DeSantis called the Ukraine/Russia war a “territorial dispute,” and thus, in the words of the NYT, "dismissed the argument that Mr. Putin’s aggression threatened the postwar international order" and "unequivocally rejected the idea that the conflict is a war to defend 'freedom.'"
ADDED: Here's the corresponding article in WaPo, "A Republican ‘civil war’ on Ukraine erupts as Reagan’s example fades/GOP leaders and voters are increasingly skeptical of an extended commitment, part of a broader shift away from conservative support for foreign interventions":
In recent memory, the Republican Party has often been aligned with a muscular foreign policy summed up by Reagan’s “peace through strength.” Long before Reagan, however, there had been a tradition on the American right of nationalism and skepticism toward foreign intervention (sometimes called isolationism, though today’s conservatives reject that term). The motto of “America First” originated with a group of influential conservatives who opposed aiding the Allies at the outbreak of World War II....
[I]he February 2016 debate ahead of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary... Trump... called the Iraq War “a big fat mistake” and criticized the Bush administration for lying about Saddam Hussein’s having weapons of mass destruction. Jeb Bush cut in to defend his brother’s record, saying the former president “was building a security apparatus to keep us safe and I’m proud of what he did.”
Trump shot back, “The World Trade Center came down during your brother’s reign, remember that. That’s not keeping us safe.”
The crowd booed, and pundits widely predicted that the moment would tank Trump’s candidacy, especially in a state with a large military presence. Instead, a week later, Trump won 44 out of 46 counties....
Posts
98 comments:
It's sort-of a war to defend freedom in that Ukraine is more of a democracy than is Russia, and there's no reason to conclude that Russia would stop at Ukraine unless forced to. Therefore, it is unquestionably in the US interest to have somebody else degrade the Russian military. If DeSantis' statement reflects the truth of his thinking, then he's naïve.
But, as the US interest lies not in defending Ukraine per se, but in chastening Russia, we do not need a Ukrainian victory to decide our goals are met. If that is his real calculation, there is sound reason to support it.
Apart from being a revenue generator for defense companies and a political contribution mechanism from said companies to the politicians supporting this proxy war, the U.S. has zero strategic interest in corruption-riddled Ukraine. And don’t even start on a so-called “domino effect”, because there is none here.
And don’t even start on a so-called “domino effect”, because there is none here.
Exactly, but that’s the argument former CIA director turned management consultant Tenet was peddling before the fighting began. Poland is the real target, he claims…
DeSantis repeats standard US foreign policy during the Cold War, and when most people knew that MAD meant Mutually-Assured Destruction. I don't care if Putin is right or wrong, but you don't dance with the devil if he has nuclear weapons and unlimited coal/oil/wood/steel, etc. When the sh*t hits the fan everyone nearby will be covered in nuclear sh*t.
The Crimea and eastern Ukraine are literally the front door / main port for Russia. They owned/controlled this region for longer than the USA existed. The locals speak Russian and largely identify as Russian. The region was split off from Russia's nominal border only because of the USSR's internal politics.
Every bureaucrat in relevant political circles learned this in their first or second year in college. The culture has become dominated by extreme risk-takers who demand to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven. They will kill us all unless people like DeSantis (and similar sane righties/lefties) stop them.
There's a US interest in being a country that it's good to be a friend of.
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes ran a segment on this last night. He was all pro-war. My thought was: okay, bub, send YOUR kids over there to have their legs blown off.
Desantis sucks but she’s right about this.
"dismissed the argument that Mr. Putin’s aggression threatened the postwar international order"
...Threatened the Biden's money laundering operation. FIFY.
Ukraine is just another dictatorship.
Ukraine chose a Nazi flavor to their dictatorship to oppose the Soviet flavor of the Russian dictatorship.
This conflict is largely about the Ukrainian Nazi's killing the Russian soviets in eastern Ukraine.
The soviets saw an opportunity to take some land from the nazi's.
The Biden/Bush Regime has a very tight money laundering relationship with the Nazi's.
So naturally we have an opportunity to launder even more US taxpayer money through Ukraine in support of the Nazis.
fairmarketvalue said...And don’t even start on a so-called “domino effect”, because there is none here.
The people of Georgia and the entirety of the "near abroad" (there's a reason that term exists) beg to differ.
As a matter of domestic politics, it's interesting that the NYT thinks that a maximalist position on Ukraine is such a winner for Democrats that it's trying to make hay from the slightest deviation.
It will be fun to watch the posters on this board follow Desantis in this.
Desantis passed his first test. His prospects in the primary would have been over if he answered this question wrong.
There is some hope for him yet. But he is going to have to answer the economic questions correctly too.
Support for large corporations and free trade policy need to end as well.
Good.
I was a GWB warmongering neocon back in the day. I'm glad to see the party learn from experience. No one can claim that DeSantis' opinion is invalid because of his bone spurs.
Damn the Torpedoes, Pelosi needs money!
Europe is so interested in containing Russia that their military is impotent. They're just another welfare ruse.
This is disappointing. Russia slowly recreating its empire by invading US allies and friends sounds of interest to me.
Its a four hundred year old feud if not longer read massies peter the great as a primer.
rhhardin said:
“There’s a US interest in being a country that it's good to be a friend of.” It’s always good to have friends, but not at the cost of an unlimited checkbook and the real prospect of US bloodshed. Note I said there is no *strategic* US interest in Ukraine. If you can think of one, please enlighten us.
I wish there was more accountability for the spending by the US in this endeavor. I worry that Ukraine is a money pit and we are suckers. I would like to see a brutally fair and honest system where it's proven that the United States is not spending more than all the other European nations combined. I am so sick of the blather that we are a rich country. Does any other country have over 31 trillion dollars in debt?
Anyone who was paying attention to Iraq and Afghanistan has to have questions about US interventions. The Europeans have a lot more at stake than the US does. Where are they? And there was too much Obama fiddling and Biden graft to get too excited about "freedom" in Ukraine.
But, let's look at a map. What would be achievable US war goals? Someone upthread said "chastening Russia". Yeah--that will work. I wonder who or what would succeed Putin. Talk about naive! Would you or your children sign up for the US military under the Obama/Biden clown posse that is the US military establishment to "chasten" Russia? Obama and Biden got rid of the warriors and installed the social workers.
"Dave Begley said...
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes ran a segment on this last night. He was all pro-war. My thought was: okay, bub, send YOUR kids over there to have their legs blown off."
He's all pro-war because the left is all pro-War. Nothing to do with Ukraine per se. It's all a transfer of cash from American tax payers to Ukrainian big wigs with the big guy getting his cut.
"Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis ..... are now largely aligned on Ukraine, signaling a sharp break from the interventionist approach that drove former President George W. Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.""
Why not? The results were unmitigated disasters.
DeSantis, Trump, et al are simply recognizing reality: We're stone cold broke; the Continental NATO nations, with a few Eastern European exceptions, have no intention of holding up their end militarily; China is a powerful rising power, as are many other regional powers--in other words, it's not just the post-World War II era that is officially over, but so is the entire post-1917 era of ideological struggle. We've returned to a multi-power world in which nations struggle for their own interests. The rising powers in the Republican Party are simply the first to publicly recognize this.
We need to support Ukraine but not unconditionally. The tip off that some of this is a grift by war profiteers is the refusal of an inspector general to audit spending.
We need to push for peace talks. Under no circumstances should regime change in Russia be stated as a goal even if it is the hoped for outcome.
We’re degrading our weapons stores as fast as we are Russia’s military.
There is no exit strategy. We’re strategically adrift. I can’t support that aspect of the war.
The interest in combating the toxic ISIS, Al Qaeda ideology is missing in the Russia/Ukraine dispute. The conflict is more Hatfields v McCoys than US v USSR.
There are rumors however of strong Nazi sympathy, in Ukraine, that's going unreported, for obvious inconvenience to the narrative of an assailed underdog Ukraine.
Code Pink! Where have they been in this discussion? Must defend Hunter's revenue stream even if it is the most corrupt country in Europe.
Thank GOD!! maybe WWIII won't happen.. THIS YEAR
It is in the US interest to discourage Russia from succeeding, but we shouldn't delude ourselves about Ukraine. They are not paragons of democracy or freedom. They are however, a large and fairly powerful country, compared to places like Georgia, Chechnya or Armenia. If we help them, they will be capable of holding off Russia indefinitely and will bleed them too dry for Russia to cast its eyes west, in the direction of the Baltic states.
This could be a cost-effective way to contain an adversary, if done right. The blatant graft and overspending on Ukraine is not an example of doing it right. I think it will help, if we're a little more clear-eyed about the Ukrainians and hence, less emotionally invested in them.
Good.
tim maguire said...
Ukraine is more of a democracy than is Russia,
BULL! they are BOTH fascist dictatorships
there's no reason to conclude that Russia would stop at Ukraine unless forced to.
BULL! there's no reason to conclude that US would stop at Ukraine (which SSR is next? Kazakhstan?)
IF tim's statement reflects the truth of his thinking, then he's naïve.
Upstate NY resident here. About 30 miles from Ft. Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division. They are sending 500 troops to "Eastern Europe".
RFK, Jr. seems to be running for president. He claims Fauci built dozens of bioweapons labs, including many in Ukraine along the Russian border.
The CIA staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and installed a puppet government.
RFK, Jr. better watch his ass. The Deep State took down Trump to keep its money laundering and warmongering campaign running in Ukraine. It’s long been rumored that the CIA in alliance with LBJ took out JFK. They won’t hesitate to take out RFK, too.
NB: Populism includes the recent American experience of knowing many families whose best and brightest sons went off to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and came back dead in their early 20s. And they are forever dead.
FOR NOTHING.
DeSantis will come at things in a not always predictable way. For those who immediately view him as part of the establishment, well...he may be in some ways. But he is most definitely his own man in many others. And in every case, he's going to work out in his mind what happens if he takes a decision in this direction. Or that direction. How does this play out? He takes the long view on a current plan, something not always done by our 'leaders'. He seems to think ahead to the reactions, both by talkers and doers.
He's yet to jump into the fray with both feet. I look forward to him doing so. I'm not completely sold on him for Prez, though I love him as our Guv. I want to see him in action when he's taking fire from all sides, within and without the GOP, and from all media. He will attract much of the fire away from Trump because he's so dangerous to the left. Dangerous because he could win.
For me the other side of the coin is even more fascinating; the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has morphed into blood-thirsty neoconservative War Hawks.
Cool. I have thought the same thing about Ukraine. I might start paying more attention to DeSantos.
The Kristol-cheney Democrat Party is the party of war, now.
"accelerated with Donald J. Trump’s political rise."
Maybe they should indicate that the acceleration was all on the Democrats' side.
The first Iraq war started under Bush Sr., was sustained under Clinton, ended under Bush Jr. The second Iraq war started under Obama with a premature exit and direct funding of the Iranian proxy and segue to World War Springs. The war in Ukraine started under Obama/Biden with the Maidan coup, denial of services to Crimea, assault on Donbas by an apartheid regime in Kiev-aligned military/paramilitary axis with Biden backing in a Slavic Spring. NYT et al, for their part, were the Fourth leg of the fascist State in collusion with the Democrat House in a multi-trimester, multi-year misinformation, disinformation campaign and attempted coup executed against President Trump.
Most "Republican" voters oppose this war that Joe Biden is getting us into....except the Lindsay Graham faction of the party....You know, the GOPe Neo Cons who never met a war they weren't in love with.
The precedent for Ukraine is the invasion of Serbia and establishment of Kosovo. Perhaps another premature exit from Afghanistan. We're still at war in Somalia, our southern border, our own domestic national insurrectios, and diverse locations globally.
DeSantis says “America First.” Nothing wrong with that.
Well jeepers gilber. You said "bull" in all caps. Twice. That must mean you know what you're talking about.
The azov element is overplayed they had much more influence under poroshenko they arent even as significant as the paramilitaries in latin america wagner is a brand like blackwater, a way to diversify a catering business
Amadeus 48 said...Talk about naive! Would you or your children sign up for the US military
Annnd...it's official. We've descended into twitter level stupidity, where people just make stuff up to try to score points. Most of my family has served in the military at one time or another. I attempted to join the warrant officer corps (helicopter pilots) after high school but it didn't work out.
The US has no soldiers in the Ukraine and has to no plans to so your killer point is actually a non-sequitur.
"the postwar international order"
What order? Great-power interests rule. We shred norms if it suits us.
Territorial dispute is a good way to frame the issue now, provided the territory in dispute is not all of Ukraine.
We've already achieved our short-term goals, namely degrading the Russian military, demonstrating the impossibility of a Russian attack on NATO proper, and focusing European minds on defense. But we've also paid a price in degrading our own resources, blowing up part of the international financial order, and making Russia more closely allied with China. Time to think about the end game.
As others have said, the most striking thing about current war fever is the changed attitude of the left. Peace is out, war is good. But then, all their calculations are strictly based on domestic politics.
Tim McGuire said:
"fairmarketvalue said...And don’t even start on a so-called “domino effect”, because there is none here."
The people of Georgia and the entirety of the "near abroad" (there's a reason that term exists) beg to differ.
Apart from the fact that Georgia has a very large population that consider themselves Russion (as you may know, Stalin was born there) here's a thought experiment: Let's assume your assumption is correct about the people of Georgia being concerned that they are next after Ukraine. In order to dissuade Russia from a Georgia incursion, one would need to posit that Russia has been repelled to such a degree in Ukraine by Ukrainian and friendly forces using the best U.S. arms and equipment that it never again seeks expansion. I find that level of success difficult to imagine. Moreover, if that degree of success doesn't happen, will you be in favor of the U.S. wading into a similar role in Georgia?
Do not forget that RDS has the experience of being a JAG in theatre during the debacle of the Iraq/Afghan activities, something that is not the case for anyone else in the current mix. I have to believe that his current decisions are informed by his experience making the choice between a variety of bad decisions at that time and having to live with the outcome.
There is nothing simple or easy about getting out of quicksand. Knowing where the first step can be avoided is a valuable skill. These considerations have a higher priority than ones that are simply political in nature. I am truly amazed at how much expense and death we are willing to bear to avoid upsetting the people who deliver our daily news and opinion via the mainstream outlets. It's just another form of church for the unchurched.
Why did Curtis's "Cathedral" label stick so hard and so completely to this force, after all? He was able to derive the function though the form had been altered. If you are unable to see this, you might be a believer in the Church of What's Happening Now.
I am unsure about DeSantis’ Ukraine position. I think he is wrong to label it a mere border dispute. It is not. Putin ism Rey interested in a restoration of the Russian Empire so if he feels emboldened there is a risk of a wider conflict that the US would be obligated to enter. Poland has built the largest European based land forces in Europe for a reason.
He did use the phrase “further entangled” which implies that the current level of entanglement is acceptable.
I am happy to see that he listed energy security and the CCP as greater foreign policy challenges then Ukraine. The fact is that if Biden had maintained Trump’s energy policies (including the continued prevention of NordStream Ii and the encourage ment of the construction of the EastMed pipeline) the invasion would not have occurred.
Trump and DeSantis aren't in on the money laundering. Nor are they trying to get their kids jobs on a corrupt Ukrainian company board.
The MAGA movement has produced two leading anti forever war candidates.
College educated white women hate both of them.
I don't think this dispute is of "vital" concern to the US, but it's definitely in our interest, in Lithuania's interest, in the world's interest if someone like Putin does not succeed in settling a border dispute by means of a military invasion.Not ever check is a blank check. We can have checks and balances on blanced checks....There's a theory that if the money sent to Ukraine was not sent to Ukraine then that money would be sent to families in East Palestine, Ohio. That's not the way it works. The money would be sent to Baltimore or Chicago to hire paroled murderers to counsel at risk youth in those communities.....I'm not against some worker in a defense plant picking up some overtime. A dollar spent on the military-industrial complex is worth more than a dollar spent on a DEI school.
Achilles said...Desantis passed his first test. His prospects in the primary would have been over if he answered this question wrong.
Yep. Pro forever war would sink him with the MAGA base.
My, how things have changed since my early adulthood in the 70's. Liberal Progressives were once obnoxious peaceniks. Now look at them, taking the neocon side on 'Muh Russia', and all this commentary about how the world needs a friendly(I guess this means, 'avuncular') USA to offer a helping hand, and how Russia is the newly coined, new & improved Evil Empire.
It's truly jarring to see Republicans do the right thing on ill-premised foreign adventures, but you know what's truly disgusting? A whole year of war, thousands killed, a country laid to waste, an arrogant foreign leader that has become accustomed to having his armaments grift satisfied on demand. And nobody - I mean, nobody - even makes a mention of the idea of peace talks, maybe a negotiated settlement. Nope. We're still 'all in' or 'get the hell out'. Way to lead, USA. Way to make peace our mission, UN.
Do not forget that RDS has the experience of being a JAG in theatre during the debacle of the Iraq/Afghan activities, something that is not the case for anyone else in the current mix. I have to believe that his current decisions are informed by his experience making the choice between a variety of bad decisions at that time and having to live with the outcome.
He didn't make shit for decisions. Other men made decisions.
Isn't this about the poll conducted by Fox News' Tucker Carlson, that was discussed on Fox News and then posted to Twitter? If so, I read DeSantis response. If you click through the comments, it looks like a lot of complaints are coming from Trump supporters. I guess they are establishment Republicans now.
He didn't make shit for decisions. Other men made decisions.
Even if he wasn't the head chef, he was in the kitchen. You learn from that.
Well! Howza 'bout that?! Gubna De Santos has actually said something I can agree with! Atta boy, Ronnie! I'd have agreed more if he had said we never should have spent the first dollar or involved ourselves in the slightest way in the Russia/Ukraine conflict. However, his statement is pretty darn good!
"But, as the US interest lies not in defending Ukraine per se, but in chastening Russia'...."
Why do we have an interest in "chastening Russia?" Our interest should be in attempting to (re)build constructive diplomatic and other productive relations with Russia, and with China.
tim maguire said...
The people of Georgia...
Georgia? You mean the birthplace of Joe Stalin?
As opposed to The Ukraine? The birthplace of Nikita Khrushchev?
"The second Iraq war started under Obama...."
Hahaha! Obama is certainly to be condemned, (and he is a war criminal), because he continued the illegal Iraq war mounted by Bush/Cheney, and expanded the use of drones as weapons. He did not "start" a new war with Iraq. (Biden is condemned by many for our exit from Afghanistan, as if he did it in an "improper" way, leaving a mess, but there was never going to be a "proper" way to leave and there was never not going to be a mess: we had been there--in a war never warranted--for 20 years. If Trump had withdrawn in exactly the same way as Biden, many Republicans condemning Biden would have applauded Trump...and correctly so!)
The justification for our extravagance in Ukraine goes like: We are defending (democracy, freedom). That seems like nonsense to me and a misapprehension of what Ukraine is about.
For clarification our politicians ought to ask members of The Ukrainian Orthodox Church. You know, the largest Christian denomination in Ukraine, the one Zelensky is trying to ban.
In my lifetime (born in 1962), the US has LOST Every war* it's been in.
What's going to make THIS WAR different? Anyone?
America is "the richest country in the world"... because we have MORE DEBT than Any Other country
America has "the greatest military in the world".. because we haven't won a war since the russians helped
Sometimes, i think those words we keep using, do no mean what we Think they mean
Every war* well, unless you count Grenada and Panama as "wars"
Didn't Biden frame it as a territorial dispute when he suggested a "minor incursion" would essentially be okay? Didn't Obama consider it a territorial dispute when Russia invaded and took Crimea?
I remember when the fate of the world, according to either two or three presidents, depended on defending South Vietnam in what liberals considered a territorial dispute that was none of our business.
"I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong," Muhammad Ali said, refusing induction to the Army, an act for which he was celebrated by the same people (philosophically) who now insist Ukraine is our eternal problem.
Are the circumstances different? Maybe. But the arguments are just as simplistic as they were then, leaving no room in the public discourse for anything less than all or none.
I like and admire DeSantis, but it is wishful thinking to suppose he will be a winning nominee. In the unlikely event he defeats Trump for the nomination he will lose in the general election. Many Trump idolators may well stay home out of spite.
Ideology aside, diehard Trumpsters are beginning to look and sound like lefties. Instead of "never Trump" it is "only Trump."
Speaking of unmitigated foreign policy disasters, let's not forget Libya. "We came, we saw, he died" as spoken by foreign policy whiz Hillary Clinton. Libya is now a bastion of stability *cough*.
Note that she's on board with the slaughter in Ukraine.
The Ukraine war is what I would call a "present" war meaning it illustrates present realities.
Reality 1
Eastern Europe is supposed to acquiesce in Russia's "natural" predatory behavior so that France, German, Holland, America Firsters et al can continue sunk in the green energy fantasy. But Eastern Europe has 180 million people, most of them in NATO, none of whom accept Russia's "natural" desire to push then around as an acceptable price for them to pay to allow "The West "to continue to in green dreaminess. Why should there be torture chambers in a line in every city from Riga to Odessa just because Germany wants to pretend it's going green and giving up oil when actually it's going to Russia for it. How dare we say children should kidnapped from Ukraine because that's Russia's "natural" behavior and we must be realistic because need Russian fertilizer because we won't make fertilizer ourselves because green dreams? Why not be realistic and drill for oil and make fertilizer ourselves?
The basic fact is that under Putin Russia is driving to restore its empire - today, Ukraine; tomorrow, Poland or the Baltics or Finland. All the Eastern European countries recognize this; all have increased their defense budgets; all support Ukraine; Finland and Sweden aretrying to join NATO. But the countries behind eastern Europe - France, Germany, Holland, America Firsters and so on - think geopolitical thoughts about Russia, such as that it is "natural" for Russia to want to take over the east European countries on its border to protect itself from France, Germany and Holland et all. Further, they furtively think "we must allow Russia to be 'natural' if we want its oil and gas." And since these countries, "The West" of the Cold War) have been closing down all their fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources on their own territory they have to have Russian oil and gas to keep their economies going. Or the US has to achieve energy independence as it existed under Trump where we'd have oil and gas to export to Europe. Green energy won't do it, now or ever. That's reality and denying that reality while hoping to manage it by buying from Russia and selling out eastern Europe is one reality of politics in the West. But telling 180,000,000 eastern Europeans that they're an acceptable sacrifice to the Green Goddess won't fly outside this country.
And if we're going to hold the line in eastern Europe, then the Ukraine is the most defensible line to hold.
Fortress America is the way to go. Protect our interests, not entangling alliances as the NWO crowd wants. Let people trade all they want with others across the glove, let tourists come and go. But as to involving us in their constant struggles, screw that.
"It's sort-of a war to defend freedom in that Ukraine is more of a democracy than is Russia, and there's no reason to conclude that Russia would stop at Ukraine unless forced to."
Well, all true. Except that the Ukrainian government was installed by a US-run coup that overthrew an elected government, and Russia would never have invaded in the first place if the US had not aggressively pursued NATO expansion right up to its borders. So, all true, except entirely false.
European ambition ==>> NATO + WEF?
George Washington Said to Avoid 'Entangling Alliances'…Or Did He?
We have to point out, that Washington never used the words “foreign entanglements” in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,” but he never used the exact words “foreign entanglements.”
I was concerned that DeSantis seemed to be all about the culture war. It's nice to see him making decisions on foreign policy, especially as I agree with him. Trump would have avoided this war, especially as he did not have any relatives on the take in Ukraine.
The Ukraine war is what I would call a "present" war meaning it illustrates present realities.
Reality 2
The relationship between the one-child family and the present-day armies of countries, like China and Russia, which are used to throwing away soldiers as cannon fodder. If you can't treat your soldiers, who come from one-child families*, as cannon fodder and yet that's always been your strategy - then, what?
The US cannot fight a two-front war but without the Ukraine war we would have had to. We'd be in it with China and Russia would attack. Luckily, Russia attacked and revealed deep weaknesses. he East European countries are busily assisting the Ukraine in exploiting these weaknesses. The greatest weakness this operation revealed in one that exists in China also. It is the relationship between the one-child family and the present-day armies of countries, like China and Russia, which are used to throwing away soldiers as cannon fodder. Russia isn't mobilizing because it has found that you cannot order mobilization under the cannon fodder strategy when the is population mainly composed of one child families. In that case, you are not only taking away a beloved only son, you are also taking away a family's entire economic and social future. And for what? You throw the sons away assaulting trenches across open fields in Bahkmut and when Bahkhmut falls, if it does fall, it turns out there are trenches behind those trenches. And what does the family fragment think as the years go on, as each day renews the bitter realities of impoverishment and missing grandchildren. The wound can't close.
* Nichlolas Eberstadt covered this issue for China in a recent WSJ article. That is behind the paywall but the report the article was based on is not.
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/chinas-changing-family-structure-dimensions-and-implications/
Blogger Temujin said...
... He's yet to jump into the fray with both feet.
========
can he jump into the fray without upsetting FL voters? and thereby losing the state?
is there a path to EC 270+? for him!
without achievable goal what is the point? === standard GOPe
The US has no soldiers in the Ukraine and has to no plans to so your killer point is actually a non-sequitur.
==========
what is the meaning of 'has' since Commander in Chief of USA armed forces was in Ukriane?
+ countless military advisors are embedded
Russia--or as it was known then, the USSR--was a much more powerful and world-menacing entity then than it is now. Remember when the wall came down and the USSR collapsed--to the great benefit of the entire world. Reagan adopted an explicit strategy to accomplish that result through overwhelming military strength.
Things are a little different now. What is the actual plan here?
If you are Establishment, you are out-of-date.
I think Desantis knowingly gave an answer designed to cause the Media system to outrage.
Helps his name recognition. Helps him to be seen as enemy of MSM. Helps see him as pushing back against DC. Helps him gain Trumpy voters.
His actual answer isn't really as controversial as it seems. And 2024 is years away, so anything he says now will not actually hold him.
tim maguire--Are you always this dishonest? Here is the full sentence that you chopped off to lie about me:
"Talk about naive! Would you or your children sign up for the US military under the Obama/Biden clown posse that is the US military establishment to "chasten" Russia?"
If anyone was paying attention to Poland these past few weeks, they have committed to doubling the size of their army and have made massive commitments to purchase U.S. and South Korean weapons. The Poles know a thing or two about Russian aggression.
Poland has been a NATO member since 1999 and Nato states will be compelled to defend Poland's territory.
Focus on our interests such crazy talk after all this crew has handled things do well.
“Ukraine is just another dictatorship.”
“Ukraine chose a Nazi flavor to their dictatorship to oppose the Soviet flavor of the Russian dictatorship.”
“This conflict is largely about the Ukrainian Nazi's killing the Russian soviets in eastern Ukraine.”
This conflict has been going on for most of a century. The Nazis formed, in part, as a counter to Soviet Communism. And, AntiFA was a Soviet proxy challenge to the Nazis for control over Germany. So, no surprise then that the Ukrainians opposing Russian dominance chose to style themselves as Nazis. After all, the Nazi Germans were able to stand up the the Soviets, until US material support facilitated the Soviets being able counterattack. Just de-riding the Soviets of just our trucks would have gone a long way to assuring a German victory over them.
The whole thing about alliances here is a bit weird. The Dems back Ukraine against Russia, but also the PRC, but Russia and China are allying against the western world, that begrudgingly includes Ukraine. Possibly explaining this is simple bribery - the Ukrainians and the Chinese successfully bribed the Biden family, along with other powerful Dems. And, yes, some Republicans too (e.g. Romney).
So, what does "winning" look like in Ukraine?
We depose Putin and who fills that power vacuum? The Russians don't exactly have a history of positive leaders. Some might argue their last "good" leader was Tzar Nicholas. Take out Putin and there's a good chance you'll get someone worse.
Russia destroys Ukraine and pulls out with a "moral victory" that Ukraine is no longer a functional country even thought the Russians technical "lost"?
I'm sure most, and most certainly Ukraine, wants the Russian's to pull out of all invaded territories, pay reparations and apologize for the misadventure. What's the realistic likelihood of that happening?
And, nobody has really articulated the US interest. Yes, it impacts our allies and friends, but how does it impact us, outside of sending money and treasure (in the forms of weapons)? No, we don't want war. No, we don't want Russia rebuilding the old empire. But how is any of this in our security or economic interests?
What does "winning" look like? Is there a negotiated settlement where everyone feels disappointed but are willing to end the conflict?
@Jupiter: Except that the Ukrainian government was installed by a US-run coup that overthrew an elected government ...
Not true.
Russia would never have invaded in the first place if the US had not aggressively pursued NATO expansion right up to its borders.
Completely wrong. Russia's behavior created the desire of Eastern European and Baltic countries to join NATO.
The Institute for the Study of War has a pretty extensive article explaining the HOW WE GOT HERE WITH RUSSIA: THE KREMLIN'S WORLDVIEW.
Some of you here would do well to read it.
Here's the question you need to be asking yourself: What, d'you suppose, leads to the entirely out-of-character behavior by the Biden administration? Given the track record they have for cowardice and mendacity, why are they backing Ukraine so hard?
My cynical guess is that they're being blackmailed like a mo'fo'. Zelensky has the goods on them; he was trying to get those to Trump back around 2018, and Democrat-sympathetic people in the State Department blocked his people from coming to the US. You might not remember that, but it was a news item back around then. Doubt me? Go look; it's there.
I strongly suspect that the intent was for Putin to invade, Zelensky to be offered a "Golden Bridge", and then the usual suspects would profit from raping Ukraine. Zelensky queered that whole deal by not leaving Kyiv.
There's something going on in the background.
Too late now. The U.S. and Russia have both grabbed the tar baby, and it won’t be easy to let go.
wildswan said...
Reality 2
The relationship between the one-child family and the present-day armies of countries
But, this is true, for the Ukraine, as well. And they have a LOT Less familys
when Bahkhmut falls, if it does fall, it turns out there are trenches behind those trenches.
But, will there be Ukrainians to man those trenches? I'm worried that soon (pretty soon!), the Ukraine will run out of men.. Not just for Bahkhmut, but for their Entire Army.
And What THEN????
Since, as the WSJ has been crowing for Months now.. THIS IS OUR WAR..
What do WE do when the Ukraine collapses? All the warharks (here, there, and everywhere) keep talking about how "the Ukrainians WILL Win! because they're Brave!! and fighting the GOOD FIGHT!"
The Problem with that is: There have to BE Ukrainians .
WHEN the Ukraine collapses... What then?? Please don't just say: "Don't Worry! everything is Fine!"
It doesn't SEEM fine to me
ps.
How short handed, is the American Army today? How short handed will it be in 2 years?
Blogger gspencer said...
Fortress America is the way to go. Protect our interests, not entangling alliances as the NWO crowd wants. Let people trade all they want with others across the glove, let tourists come and go. But as to involving us in their constant struggles, screw that.
3/15/23, 10:45 AM
That did not work out well the last time we tried it.
"Some might argue their last "good" leader was Tzar Nicholas."
Gorbachev. He let the USSR fall apart without firing a shot. Read Michael Malice's The White Pill to get a sense of how close Gorbachev was to being assassinated at his Dacha (phone lines were cut, military men showed up.) His killers would have also urged the Soviet military to turn on the citizens, but the army just wasn't up for it and called the whole thing off. When he let each state vote on whether they wanted to stay or leave (and most left) he basically said "Well, that's it. The USSR is no more."
Hey Skipper said...
@Jupiter: Except that the Ukrainian government was installed by a US-run coup that overthrew an elected government ...
Not true.
Hey Skipper? what part are you saying that Wikipedia says ISN'T True?
That there Was an elected government? From wiki..
Yanukovych was elected president in 2010, defeating Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The election was judged free and fair by international observers
or that it was a US-run coup that overthrew it?
Because if you're arguing, that SINCE the CIA hasn't confessed to the overthrow, it didn't happen..
I think you should do some learning about the CIA.. But, you won't; and These won't help
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/02/obama-admits-us-role-in-ukraine-overthrow/
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-secret-cia-training-program-in-ukraine-helped-kyiv-prepare-for-russian-invasion-090052743.html
Known Unknown:
""Some might argue their last "good" leader was Tzar Nicholas."
Gorbachev."
I think you might want to review what your hero did in Tallinn. The reason that he did as he did wasn't that he didn't want to, it was because he read the tea leaves and realized that either he acquiesced to what was going on, or he would have to deal with mass uprisings. Things were that close; the Baltics were a tinderbox, and if the contagion had spread, the Soviet Union would have ended with a bang, not a whimper.
People keep looking at Russia (and, the Soviet Union before it...) as this monolithic structure of vast power. News flash: They shot their bolt in WWII, and have never yet managed a demographic recovery since. Nothing that either the Communists or Putin have done has addressed a single one of their root problems, which are what are resulting in the virtual depopulation of the nation. Russia, as its territory exists today, should have a population around 300 million people. They've got around 114 million, if their last reported census is to be believed. The population has evaporated under the weight of their malgovernance, and it's only a matter of time before the whole sorry edifice caves in.
Ukraine is basically the death-rattle of a dying nation; do not expect them to be around by 2100. I wouldn't be surprised if they collapsed in the next seven years.
Another way to answer the question, which would also have resonated with the vast majority of Americans, would be to say: "We'll be happy to SELL Ukraine weapons to help defend itself, but there will be no more GIFTS to Ukraine," and if Ukraine doesn't have the money to buy our weapons, they are welcome to ask Germany and other members of NATO for that money or just have those countries buy the weapons from us for them.
In the past two months I have not spoken to a single person, here in Liberal Massachusetts, who believes we should be GIVING more money or stuff to Ukraine. The D.C. establishment is WAY out of step with the people on this one.
Apparently Joe Biden thinks (if I might abuse terms related to cogitation by applying them to Joe Biden) that the state of Delaware could use an artificial, glass-bottomed harbor where the town of Rehobeth used to be. When the radiation dies down enough. DeSantis figures that Florida has enough harbors already.
Expanding on my previous comment, let us contemplate the word “chickenshit.” As in, if we, as a country, are going to play a game of chicken with a nuclear power, it would be great if we didn’t have people in leadership positions and people advising those in leadership positions who all have shit for brains.
"gilbar said...
wildswan said...
Reality 2
The relationship between the one-child family and the present-day armies of countries
But, this is true, for the Ukraine, as well. And they have a LOT Less familys"
The Ukrainian army is not throwing away its soldiers as cannon fodder. In Bakhmut, for example, it is fighting on the defensive in trenches. It's the Russian soldiers who charge trenches on foot who are cannon fodder. The Ukrainians are claiming a 7:1 ratio in terms of killed and wounded and at that rate they have a larger population than the Russians. Moreover, the Ukrainian citizens are behind this war and the young men have not fled the country. Moreover, Russia lost 600 or 700,000 young men in those who fled the country when the war began and then again when a partial mobilization began. That number has to be added to the actual battlefield casualties. Finally, the Moscow- St. Petersburg area which is one of the most densely populated in Russia has had only about 25% of the casualties. Putin simply can't even to get that group, the children of the nomenklatura into the army, let alone get away with using his cannon fodder tactics on it.
It's for reasons like this that Ukraine has a good shot at driving Russia back within its former borders which would leave a state which the Ukraine could defend. Then using US designed weapons which aim to preserve soldiers it could sustain itself.
Russia would still be the largest country in the world, it would still have natural resources and it would still be true that no wants to invade it so it would not face an existential threat. And Putin has more enemies in Russia than outside it.
wildswan said...
The Ukrainians are claiming a 7:1 ratio
WELL! there You GO!!! the Ukrainians would NEVER Lie.. Not EVER!!!!!
I've said from the start of this kerfluffle- beither side is the good guys. Russia is the agtressor- which makes them a slightly more bad guy- in that way. But Ukraine seems to have been, pre-kerfluffle, nothing but a DemoncRAT money laundering operation. Then, as mentioned by Shouting Thomas: RFK, Jr. seems to be running for president. He claims Fauci built dozens of bioweapons labs, including many in Ukraine along the Russian border. There seems to be plenty of proof of this. Though I think tieing the labs as a reason for the Russian is a stretch. And there are are bloggers who do so.
One good thing it has revealed- the Russian army isn't an undefeatable colossus. Just like in past conflicts the Russians are horrid when practicing combined arms. Why? Most of us would attribute it to their command and control structure. Initiative in the lower ranks is discouraged, and initiative in thlower ranks is a key to combined arms success. That and their lack of a professional NCO corps, in any branch.
And as mentioned above- Poland is gearing up for war. Another >250 modern Abrams tanks from teh USA, and a thousand or so South Korean K2 Black Panther tanks. Not foremerly familiar with the latter, a quicl lookup says they could probably fo toe-to-toe with our Abrams tanks. Which makes them better then anything Russia has. Poland shares a border with Ukraine. Danger one one for them if Russia subsumes the Ukraine. Poland shares a border with Belarus, which seems to today be a wholly owned subsidiary or Russia Inc. But as we know- that could change overniight... things are not stable there. And then there's the Kaliningrad Oblast, a part of Russia sandwiched between Lituania and Poland. If Russia twitches towards them- well, Russia can kiss that oblast goodbye. And the Russian fleet in St. Petersburg will be effectively neutralized.
The US is not in chrage of what's going to happen. Other people closer to the conflict have a voice. Actually, we probably don't even have much influence with brain addled Biden as CinC. Our choice is get actively involved, or just be the armanent supplier. IMHO- we're much better off as the latter.
Along with things not being stable in Belarus- looks like the same thing in Russia.
The population problem as mentioned above exists in all Western nations and apparently all Communist nations at the moment. A change in tax structure could easily reverse population decline in most of the West- including the USA. But including training it takes 19-20 years for the children born today to be the soldiers of tomorrow, and 24 for them to be the junior officers of tomorrow.
And then- there's China. A whole other story.
Desantis is garnering all of the right enemies. All war mongers and neo-cons. McConnell, Rona McDaniel, Romney, Graham, Rubio, CHENEY!!!.
The democrat party has been the party of unlimited war ever since Obama. Who started about 7 of them, all while these republican war-mongers and the democrats cheered him on.
The democrat party is now the party of unending war.
Gospace said:
"A change in tax structure could easily reverse population decline in most of the West- including the USA. But including training it takes 19-20 years for the children born today to be the soldiers of tomorrow, and 24 for them to be the junior officers of tomorrow."
It ain't the tax structure that's the problem. The whole cultural/political matrix surrounding the issue of family formation is where the real issues lie, and you're not fixing those with a few tweaks to the tax structure. That simplistic thinking is how we got here; it's like rent control: It looks simple, looks like a solution... Yet, it most certainly is not.
We've gone down an unsustainable demographic blind alley, and all of the contributory features are the same ones that nobody wants to give up. Barest outlines begin with the fact that women here in most Western nations are no longer willing to do their biologically-mandated jobs; bearing and raising the next generation is no longer enough for them, they want more. The fact that 'more' means misery, and waking up at age fifty past their fertile years and realizing that 'more' is not what they really wanted, or what was good for society? They're entirely unable to recognize that before that point, and so, we're going to be stuck at below-replacement rate for reproduction for a good long time.
You're not going to fix everything with some adjustments to the tax system. One thing you'd have to address is the CAFE standards that make buying a car which can support more than two car seats in it at a time affordable, and ain't nobody going to sign on for that.
Most of the bright lights in governance don't even begin to understand the things that drive lower fertility rates. They do their thing, like impose CAFE standards and high-efficiency washers on the public, and fail to recognize the very real effects those things have on people's lives. You might not think that being able to do one or two less loads of laundry a day would cause people to say "NO!" to a third or fourth child, but it does. Same-same with all the rest of daily life... You make it too hard, too expensive to live with that extra kid, and nobody will have them. This is a fact that drives decision-making about children in the real world, the one where you effectively discourage "the right sort" of people from having kids, while encouraging those who reproduce social drags on society to have more and more. That's why you have to raise taxes, to pay for those drags you induced from the dregs of it all, and you wonder why the people who contribute... Are contributing rather less than you want them to. I mean, who's going to raise more kids to be your tax-slaves, in order to pay for the benefits that allow the social parasites to get ahead? You think that average Joe and Jane don't observe the drag class buying steak at the grocery store while they can barely afford Hamburger Helper for their meals? You think that doesn't play into their decision-making about whether or not to have that second or third child?
Meanwhile, your dumb ass is subsidizing social parasitism by paying welfare mothers to churn out still more felons who will never contribute a day's work or pay taxes. All for votes you'll try to guarantee by promising more and more of the productive citizen's wages to those parasites... The same ones who you excuse for committing the bulk of the criminal activities.
Oh, yeah... A few changes to the tax code will fix everything. Not.
Post a Comment