ukraine prevail because Americans already know how the story ends. It ends the same way it always does as long as it’s our Uniparty leaders calling the shots.
We are sleep walking our way to war.
Our leaders have three choices right now:
(1) Kow tow;
(2) Hope for the best;
(3) Mobilize the country, get the military back to professionalism, and refill our arsenals.
#1 is obviously political suicide.
#2 is the preferred choice with no acknowledgement that #2 may lead to #1.
#3 needs courage. Enough said about out political leadership.
With a $7 trillion budget, we ought to be able to afford full arsenals - at the very least.
None of our politicians has tried to make the case for #3.