« First « Previous Comments 4,151 - 4,190 of 4,190 Search these comments
As the world braces for today’s anniversary of the barbaric October 7th attacks on Israel and as the war in the Middle East heats up, the influential Financial Times floated a very suggestive proposal yesterday headlined, “Ukraine, Nato membership and the West Germany model.” The sub-headline added, “Security guarantees will have to underpin any peace deal where Russia retains control of Ukrainian land.” So much for “not one inch.”
“Although it remains committed to recovering the lands seized by Russia over the past decade,” the Financial Times regretfully explained, Ukraine “regrettably lacks the manpower, weaponry and western support to do it.” Later, it somberly conceded, “the west patently lacks a strategy for Ukraine to prevail.”
Now they tell us! And here, we all thought they had a strategy of some kind. (Just wait for the next story to see what the current strategy is.) But apparently not. So now they want to split the Ukraine baby.
Now they tell us, Part Deux: “The West German model for Ukraine has been discussed in foreign policy circles for more than 18 months.” Surprise! What they mean by the “West German model” is splitting Ukraine into two parts, like West and East Germany after the Second World War. In that historic scenario, West Germany was allowed to join NATO even though half the country remained under Soviet control.
This overly optimistic scheme suffers from two obvious problems, as the article eventually got around to admitting. First, in Germany, the occupied borders were well-defined, allowing the famous Berlin Wall to be erected right down the line. But in Ukraine, the war marches on, and the ever-changing borders remain fluid.
Second, after the war, the Soviets agreed to the Germany-splitting compromise. Today, Russia will never agree to let West Ukraine join NATO as part of any peace plan. It will never ever happen.
Biden’s neocons, Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, must now divide their attention between the old, difficult, plan-less Ukraine war, and the shiny new war emerging in the Middle East, which is ripe with potential and enthusiasm for a fresh conflict and all its glorious potential.
Meanwhile, things are only getting worse in Eastern Europe’s strategy-free theater of war. Any day now, Ukraine will head into winter and its rasputitsa mud season, further freezing and bogging down prospects for Ukraine’s ‘victory.’
Perhaps it isn’t completely fair to say there’s no strategy. On Saturday, the New York Times ran an eye-watering story headlined, “Ukraine’s Donbas Strategy: Retreat Slowly and Maximize Russia’s Losses.” The agonized sub-headline added, “It’s far from clear if the Ukrainian strategy will succeed.” So, there is a strategy after all.
Talk about trying to put a good spin on failure. The gist was that the Ukrainians are losing, are in retreat all along the front lines, but Kiev has ordered its troops to hold their untenable positions at all costs, in the hope that the Russians will eventually get tired of winning and go home.
That’s it. That’s the whole strategy.
To be clear, Ukraine has an alternative: pulling its troops from vast numbers of unholdable towns and villages, and mustering them together in more defensible positions, such as behind the giant Dnieper river, which divides the country in half. The main advantage of this defensive strategy would be saving tens or hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives.
Instead, Ukrainian martial law coordinator and former comedian Zelensky figures that, despite the astonishingly high cost in lives and free NATO materiel, by holding on till beyond the last minute in every little hamlet and township, the Russians might, sooner or later, get exhausted by all the fighting and give up.
Given that one of Russia’s stated objectives at the outset was to demilitarize Ukraine, it seems unlikely that Russia will get tired anytime soon of killing Ukrainian soldiers by the battalion.
Combined, these two stories, the Financial Times’ and the New York Times’ articles, together revealed the war’s hideous truth. Western war planners don’t care about Ukraine. They don’t care about its courageous soldiers willing to fight Russia to their inglorious deaths. As I reported yesterday, all the West cares about is the Wolfowitz Doctrine: establishing a NATO foothold in Ukraine to keep a lid on Russia and prevent it from becoming a rival world superpower.
In other words, the Ukrainian people and their land are disposable NATO resources. But there isn’t any strategy. Doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result isn’t a strategy, it’s insanity.
But the fact the corporate media conversation and “foreign policy circles” have evolved from a goal of crushing Russia any day now to a strategy of trading land for peace is a great sign. Perhaps the end lies in sight.
all the West cares about is the Wolfowitz Doctrine: establishing a NATO foothold in Ukraine to keep a lid on Russia and prevent it from becoming a rival world superpower.
I got a 12 hour ban from Twitter for saying throw Igor K. down the well. The bots are strong in this October before the election year.
I got a 12 hour ban from Twitter
Highbrow blogging site UnHerd ran a thoughtful Proxy War article yesterday headlined, “Emmanuel Todd: Nato will disintegrate if Ukraine loses.” ...
Historian Todd made several observations with which most C&C readers would agree. For example, he thinks World War III has already started, that NATO will suffer irreparable shrinkage if Russia wins the Proxy War, that Western governments have been captured by what he neatly described as the “liberal oligarchy,” and that “Western economic sanctions have done more damage to the European economy than to the Russian one.”
My only quibble was he forgot to mention sanctions’ self-inflicted injury to the American economy. ...
There was nothing particularly novel (for us) about Todd’s political analysis, except of course that it is the complete opposite of the government-approved, corporate media-sustained narrative. But I found the article’s closing paragraph stunning. Reporters interviewing Todd about his book provocatively asked him whether he’d move to Russia since he hates the West so much, and he declined. But look what he said about the U.S.:
Asked by Corriere di Bologna whether he'd rather live in Russia than Western
Europe, Todd responded: "The liberal oligarchy is not a practical problem for me ....]
Basically I am just a dissident member of the intellectual oligarchy." While he said
he would remain in France "as long as the regime is not fascist or racist", he claimed
he would not move to the US as the country is "descending into something worse
than the liberal oligarchy". That something worse, Todd argued, is "nihilism".
Tried signing up just now again. They just give me the Black Screen
While he said
he would remain in France "as long as the regime is not fascist or racist", he claimed
he would not move to the US as the country is "descending into something worse
than the liberal oligarchy". That something worse, Todd argued, is "nihilism".
Just sayin.
Zelensky’s secret-squirrel victory plan to defeat the wily Russians, which the green-shirted dictator privately showed Joe Biden a couple weeks ago, was dramatically unveiled in public yesterday. The made-for-TV resistance leader presented the non-classified parts of his Victory Scheme to his entire Ukrainian parliament.
His clever strategem was all dressed up with yellow and blue ribbons and bows, but in sum, Zelensky is haggling harder than a Turkish rug merchant the day before the fiscal year end. His ‘victory plan’ is, at bottom, an offer to buy some armies from NATO to fight Russia with, in exchange for exclusive sweetheart deals on Ukraine’s valuable uranium, lithium, and titanium deposits.
Resource-rich Ukraine is up for sale, and all you have to do is light the fuse on World War III.
As Zelensky sees things, it’s win-win. His oligarchs and our oligarchs could get rich together. But the problem with Zelensky’s grade-school logic is that mining will become intensely difficult after the ground starts glowing from the inevitably high radiation levels that will exist across Ukraine shortly after NATO joins the fight.
Tellingly, the Kyiv Independent did not quote one single member of Ukraine’s parliament about what they thought of their Glorious Leader’s vaunted victory scheme. Not one quote. It didn’t even say they clapped.
Question asked: “Hey, whatever happened to the Ukraine war?” Ann Coulter wondered in this clip. You can find the full interview in the link.
https://x.com/AnnCoulter/status/1853765470970687952
Another surprise the media never saw coming. Ukraine’s national nightmare may also soon be over. The far-left, pro-war Economist ran a story yesterday headlined “Why Volodymyr Zelensky may welcome Donald Trump’s victory.” I am not making this up: “Disillusion with Joe Biden,” the subheadline quietly advised, “has reached deep levels.” Now they tell us.
The gist of the story was, Ukrainians wanted Trump to win (just like the rest of us). Not just any Ukrainians either: the ones with the most to lose, Ukraine’s top generals and soldiers.
Suddenly! Suddenly and unexpectedly! And surprisingly. “It comes as quite a surprise,” a surprised Economist reported, “to learn that many senior Ukrainian officials were hoping for a Donald Trump victory.” For some baffling reason the Economist could not quite grasp, the Ukrainians were “prepared to gamble” on “a wildcard president who would rip up the rules and almost certainly cut aid.” ...
President Trump promised to end the Ukraine war “in 24 hours.” When he said “24 hours,” it was obviously a metaphor for a very short time. But you can expect the media to go berserk on Day Two if the war isn’t over yet. (Trump’s first broken promise! Wheee)
As the surprised Economist described it, the battlefield situation looks dire for Ukraine. Literally nothing is going right. They are heading into the winter without electricity. Up to a fifth of the entire army has gone AWOL. Morale has collapsed along critical sections of the front line. Russia’s army is stronger and better supplied than ever. (Laughably, the Economist sneered at Russia’s inflation rate, which unlike ours is caused by their overheated economy.)
Why would senior Ukrainian military officials hope for Trump to win? It’s simple. Russia has only ever wanted one thing, which has been clear since before the Proxy War started. Russia does not want Ukraine’s land. Russia does not want Ukraine’s minerals. Russia definitely does not want Ukraine’s comedic former president.
Russia just wants Ukraine to stay out of NATO.
Of course there are other details, but that is pretty much it. Now, let me ask you something: How would that country’s joining NATO benefit the average Ukrainian? Answer: it wouldn’t. The average Ukrainian could care less about NATO. Only warmongering neocons care about Ukraine joining NATO.
Trump will soon control NATO. When Trump gets Ukraine to pledge not to join NATO, or gets NATO to pledge never to admit Ukraine, nobody will care except the deep state and its captured corporate media. After that critical problem is out of the way, the rest of the peace negotiation with Russia becomes much simpler.
Putin was trying not to make the first move by not calling Trump. But by inviting Trump’s call, Putin made the first move anyway. Trump will accept the invitation and make the call, and things will start happening fast, since neither Trump nor Putin are chronic, dissembling liars like Biden’s bellicose neocons.
The only thing that remains unclear is how much Trump can accomplish before he’s sworn in. There are no legal impediments, but obviously Trump can’t order weapons shipments to Ukraine be stopped yet. In 2024, much depends on how well the various leaders trust Trump to keep his promises once he takes office.
My guess is they will trust Trump.
I don’t mean to overstate things, but I’m not sure this point could be overstated: When Trump makes the deal to end the Ukraine war, he will have single-handedly hauled the world back from the brink of global thermonuclear war, and will therefore have instantly succeeded as the 47th President — potentially before he even takes the oath.
And since Ukraine is the lynchpin for nearly all current world conflict, removing that constant irritant would yield a deposit of political currency with which Trump could negotiate other successful resolutions. It is not unreasonable to think we could be looking at an era of more global peace and security since … never.
Late last week, many folks were disconcerted by Joe Biden’s warmth and friendliness in welcoming President Trump to the White House. It seemed … unreal that Biden would happily help Trump’s transition. This weekend, the other orthopedic slipper dropped. A 100% anonymously sourced story appeared in Sunday’s New York Times headlined, “Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia With Long-Range U.S. Missiles.” Nice transition you had there! ...
“Mr. Biden’s decision,” the Times understatedly explained, “is a major change in U.S. policy.” And right as Biden was on his way out, too. Was this the deep state’s way of using ATACMS to FUBAR Trump’s peace deal, by making it as hard as possible to end the Proxy War? Is war itself the goal? To give you some idea of the sky-high stakes, yesterday Robert Kennedy captured the moment in a tweet:
... In March, the first thing Zelensky did with his new, secretly supplied ATACMS was launch them at defenseless civilian targets in Russia, like the apartment buildings pictured above, a war crime under international rules, and worse, a target with zero strategic value except bad optics. Zelensky’s retarded misfire created great excitement at the Pentagon, and caused flummoxed US generals to put down their eyeliner pens and rethink whether Zelensky could be trusted with a child’s BB gun much less an advanced missile system.
Logic finally penetrated the Pentagon’s ever-present fog of injected estrogen, and they strapped a bunch of new rules on the ATACMS, stopping the uncontrollable and unpredictable Ukrainians from blasting away at everything in sight. We gave you those missiles to fight a war, not knock over apartment buildings, the generals scolded.
Despite enthusiastic application and a pronounced generosity with its dwindling supplies of missiles, the ATACMS never measurably benefited the Ukrainians. When they are used by Americans against non-peer adversaries, ATACMS are probably pretty devastating. But when used against an experienced, rival military like Russia’s, which enjoys top-notch air defenses, ATACMS has been notably much less effective.
« First « Previous Comments 4,151 - 4,190 of 4,190 Search these comments
https://twitter.com/HinchaPenta/status/1496700652084473857?s=20&t=T1inEM5Hv6ahmrL4nzNirQ&source=patrick.net