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
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 1265 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

     

    I guess win is Russia leaves, but man, Ukraine is already devastated.

     

    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. 

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I disagree on Xi and China.  I think they could get in better shape if they were smart.  If the forced Russia too the negotiating table and brokered a deal which Ukraine could accept.  It would be a tremendous enhancement to Chinese influence and prestige on the global stage.

    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. 

    • #61
  2. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Sometimes a movie best describes where we are now. Putin is Liberty Valance. The United States is John Wayne.

    OK but I can’t figure out who James Stewart personifies

    • #62
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    With the assistance of the Clintons, the Russians secure a North American uranium company that gives them control of one-fifth of U.S. uranium production, and nobody cares. Well, many of us on the right cared about it, but the left was completely uninterested in the subject. 

    Maybe because the left doesn’t want to use uranium for something valuable, such as energy?

    • #63
  4. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    We do have an agreement: the Budapest Memorandum

    Presidents after signing the Trilateral Statement, Moscow, 1994.png

    U.S. President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin, and Ukrainian President Kravchuk after signing the Trilateral Statement in Moscow on 14 January 1994.

    • #64
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    I had a good laugh the other day when someone wrote that as “causality.”

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

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Last night I dreamed that Putin nuked Delaware.

    So the nuclear apocalype dreams are back. Haven’t had one of those since the 1980s.

    So glad Reagan is in charge.

    Oh, . . . wait.

    Did you grow up in the upper east side of Manhattan? Back in the 80’s fashionable upper east side Moms were worried about their children having nightmares about nuclear winter.

    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?

    • #66
  7. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):
    I don’t need anyone to explain to me why the United States has an interest in this war.

    I do.

    Agreed.  Especially after Afghanistan.  

    • #67
  8. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    MarciN (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    We do have an agreement: the Budapest Memorandum.

    Presidents after signing the Trilateral Statement, Moscow, 1994.png

    U.S. President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin, and Ukrainian President Kravchuk after signing the Trilateral Statement in Moscow on 14 January 1994.

    And nothing in that memorandum requires us to do any more than seek N security Council assistance.

    According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:

    Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

    Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.

    Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.

    Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.

    Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.

    Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

    Of course, we can do more, but the agreement doesn’t require we do so.

    • #68
  9. Captain French Moderator
    Captain French
    @AlFrench

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Captain French (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):
    I note that the current US administration has not stated what the US national interests are in Ukraine, and what the justification is for providing Ukraine with aid and assistance.

    Nor has it stated what the desired outcome is. I think this is a big deal. What conflict has the US become involved in in the last 75 years where the government hasn’t tried to sell its position to the public?

    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected. These principles have kept the world pretty much war free since World War II. We spent a lot of money and time hammering out agreements to make it so.

    Putin is simply a global anarchist with no respect for written law.

    Russia is a member of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. That is where conflicts between sovereign nations are tried. That is where Putin belongs. Instead, he’s a madman with his hand on a nuclear bomb. And he is evil. A good person saves lives and builds homes for people. Only truly evil people kill people for no reason and destroy cities and towns.

    He has created a global refugee crisis that he should pay for. Every cent that he has cost individuals in Ukraine.

    I don’t need anyone to explain to me why the United States has an interest in this war.

    I don’t know how this should be resolved. If it had been handled February 24 by a united global community against Putin, we wouldn’t be here today. As it stands, Putin has managed to create uncertainty for the entire world. I don’t know how this will end, but I do understand our interest in the situation.

    Yes, but are your interests the same as the government’s?

    • #69
  10. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected. These principles have kept the world pretty much war free since World War II. We spent a lot of money and time hammering out agreements to make it so.

    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?

    • #70
  11. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    kedavis (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    I had a good laugh the other day when someone wrote that as “causality.”

    *sheepish rueful grin*

    • #71
  12. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Chris O (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

     

    I guess win is Russia leaves, but man, Ukraine is already devastated.

     

    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.

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I disagree on Xi and China. I think they could get in better shape if they were smart. If the forced Russia too the negotiating table and brokered a deal which Ukraine could accept. It would be a tremendous enhancement to Chinese influence and prestige on the global stage.

    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.

    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.

    • #72
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):
    I agree with @ bryangstephens that one needs to first define “winning”.

    FWIW, @ jameslileks specifically said:

    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.

    Now, you may be saying that how it shakes out depends on exactly how UKR achieved victory, which is fair. But that is not “defining winning.”

    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. 

     

    • #73
  14. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Chuck (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Sometimes a movie best describes where we are now. Putin is Liberty Valance. The United States is John Wayne.

    OK but I can’t figure out who James Stewart personifies

    Good point.  But I couldn’t quite figure that out.

    • #74
  15. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    James Lileks: Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion?

    No. The war has relegated Russia to China’s junior partner in the new axis of evil. Xi’s bargaining power has massively increased in any dealings with Russia.

    Will China use Russia has a stalking horse in the future like it does with North Korea today? 

    • #75
  16. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    James Lileks: Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion?

    No. The war has relegated Russia to China’s junior partner in the new axis of evil. Xi’s bargaining power has massively increased in any dealings with Russia.

    The war has also emphasized China’s ability to devastate Taiwan. China massively outguns Russia and Taiwan is a more concentrated target than Ukraine.

    That being said, the RU-UA war going hot was a lost opportunity for Xi. Xi could have put enough money on the table to turn the whole Belarus-Ukraine-Southwest Russia region into a Chinese special economic zone for access to the EU market. Lots of Chinese companies would look at the cheap labor, nuclear power, and natural resources in that area and see a massive competitive advantage over siting facilities in the EU (think of all the German energy and water regulations Tesla faces and contrast with what a BYD or Xpeng would face in UA).

     

    And this can’t happen now because?

    “can’t” is an absurd strawman. It’s much less likely.

    1. Ukraine-Russia relations are about as badly damaged as relations can be. Punishing Russia will preoccupy Ukraine.
    2. Ukraine-Belarus relations are badly damaged.
    3. Ukraine-China relations are also damaged.
    4. Destruction of Ukraine infrastructure substantially increases the costs and time to get any Chinese plants there up and running.
    • #76
  17. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    MarciN (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    We do have an agreement: the Budapest Memorandum

    Not a treaty.  Not enforceable.   

    • #77
  18. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

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

    MarciN (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    We do have an agreement: the Budapest Memorandum.

    Not a treaty. Not enforceable.

    The USA can enforce it at our will.

    • #78
  19. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    MiMac (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    We do have an agreement: the Budapest Memorandum.

    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.

    • #79
  20. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    MiMac (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):

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

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected.

    We are not involved in any nuclear arms treaty with Ukraine. Back to the topic, Truth is a loser in this conflict. It is more true than ever that Truth is the first casualty in war.

    We do have an agreement: the Budapest Memorandum.

    Not a treaty. Not enforceable.

    The USA can enforce it at our will.

    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.

    • #80
  21. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    How are US intelligence agencies, which backed Ukraine in a half-dozen ways, including with winning the war, losers by Ukraine’s winning?

    I mean, @ jameslileks tells you one reason. You even included it in your quote:

    US intelligence agencies that failed to figure out how the Russian forces are ancient and hollowed out by corruption?

    We spend a metric buttload of money on our “intelligence” services every year. One of their primary missions, as I understand it, is to make reliable estimates and analysis of our adversary’s capabilities. They seem to have had no idea that the Russian military was in such dire shape. For example, many of their mobile units seems to be using tires made in the USSR, which went the way of all flesh 31 years ago. The Russian military’s logistical capability seems to be non-existent. There are many examples of just how badly our agencies failed in this part of their mission.

    But I don’t know why we should be surprised at this. Our so-called intelligence agencies have botched every major event in my lifetime, and probably most minor ones as well.

    As for our IAs contributing to UKR’s effort, well, that’s what they’re telling us. I don’t really think I believe them.

    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.

    • #81
  22. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    I agree with @ bryangstephens that one needs to first define “winning”. What ever might be an advantageous outcome to the U.S., NATO or the broader West will come at a very high cost to Ukraine.

    I think that Ukraine has demonstrated that it has the will to keep fighting as long as necessary to drive the Russians out. Will this be at the end of a conventional, high intensity and full spectrum mechanized campaign? Maybe, but unlikely. I expect that the war will devolve into a long-term, low intensity insurgency mostly fought with small arms and improvised armaments. The war will continue as long as the Ukrainian people believe that their honor demands it. Does Russia have the strategic depth to fight an insurgency over a broad front for a decade or more? I don’t know. I doubt it, but I might be wrong.

    I note that the current US administration has not stated what the US national interests are in Ukraine, and what the justification is for providing Ukraine with aid and assistance. I think such interests exist, but (no surprise) Biden seems incapable of explaining them.

    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.

    • #82
  23. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Flicker (View Comment):
    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.

    • #83
  24. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    How are US intelligence agencies, which backed Ukraine in a half-dozen ways, including with winning the war, losers by Ukraine’s winning?

    I mean, @ jameslileks tells you one reason. You even included it in your quote:

    US intelligence agencies that failed to figure out how the Russian forces are ancient and hollowed out by corruption?

    We spend a metric buttload of money on our “intelligence” services every year. One of their primary missions, as I understand it, is to make reliable estimates and analysis of our adversary’s capabilities. They seem to have had no idea that the Russian military was in such dire shape. For example, many of their mobile units seems to be using tires made in the USSR, which went the way of all flesh 31 years ago. The Russian military’s logistical capability seems to be non-existent. There are many examples of just how badly our agencies failed in this part of their mission.

    But I don’t know why we should be surprised at this. Our so-called intelligence agencies have botched every major event in my lifetime, and probably most minor ones as well.

    As for our IAs contributing to UKR’s effort, well, that’s what they’re telling us. I don’t really think I believe them.

    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 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.

    • #84
  25. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

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

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    James Lileks: Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion?

    No. The war has relegated Russia to China’s junior partner in the new axis of evil. Xi’s bargaining power has massively increased in any dealings with Russia.

    Will China use Russia has a stalking horse in the future like it does with North Korea today?

    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.

    • #85
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Percival (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    How are US intelligence agencies, which backed Ukraine in a half-dozen ways, including with winning the war, losers by Ukraine’s winning?

    Overestimation of Russian military capabilities. There are two things that are paramount in intelligence gathering: capabilities and intentions. The capabilities category is supposed to be the easy one.

    But again, misestimating something is not a win.  Especially if you can’t fix (or  don’t care to fix) the process.

    • #86
  27. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The necessity for our involvement in this conflict is maintaining a world order in which sovereignty and nuclear arms treaties are respected. These principles have kept the world pretty much war free since World War II. We spent a lot of money and time hammering out agreements to make it so.

    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?

    All of those other crises were internal. 

    This is a crisis between two sovereign nations. It’s different. 

    • #87
  28. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    What matters is that the war highlights the danger of western Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels.

    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.

    • #88
  29. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    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.

    • #89
  30. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    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.

    Our intelligence agencies have been too busy tracking parents who attend school board meetings and plotting to kidnap various governors.

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