November 3rd Led to February 24th

 

The Russian attack on Ukraine can be traced to the 2020 presidential election. Leaving aside the question of voter fraud, the replacement of Trump by Biden strengthened Russia’s economy. One of the first actions Biden took was to cancel the Keystone pipeline. He also discouraged drilling. Gas and other fossil fuel prices jumped. Russia depends heavily on energy exports so this was a huge cash infusion into its economy.

Biden appointed incompetent people such as Austin who became secretary of defense. When he wasn’t chowing down, he appeared to think that his most crucial issue was to root out conservatives in the defense department. A friend of mine knew a young man who joined the Air Force to work on cyber defense. With the emphasis on transgenders getting surgeries, he’s getting out as soon as his enlistment ends.

Austin also thinks that forcing people who are not at risk from COVID to get a leaky vaccine is critical. When push came to shove in Afghanistan, no one stood up to Biden and said that we should hold Bagram Air Base until the very end. It’s much more secure than Kabul but none of our generals were willing to put their careers on the line on behalf of the safety of our military. And in the debacle we left tens of billions of dollars of weapons behind.

Biden was always a gaffe machine, but by Election Day 2020 he was clearly unfit to be president. He barely campaigned. In his few press conferences since he’s become president, he calls on specific reporters and has the answers written out on 3×5 cards. His recent performance shows a man who is almost comatose.

 

Putin attacked Georgia when Bush was president. He then seized Crimea during Obama’s presidency. Now he’s attacking Ukraine. The only president he appears to have respected was Trump. The people who supported Biden are to blame for this debacle. And the escalation which is being pushed by Bill Kristol and other war hawks is dangerous. It’s good for Raytheon but no so good for Ukraine. We need to encourage de-escalation rather than ramping up the rhetoric.

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 154 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Roberto Member
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    The best case we and Ukraine can probably hope for would be something like this:

    1. Return to the prewar borders and formal recognition of the breakaway states
    2. Ukraine excluded from joining NATO but free to join the EU and arrange other security arrangements.

    Both of those were on the table in early attempts to negotiate the peace. Not sure what happened to spike those efforts but that was about the same time Biden started babbling about regime change and “This man cannot remain in power!”

    Might have had something to do with certain Russian atrocities, IIRC. The problem I have with parts of this discussion is it seems to deny agency to the Ukrainians, eastern European NATO allies, the EU, and even the Russians. We can make things harder or easier on the Ukrainians, but we can’t stop the war unless we’re willing to use our own strategic means, and I am certainly not advocating that. From a completely cynical, realpolitik point of view, it likely makes sense to bleed the Russians dry using our weapons and Ukrainian bodies. A wrecked Russian military will require a lot less of an arms build up to deter in the future (I share the opinion that Putin is likely going nowhere and unlikely to change his ways).

    I am not advocating just analyzing. I will say that Ukraine depends on NATO and the EU to continue to supply their war machine. That means NATO and the EU have a say in how long this war continues. Again this is analysis not a value judgement.

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    • #61
  2. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I just want something spelled out for me that is a plausible victory. Russia has to give up. I don’t think they will. 

    That’s the secret, isn’t it.

    • #62
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Roberto (View Comment):
    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    More like one order and a half, but still.

    • #63
  4. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Missing from the discussion on why Russia attacked Ukraine:

    1. It is a demonstrable fact that almost immediately after taking office Joe Biden strongly encouraged NATO membership for the Ukraine which was a known “Red Line” that not only Putin but most of the Russian government could not absolutely abide.  And then Joe kept “poking the bear” with the NATO thing. The prevention of a NATO Ukraine rationale within the Russian Government mind became almost open sore  that had to be addressed within their own circle .
    2. Russian was aware of the Biden Crime Family sponsored and financed bio-weapons labs in Ukraine. Would you be happy  if a belligerent power built 20 some off bio-weapons labs near your border?
    3. The FED’s ZIRP policy had dramatically driven down the price of oil, Russia’s chief export to the point that it threatened Russia’s finances. Starting the war to upset the ruling world financial order  definitely fit in Russia’s goals, and has enhanced Russia’s financial position which has allowed the Russians to back the Ruble with Oil and other commodities that Russia is strong in. BTW, Russia’s oil revenues have doubled since the war began –  so much for Senile Joe’s sanctions working.  They’re not.
    4. Joe desperately need to change the subject politically. The war wiped the Truckers caravan off the front page, so from that point of view violently wagging the dog worked for Joe and gave the Left something to rally around.
    5. Joe pursued the Ukraine Membership without giving Ukraine the initial support they needed to fend off a Russian invasion. It was three weeks after the start of the war that Joe gave them serious military support which enabled the war to become a quagmire and a protracted struggle which fit with Joe’s political desires to destroy more of the economy and to raise the price of oil

    None of the above exonerates Putin from his atrocities, but the reasons why this disastrous, potentially debilitating  war was started all begin with the actions of Joe Biden.

    • #64
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes.  Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it.  He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm.  And he repeated virtually a whole sentence.  It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning.  She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events.  But who knows.

    • #65
  6. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    • #66
  7. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Missing from the discussion on why Russia attacked Ukraine:

    1. It is a demonstrable fact that almost immediately after taking office Joe Biden strongly encouraged NATO membership for the Ukraine which was a known “Red Line” that not only Putin but most of the Russian government could not absolutely abide. And then Joe kept “poking the bear” with the NATO thing. The rationale within the Russian Government mind became almost

    Let’s not forget his invitation for Russia to do a “minor incursion.”

    Another one of those weird Biden statements that the White House had to scramble to cover and left Zelenskyy going WTF, guy?!

    • #67
  8. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    It is absolutely a proxy war.  That may even be in the US’es best interest as long as it doesn’t escalate out of control.

    • #68
  9. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups.  It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise.  Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning.   It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.  

    • #69
  10. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay.  :)  So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy?  A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden!  Or the guy on the dais?

    • #70
  11. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay. :) So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy? A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden! Or the guy on the dais?

    No that was definitely a coalition of Democratic elites, but only after they couldn’t find anyone else.  Problem is the ones who really got him there, I.e. the media.  Aren’t really calling the shots, or maybe they are but not in any coordinated way.  I don’t disagree that there were powerful people who helped get him elected.  It just seems they had absolutely no plan after that happened.  Should this surprise us though.  The left’s grasp on reality is pretty tenuous.

    • #71
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay. :) So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy? A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden! Or the guy on the dais?

    No that was definitely a coalition of Democratic elites, but only after they couldn’t find anyone else. Problem is the ones who really got him there, I.e. the media. Aren’t really calling the shots, or maybe they are but not in any coordinated way. I don’t disagree that there were powerful people who helped get him elected. It just seems they had absolutely no plan after that happened. Should this surprise us though. The left’s grasp on reality is pretty tenuous.

    Well, once Trump was out of the way, they didn’t really need Joe to do anything, their deep state operatives could take care of things.  And the Never Trumpers were happy to help.

    • #72
  13. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay. :) So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy? A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden! Or the guy on the dais?

    No that was definitely a coalition of Democratic elites, but only after they couldn’t find anyone else. Problem is the ones who really got him there, I.e. the media. Aren’t really calling the shots, or maybe they are but not in any coordinated way. I don’t disagree that there were powerful people who helped get him elected. It just seems they had absolutely no plan after that happened. Should this surprise us though. The left’s grasp on reality is pretty tenuous.

    Well, once Trump was out of the way, they didn’t really need Joe to do anything, their deep state operatives could take care of things. And the Never Trumpers were happy to help.

    True but that is also part of it.  The deep state isn’t one thing it is several different things.  While they are all on the left so they can coordinate against a Republican, they fracture into seeking their individual agendas under a Democrat.  This isn’t to say they won’t try to coordinate on defense.  On day to day policies though each is trying to push a different agenda and some of those are at odds with one another.   Biden just moves in the direction of whoever he talked to or read last.  That’s why everything looks so chaotic.   The shadowy cabal needs to have meetings and coordinate.  They just haven’t done that yet.

    • #73
  14. Roberto Member
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    Which is precisely the problem here. Whoever is responsible, whatever one thinks of the actors involved, however one thinks it started who cares? Let everyone debate their personal theories on those issues all they wish but what absolutely must be debated which clearly is not being discussed in Washington is what are our objectives here?

    It is clear by now that this is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia, what are our goals here? What is an acceptable outcome? How much are we willing to commit to achieve that outcome?

    No one is talking about this but everyone absolutely should be. The biggest military failures of this country have come about where the goals, the endgame were unclear. This is setting up to be another one because no one is asking “What are we trying to achieve here?”

    Think back to how Afghanistan started and to how it just ended. The differences are stark but the similarities about the lack of clear objectives stands out like a midnight sun. Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    • #74
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Roberto (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    Which is precisely the problem here. Whoever is responsible, whatever one thinks of the actors involved, however one thinks it started who cares? Let everyone debate their personal theories on those issues all they wish but what absolutely must be debated which clearly is not being discussed in Washington is what are our objectives here?

    It is clear by now that this is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia, what are our goals here? What is an acceptable outcome? How much are we willing to commit to achieve that outcome?

    No one is talking about this but everyone absolutely should be. The biggest military failures of this country have come about where the goals, the endgame were unclear. This is setting up to be another one because no one is asking “What are we trying to achieve here?”

    Think back to how Afghanistan started and to how it just ended. The differences are stark but the similarities about the lack of clear objectives stands out like a midnight sun. Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    That was Because Biden, not Because Afghanistan.

    • #75
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Roberto (View Comment):
    Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    Plus nukes?

    • #76
  17. Roberto Member
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    Which is precisely the problem here. Whoever is responsible, whatever one thinks of the actors involved, however one thinks it started who cares? Let everyone debate their personal theories on those issues all they wish but what absolutely must be debated which clearly is not being discussed in Washington is what are our objectives here?

    It is clear by now that this is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia, what are our goals here? What is an acceptable outcome? How much are we willing to commit to achieve that outcome?

    No one is talking about this but everyone absolutely should be. The biggest military failures of this country have come about where the goals, the endgame were unclear. This is setting up to be another one because no one is asking “What are we trying to achieve here?”

    Think back to how Afghanistan started and to how it just ended. The differences are stark but the similarities about the lack of clear objectives stands out like a midnight sun. Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    That was Because Biden, not Because Afghanistan.

    A war that lasted over 10 years, which appears to have cost well over a trillion dollars and which in the end achieved absolutely nothing, nothing. 

    Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

    Even a jackass like Kennedy understood that.

    • #77
  18. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    Which is precisely the problem here. Whoever is responsible, whatever one thinks of the actors involved, however one thinks it started who cares? Let everyone debate their personal theories on those issues all they wish but what absolutely must be debated which clearly is not being discussed in Washington is what are our objectives here?

    It is clear by now that this is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia, what are our goals here? What is an acceptable outcome? How much are we willing to commit to achieve that outcome?

    No one is talking about this but everyone absolutely should be. The biggest military failures of this country have come about where the goals, the endgame were unclear. This is setting up to be another one because no one is asking “What are we trying to achieve here?”

    Think back to how Afghanistan started and to how it just ended. The differences are stark but the similarities about the lack of clear objectives stands out like a midnight sun. Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    That was Because Biden, not Because Afghanistan.

    You are right of course because we have a great maladministration at the moment.  I would argue that the US has achieved its aims at this point.  Everything that happens next is gravy as long as Russia doesn’t escalate. To that end we should be trying to negotiate and end to this with the best possible terms for Ukraine and something that allows Russia a fig leaf of face.  This is a dangerous situation.  Unfortunately nothing can be done because we are run by incompetents. 

    • #78
  19. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Roberto (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    Which is precisely the problem here. Whoever is responsible, whatever one thinks of the actors involved, however one thinks it started who cares? Let everyone debate their personal theories on those issues all they wish but what absolutely must be debated which clearly is not being discussed in Washington is what are our objectives here?

    It is clear by now that this is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia, what are our goals here? What is an acceptable outcome? How much are we willing to commit to achieve that outcome?

    No one is talking about this but everyone absolutely should be. The biggest military failures of this country have come about where the goals, the endgame were unclear. This is setting up to be another one because no one is asking “What are we trying to achieve here?”

    Think back to how Afghanistan started and to how it just ended. The differences are stark but the similarities about the lack of clear objectives stands out like a midnight sun. Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    That was Because Biden, not Because Afghanistan.

    A war that lasted over 10 years, which appears to have cost well over a trillion dollars and which in the end achieved absolutely nothing, nothing.

    Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

    Even a jackass like Kennedy understood that.

    Trick question how long did the Korean War last?

    • #79
  20. Roberto Member
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    I’m not in uniform so cannot speak for them but I have been working alongside for over 18 years now and for all the pontificators out there one way or the other, get your @#$#@$ together. This is not a game for people who are clearly not you.

    • #80
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Roberto (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    Which is precisely the problem here. Whoever is responsible, whatever one thinks of the actors involved, however one thinks it started who cares? Let everyone debate their personal theories on those issues all they wish but what absolutely must be debated which clearly is not being discussed in Washington is what are our objectives here?

    It is clear by now that this is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia, what are our goals here? What is an acceptable outcome? How much are we willing to commit to achieve that outcome?

    No one is talking about this but everyone absolutely should be. The biggest military failures of this country have come about where the goals, the endgame were unclear. This is setting up to be another one because no one is asking “What are we trying to achieve here?”

    Think back to how Afghanistan started and to how it just ended. The differences are stark but the similarities about the lack of clear objectives stands out like a midnight sun. Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    That was Because Biden, not Because Afghanistan.

    A war that lasted over 10 years, which appears to have cost well over a trillion dollars and which in the end achieved absolutely nothing, nothing.

    Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

    Even a jackass like Kennedy understood that.

    I would argue that it wasn’t a “war” that lasted over 10 years, and the last few years had ZERO US military casualties.  The military advisors recommended keeping 2500 troops there, which – through providing intel support to the Afghan military, etc – was enough to keep the Taliban out, keep girls in school and not married off to Taliban “fighters,” etc.  At some point it should have become possible to withdraw them all, once the Afghan forces were up to the task.  But even if that never happened, it’s not like it was a seriously dangerous base or something.  The numbers show that.

    • #81
  22. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    I don’t think the Ukraine war is a war between Russia and Ukraine.  It’s not even a war between totalitarian Russia and China and the West with its democratic culture.  It’s not just a proxy war between Russia and the US with China watching.  This is a war between the totalitarian globalists and the totalitarian nationalists.  To the globalists, every nation state with borders  and a unique civilization and culture must be subsumed into One World Government, one which is owned by financiers or central bankers (the Davos crowd) and administered by multinational corporations.  This is largely what they say, and it is what I see.

    The purpose of this war, speaking of the causes of it, is to beat Russia down until those who work toward one world government can force a change in Russia’s government to one that is amenable and subservient to a higher Word Order in which, as they put it, No one will own anything, and everyone will be happy.  But this One World Order will be no more dispositive of the population of the earth than Xi or Putin are now said to be.

    Here Nanocelt writes in The Nuclear Umbrella :

    The damage to the globe would be such that a nuclear attack, to civilized people, is unthinkable. Not so for the architect of the Shanghai lockdown. Or the author of the depopulation of Ukrainian cities. No human interest would be dispositive to such individuals as Xi and Putin. They are peas in a pod and joined at the hip. Together they stand against humanity and the world. They are willing to sacrifice the entire world to their personal concerns, it appears.

    Depopulation may be an insignificant result to Xi and Putin, but it is a specifically desired result for the globalists.  They have written advocating it for decades.  This is not merely human idiocy couched in pseudo-science, or an aspect of evolutionary psychology toward culling an overgrown population, but the desire of the malignant one who rules this world.  To use a popular expression, depopulation is not a bug, it’s a feature.

    • #82
  23. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Roberto (View Comment):

    I’m not in uniform so cannot speak for them but I have been working alongside for over 18 years now and for all the pontificators out there one way or the other, get your @ #$#@ $ together. This is not game for people who are clearly not you.

    I didn’t mean any offense.  It most certainly isn’t a game.   It also isn’t entirely our meaning the US’es decision.  We could always withdraw our aid and let Ukraine fall but that doesn’t benefit the US.  We lost the moment Joe Biden was elected.  Fortunately for the US Providence may have intervened to give us long enough to right our own ship or it may be we just seal our fate.

    • #83
  24. Roberto Member
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    No no . . . it’s not a proxy war at all. The best people assure me.

    Which is precisely the problem here. Whoever is responsible, whatever one thinks of the actors involved, however one thinks it started who cares? Let everyone debate their personal theories on those issues all they wish but what absolutely must be debated which clearly is not being discussed in Washington is what are our objectives here?

    It is clear by now that this is turning into a proxy war between the US and Russia, what are our goals here? What is an acceptable outcome? How much are we willing to commit to achieve that outcome?

    No one is talking about this but everyone absolutely should be. The biggest military failures of this country have come about where the goals, the endgame were unclear. This is setting up to be another one because no one is asking “What are we trying to achieve here?”

    Think back to how Afghanistan started and to how it just ended. The differences are stark but the similarities about the lack of clear objectives stands out like a midnight sun. Anyone wish to repeat the final result of that debacle?

    That was Because Biden, not Because Afghanistan.

    A war that lasted over 10 years, which appears to have cost well over a trillion dollars and which in the end achieved absolutely nothing, nothing.

    Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

    Even a jackass like Kennedy understood that.

    I would argue that it wasn’t a “war” that lasted over 10 years

    Argue this with those who served over there, do not argue it with me.

     

    • #84
  25. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I don’t think the Ukraine war is a war between Russia and Ukraine. It’s not even a war between totalitarian Russia and China and the West with it’s democratic culture. It’s not just a proxy war between Russia and the US with China watching. This is a war between the totalitarian globalists and the totalitarian nationalists. To the globalists, every nation state with borders and a unique civilization and culture must be subsumed into One World Government, one which is owned by financiers or central bankers (the Davos crowd) and administered by multinational corporations. This is largely what they say, and it is what I see.

    The purpose of this war, speaking of the causes of it, is to beat Russia down until those who work toward one world government can force a change in Russia’s government to one that is amenable and subservient to a higher Word Order in which, as they put it, No one will own anything, and everyone will be happy. But this One World Order will be no more dispositive of the population of the earth than Xi or Putin are now said to be.

    Here Nanocelt writes in The Nuclear Umbrella :

    The damage to the globe would be such that a nuclear attack, to civilized people, is unthinkable. Not so for the architect of the Shanghai lockdown. Or the author of the depopulation of Ukrainian cities. No human interest would be dispositive to such individuals as Xi and Putin. They are peas in a pod and joined at the hip. Together they stand against humanity and the world. They are willing to sacrifice the entire world to their personal concerns, it appears.

    Depopulation may be an insignificant result to Xi and Putin, but it is a specifically desired result for the globalists. They have written advocating it for decades. This is not merely human idiocy couched in pseudo-science, or an aspect of evolutionary psychology toward culling an overgrown population, but the desire of the malignant one who rules this world. To use a popular expression, depopulation is not a bug, it’s a feature.

    That is a problem because much of the West is ruled currently by the globalists.  I agree to they may have engineered this war.  That having been said Russia doesn’t have the right to subjugate Ukraine. It also doesn’t have the right to dominate it’s neighbors.  I agree it is refreshingly non globalist, but Putin is an evil man.  I have no more desire, and believe you agree with me here, to have Putin win than the globalists.  

    I think arming Ukraine was correct. I would also advocate for finding a way to negotiate an end at this point.  My feelings about the globalists verses Putin and Xi is that the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

    • #85
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    I think arming Ukraine was correct. I would also advocate for finding a way to negotiate an end at this point.  My feelings about the globalists verses Putin and Xi is that the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

    I agree with you.  And Ukraine has been (perhaps to a great degree willingly) used and abused politically and financially by the West, and militarily by Russia.

    The only party I have any sympathy or affection for is the Ukrainian populace.

    • #86
  27. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Now it is a case of it has been too costly for both sides

    That is a judgement call and it depends on the decision makers to decide what “too costly” means.   In a world run by oligarchs, the opinions of the little people don’t seem to matter much. 

    • #87
  28. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Unsk (View Comment):
    The FED’s ZIRP policy had dramatically driven down the price of oil,

    That’s not how the oil market works.  If there was any effect of ZIRP it would be to raise the nominal price in dollars and possible in real dollars, if it stimulated the economy.  But the ZIRP did not have much affect, since the big banks were just sitting on the money.   Note, real rates are even lower now.

    • #88
  29. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Now it is a case of it has been too costly for both sides

    That is a judgement call and it depends on the decision makers to decide what “too costly” means. In a world run by oligarchs, the opinions of the little people don’t seem to matter much.

    I don’t actually think it is much of a judgment call.   Russia’s losses in equipment, troops, and prestige are pretty dramatic.  Oligarchs may chose to continue, but it still takes billions of dollars and multiple years to replace a Moskva class cruiser.   Ukraine will have to spend billions to replace its cities and infrastructure.  Also both sides have lost a huge number of absolutely irreplaceable human beings.  The opinions of the little people may matter little to the powerful but that doesn’t reduce the butcher’s bill.

    • #89
  30. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Flicker (View Comment):
    The purpose of this war, speaking of the causes of it, is to beat Russia down until those who work toward one world government can force a change in Russia’s government to one that is amenable and subservient to a higher Word Order in which, as they put it, No one will own anything, and everyone will be happy. 

    Or the purpose of the war, instigated by Russia, was to eliminate the fictive notion of Ukrainian exceptionalism, and that’s what the Ukes are fighting, not WEF Ted-talk blather. 

    We have centuries of evidence of Russian inability to countenance Uke independence, a reflorescence of messianic Russian nationalism,  expressed through Duganism,  coinciding with a moment when the West seems weak, emboldening an old troll’s desire to get the band back together, figuring that the West would quaver and see the invasion through the sphincter-prism of its own irrelevant obsessions.

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.