Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If Ukraine Wins, Who Loses?
There’s the obvious answers – Putin, the image of Russian might, the Duginist dream of solidifying Russian control over its insolent children.
Who else? The Russian Orthodox Church, for declaring this a holy war? Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion? The countries that have been buying Russian military gear and now have a rep, however justified, for buying junk? US pundits who backed Russia’s invasion? Renewable energy advocates, suddenly on the back foot because nuclear is a better option than Russian gas? US intelligence agencies that failed to figure out how the Russian forces are ancient and hollowed out by corruption?
You could also note who else wins: the West, for one. Superior armaments and tech, better logistics, the products of a more energetic and innovative culture. I suspect there’s a non-insubstantial intersection between those who are comfy with Russian control of Ukraine and those who would be irritated by a Western win, because the West is decadent and subject to rule from our Davos overlords, and ought not to prevail until it is overhauled and remade.
This is not a thread about whether Ukraine will win, or what victory looks like. Just a question about what shakes out when it is apparent to all that Russia could not prevail.
Published in General
And if Ukraine loses, they lose big because only the bare minimum of Russian treasure will go toward restoring/developing what’s left, and few will stand in line to invest in an occupied territory where the infrastructure has been devastated.
What you say may be true, but they can’t do this, they’ve already chosen a side. A change of positioning would be a loss of face for the CCP’s current leaders. The only way something like this happens is a change in leadership.
OK but I can’t figure out who James Stewart personifies
Maybe because the left doesn’t want to use uranium for something valuable, such as energy?
We do have an agreement: the Budapest Memorandum.
U.S. President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin, and Ukrainian President Kravchuk after signing the Trilateral Statement in Moscow on 14 January 1994.
I had a good laugh the other day when someone wrote that as “causality.”
There was nothing “fashionable” about my upbringing in the wilds of Northern Wisconsin.
Do you think those were just the fears of the upper class coasties?
Agreed. Especially after Afghanistan.
And nothing in that memorandum requires us to do any more than seek N security Council assistance.
Of course, we can do more, but the agreement doesn’t require we do so.
Yes, but are your interests the same as the government’s?
Korea, Cuba, Viet Nam, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan. These are just those with US involvement. There are many, many others too. The world has not been war-free sine WW2. There have been invasions and genocides.
As for nuclear arms treaties – are those really respected? How would we know?
*sheepish rueful grin*
You are probably correct but they could still change tack. They have been pretty careful about their language on Ukraine. Actually I am happy they probably won’t because I do not want to see Chinese influence on the global stage increase.
It does not make sense to choose not to defining “winning” and talk about Russia losing. Or Russia “not prevailing”.
As I see it, Russia can no prevail and Ukraine can (and I think will), still lose. What that loss looks like will create different outcomes for Russia as I see it.
Good point. But I couldn’t quite figure that out.
Will China use Russia has a stalking horse in the future like it does with North Korea today?
“can’t” is an absurd strawman. It’s much less likely.
Not a treaty. Not enforceable.
The USA can enforce it at our will.
As I noted above, the only “enforcement” under the Memorandum is to seek UN Security Council assistance. You can read the actual text here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180822045920/https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202866/Part/volume-2866-I-50069.pdf
Now, can we do things outside the purview of the Memorandum? Sure, but that’s not enforcing it on its own terms.
but shouldn’t for the same reason we shouldn’t restart the JCPOA. The US is a Constitutional Republic. We shouldn’t ignore the Constitution to enforce an agreement that was never ratified. I do believe what is happening now is well within Biden’s remit. I think I remember the Congress authorizing the aid, so effectively that would put it up to Biden what manner that takes.
I was just quoting the assertion, not agreeing with it. But how is revealing the CIA to be incompetent a win for anyone but Russia? I doubt we’ll ever be able to change the CIA.
I don’t have the clip, but Jen pSaki very clearly said, in answer to a direct question, that we (that is, the US) don’t have a say in what constitutes “winning”. In this case. supporting the war to the end, as Pelosi and others have vowed to do, is another open-ended war, and the only sure winners are the warmongers, the forces of disorder, and the globalists.
Exactly this. These Democrat Warmongers (and their pet Republicans like Kinzinger) spout off about victory, but can’t even tell you what that looks like.
If you can’t tell me that, then don’t ask me to support your proxy war with Russia.
I know you weren’t agreeing with it. James’ assertion is that the revelation that our intelligence agencies failed to accurately ascertain Russia’s military readiness, which was revealed by the war itself, is a loss for the IAs. Heck, I’m not even sure if the IAs gave guidance that Russia was likely to invade. So our intelligence community adds to its long streak of being wrong regardless of who wins the war.
Some would say that’s what it’s currently doing.
I think they’ll use Russia’s weakness to extract favorable terms on tech transfer from Russia and exploitation of resources in Russia.
But again, misestimating something is not a win. Especially if you can’t fix (or don’t care to fix) the process.
All of those other crises were internal.
This is a crisis between two sovereign nations. It’s different.
It only highlights it to you and other sane people. Zelensky went lecturing on his green stance after the war began, and after Germany said Whoah! His position is to support the mess that the green agenda generates. This is not necessarily a losing proposition for the green agenda.
Recently the Congress passed the Ukraine Lend-Lease Act, which allowed Ukraine to purchase weapons from the United States on credit and gives the President the authority to sell weapons to Ukraine.
So, Ukraine can now access America’s stockpile of various weapons and not pay for it until later. Ukraine can gather up the weapons it needs now and pay the cost later.
The Ukraine Lend-Lease Act was proposed by Republican US Senator John Cornyn (Texas) and co-sponsored by Democrat US Senator Ben Cardin (Maryland).
It passed unanimously in the US Senate and passed 417 to 10 in the US House.
I think what the Russian invasion of Ukraine has accomplished is a waking up, at least partially, of the people of Europe and the leaders of Europe to the dangers of Putin’s Russia.
It used to be that only 20 percent of Finland supported joining NATO. Now about 60 percent of Finns want to join NATO and it looks like both Finland and Sweden will apply to join NATO this month.
Putin wanted a divided NATO and a divided Europe, but his invasion of Ukraine has resulted in European countries shoveling weapons to Ukraine on a massive scale. Meanwhile, due to sanctions, Russia is gradually losing the ability to produce additional weapons to replace the weapons being torched by the Ukraine military.
Our intelligence agencies have been too busy tracking parents who attend school board meetings and plotting to kidnap various governors.