May 4, 2023

"If you look at the Minsk accords, which the Russians offered to settle for, that looks like a really good deal today."

"Let’s be honest: it’s a US war against Russia... to essentially sacrifice the flower of Ukrainian youth in an abattoir of death and destruction for the geopolitical ambition of the neocons, oft-stated, of regime change for Vladimir Putin and exhausting the Russian military so that they can’t fight anywhere else in the world. President Biden has said that was his intention — to get rid of Vladimir Putin. His Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, in April 2022, said that our purpose here is to exhaust the Russian army. What does that mean, 'exhaust'? It means throwing Ukrainians at them. My son fought over there, side-by-side with the Ukrainians and we’ve sacrificed 300,000 Ukrainians. The commander of the special forces unit in the Ukraine, which is probably the most elite fighting force in Europe, has said 80% of his troops are dead or are wounded and they cannot rebuild the unit. Right now, the Russians are killing Ukrainians at a ratio of either 1:5 or 1:8, depending on what data you believe...."
 
Said Bobby Kennedy, quoted at RCP. I've made small edits to the transcript based on the video that's also at that link. The transcript continues. Excerpts:
This was supposed to be a humanitarian mission — that’s how they sold it to us in the United States. But that would imply that the purpose of the mission was to reduce bloodshed and to shorten the conflict, and every step that we’ve taken has been to enlarge the conflict and to maximise bloodshed. That’s not what we should be doing.

If you look at the Minsk accords, it sets the groundwork for a final settlement. The Donbas region, which is 80% ethnic Russian — and Russians that were being systematically killed by the Ukrainian government — would become autonomous within Ukraine and would be protected. Let’s protect those populations with a United Nations force or whatever we have to do to make sure the bloodshed stops. In addition to that, we need to remove our Aegis missile systems, which house the Tomahawk missiles — nuclear missiles — from 70 miles from the Russian border. When the Russians put nuclear missiles on Cuba, 1,500 miles from Washington DC, we were ready to invade them, and we would have invaded them if they hadn’t removed them. The way they got removed ultimately is: my uncle and father made a deal with Ambassador Brennan and Khrushchev, who they had a close relationship with and they could talk directly to at that point. The deal was: we will remove our Jupiter missiles from Turkey, on your border, because we know that’s intolerable to you.

Russia has been invaded twice in the previous 100 years. One could see why they wouldn’t want nuclear missile systems in hostile countries on their border. We should also agree to keep Nato out of Ukraine, which is what the Russians have asked. I think based upon those three points, somebody like me could settle this war. I don’t think the neocons are capable of settling it, nor the people who surround President Biden — because they were the ones who created the problem. I don’t think they’ll ever recognise that. I think part of a settlement is to recognise that, with some of the history that went into this war, there were geopolitical machinations on both sides. And by the way, I am not excusing or justifying Vladimir Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of the Ukraine. But my uncle always said, if you want to actually achieve peace, you’ve got to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes and you’ve got to figure out the local pressures on him too.

INTERVIEWER: You mention the Cuban Missile Crisis and your uncle’s strategy: you could argue that’s an example of the opposite approach. He stared them down. He played chicken and he won, in a sense. He took a firm stand. And there are lots of people who feel that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is just such a moment and that somehow a stand needs to be taken and Putin can’t be rewarded for invading. What do you say to those people?

KENNEDY: You can argue the history of it. My uncle was surrounded by joint chiefs of staff, by an intelligence apparatus that was trying to get him to go to war. And the fact that there was one confrontation, where the Russian ship that was carrying supplies to Cuba stopped before it hit the embargo wall of US ships, that wasn’t the end of the crisis. That was just a midpoint, and it could have gone anywhere from there. The end of the crisis happened because my uncle reached out to Khrushchev directly, and said: “Let’s settle this between ourselves.” And their settlement was secret, and it remained secret for many years. But my uncle wanted to settle it, and he understood that he had to put himself in Khrushchev’s position and that Khrushchev didn’t want war, and neither did he, but they were both surrounded by people who did want to go to war.

INTERVIEWER:  So what is the wise, equivalent action that the US president should have taken when Russian tanks started rolling across Ukrainian borders from three directions, headed for the capital?

KENNEDY: We should have listened to Putin over many years. We made a commitment to Russia, to Gorbachev, that we would not move Nato one inch to the east. Then we went in, and we lied. We went into 13 Nato countries, we put missile systems in with nuclear capacity; we did joint exercises with Ukraine and these others for Nato. What is the purpose of Nato? This is what George Kennan asked; this is what Jack Matlock asked. All of the doyens of US foreign policy were saying: “Russia lost the Cold War. Let’s do to Russia what we did in Europe when we gave them the Marshall Plan. We’re the victors — let’s lift them up. Let’s integrate them into European society.”

INTERVIEWER: So you would have had Russia inside Nato?

KENNEDY: I think that that’s something we should have considered. What is the purpose of Nato other than to oppose Russia? If you’re addressing Russia in a hostile way from the beginning, of course their reaction is going to be hostile back. And if you’re slowly moving in all of these states, who we said would never become part of Nato. What happened in the Ukraine is that the US supported essentially a coup d’etat in 2014, against the democratically-elected government of Ukraine. We have telephone call transcripts of Victoria Nuland, one of the neocons in the White House, handpicking the new cabinet that was hostile to the Soviet Union. If you look at that, and you put yourself in Russia’s position, and you say: “Okay, the United States, our biggest enemy, is treating us as an enemy, has now taken over the government of a nation and made them hostile to us, and then started passing laws that are prejudicial to this giant Russian population.” If Mexico did that and then started killing — they killed 14,000 Russians in Donbas, the Ukrainian government — if Mexico did that to expatriate Americans, we’d invade in a second. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of our opponents. And it doesn’t mean saying that Vladimir Putin is not a gangster — he is. Or he’s not a thug — he is. Or he’s not a bully — he is. But going to war is not in his interest, either. And he repeatedly told us: these are red lines, you’re crossing. 
INTERVIEWER: Day by day, we hear news of atrocities taking place within the Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine. The idea that a peaceful settlement will be reached seems very distant at this point. Should we take it from what you’re saying that your support for Nato as president would be different? 
KENNEDY: That is something that I’m going to look at as President. I’m going to look at how we de-escalate tensions between the great powers: between China, between the United States and Russia. How do we let these countries deal with their neighbours without pressure from the United States that makes them feel like they’re going to have to go into a military mode. I’m not saying that’s what happened here. I’m saying that’s something that we need to look at, and the reason that we need to look at that is we have institutional problems in our country. 
This is something my uncle discovered in 1960/61. He realised during the Bay of Pigs crisis that the CIA had devolved into an agency whose function was to provide the military-industrial complex with a constant pipeline of new wars. And my uncle came out of one of those meetings as the Bay of Pigs invasion collapsed, and he realised the CIA had lied to him, and he fired Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA, Charles Cabell, Richard Bissell, the three top people in the CIA, for lying to him. And he said at that time: “I want to take the CIA and shatter it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.” We have to recognise that it’s not just our civilian agencies that have been captured by industry — the military agencies, the Pentagon, and particularly the intelligence agencies have been captured by the military-industrial complex. We have to recognise that and we have to say, “We don’t want constant wars in our country; we can’t afford them.”

123 comments:

rhhardin said...

He's making short work of his political enemies. The important part is seeming to mean well while doing it.

RMc said...

RFK Jr. is an idiot.

Big Mike said...

We have to recognize that and we have to say, “We don’t want constant wars in our country; we can’t afford them.”

Guy displays a lot of common sense.

Michael said...



What is the purpose of Nato?

On the '16 campaign trail, Trump asked the same question but I don't recall him talking too much more about this. Still, it was the first time I had to seriously consider the question. My already dimmed view of our national security Blob dimmer even further.

Yukon Cornelius said...

A prominent man speaking like this is getting ready to commit arkancide. The war mongers are now doing the Ukraine play in Sudan. Where have all the peace movements gone now that the Biden regime is in charge? Not much has changed from 75 years ago.

https://youtu.be/sCrrqgEtE-o

Mark said...

"In addition to that, we need to remove our Aegis missile systems, which house the Tomahawk missiles — nuclear missiles — from 70 miles from the Russian border"

The Aegis Missle system does not use nuclear missles, in fact it is a defensive intercept system.

If he is going to make an argument like this, he really should google his 'facts'.

Mr. Forward said...

A conversation between Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert Kennedy Jr. with Elon Musk or Scott Adams asking questions would be more valuable and draw a larger audience than any so-called debates that have degenerated into sound bites and slogans that we have all heard before.

tim maguire said...

His solutions are short-sighted--UN peacekeepers? UN peacekeepers don't have a very good record of keeping the peace. All he'd accomplish is setting up the conditions for the next war. Ukraine would rather finish it now.

The US has chosen a side, clearly. But RFK is playing games when he argues this war is US vs. Russia and we're using Ukrainian lives to achieve US goals. The US has no right to tell Ukrainians how hard they get to fight for their own country and there is no basis on which to argue that more Ukrainians are dying in this war than would die if they agreed to terms short of victory. This isn't Russia's first invasion of Ukraine and there is no reason to think that if they achieve some of their goals, it will be the last.

RideSpaceMountain said...

I wonder if folks in the Ukraine think how much better off their country would be today if:

-There was no 2014 coup
-They still abided by the Minsk Accords and remained neutral
-They never let NATO advisors in the country
-They never shelled the Donbas

Good thing that if they did ever think about it, we'd never hear about it thanks to the MSM.

rehajm said...

If he finds an audience for this they might do something about it but in post-election America it’s possible they just let him talk then Butti him later…

…which reminds me: did they snuff Mike Bloomberg so he never comes back? I haven’t heard from him since he was counciled out…

Dave Begley said...

“ But my uncle wanted to settle it, and he understood that he had to put himself in Khrushchev’s position and that Khrushchev didn’t want war, and neither did he, but they were both surrounded by people who did want to go to war.”

Agree 100% with Bobby. Put yourself in the other guy’s position.

Sound legal and political analysis. And notice how he correctly draws the comparison to a historical event where his uncle averted a war?

Is it 300,000 dead Ukrainians? Or dead and injured? Either way, a giant number in a small country.

I’ve never been clear about if we are sending cash or cash and equipment. What’s the breakdown?

I’ve become so cynical that I’m certain that millions is being skimmed by Zelensky with kickbacks to Biden.

Bobby either wins South Carolina or he makes a major showing. People aren’t stupid. Biden can’t do the job.

Dave Begley said...

And note well that it was Ike who first figured out the military-industrial complex. The guy who won WW 2.

Dave Begley said...

And the Fake News mostly ignores Bobby.

Trump has said he’d magically end the war. But how? What do the other GOP candidates say about this war?

Enigma said...

The lyrics of the first verse of Black Sabbath's song from the Vietnam War era -- "War Pigs" (1970):

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction
In the fields, the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds

That's the era when the left didn't trust anyone over 30, when they stuffed flowers down gun barrels, and when Jane Fondle manned the anti-US guns in Vietnam.

BUMBLE BEE said...

UN peacekeepers would help rebuild the local population, if you know what I mean.

boatbuilder said...

What is the end game for the US on Ukraine? What does a successful outcome look like?

Do we just keep sending money and arms until..what?

Leland said...

I’m not sure what should be done about Ukraine. What I am sure is that a military that has now abandoned US citizens in Afghanistan and Sudan is not going to be successful in removing the leader of the second largest military on the planet. Especially when they have an annual recruitment shortfall of 8,000 troops. I also agree with RFK Jr. that using Ukraine as a pawn will look bad in the eyes of history.

Omaha1 said...

RFK Jr is correct about the Ukraine conflict, but these statements are simply unacceptable in the current DC discourse, and will cause him to be labeled a "Putin puppet". Also, his prior support for Hillary! makes him seem hypocritical, since she was "the queen of warmongers" (per Tulsi Gabbard).

Unrelated, but he is also way too much of a kook regarding childhood vaccines.

BIII Zhang said...

The Kennedy family will always try to protect Russia because they're all Communists.

The whole family are a bunch of nutbags.

donald said...

Not for nothing, but we have no interest in a war between Ukraine and Russia other than our president is a bought and paid for stooge of Ukraine. Anybody that is supporting this needs to get their and their families asses over there getcha a gun. Otherwise STFU, you’re the enemy.

rwnutjob said...

Two issues where he sounds sane. Vax & Ukraine.
He wants to jail energy CEOs.

Kay said...

Wow. My first impression after reading this is that I could maybe vote for him. And I tend not to vote.

khematite said...

The mysterious "Ambassador Brennan" who suddenly pops up in tandem with Khrushchev in the transcript must be the Soviet ambassador to the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Anatoly Dobrynin.

Spiros said...

We're so used to images of war protesters on college campuses that we conclude that all young people are pacifists. Not this time. Young Americans, especially students at elite universities, really want to nail the Russians. It's crusty old Republicans and (former) Bud Lite drinkers demanding a peaceful resolution through direct diplomacy. What a tremendous generation (and class) gap.

Amadeus 48 said...

The "my father" and "my uncle" formulations are really annoying. RFKjr wasn't in the room. He was eight years old.

Having said that, he is offering the other side of the coin to most public discussion of Ukraine. We ought to be looking for ways to cool it down, but instead we appear to be trying to pull a Verdun--to bleed Russia white using Ukrainian troops. Will the conflict stay at that level?

In fact we know very little of what is really going on there. I have no confidence in senior US leadership.

Drago said...

Mr. Forward: "A conversation between Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert Kennedy Jr. with Elon Musk or Scott Adams asking questions would be more valuable and draw a larger audience than any so-called debates that have degenerated into sound bites and slogans that we have all heard before."

Kennedy Jr. and Vivek are providing a masterclass in how to address large issues and effectively position themselves to out-Trump Trump.

As with all candidates they also have areas of weakness and they both start off with significant obstacles to overcome.

However, they are clearly the most interesting and effective truth-tellers on the campaign trail today.

Team DeSantis cannot mimic them as DeSantis is owned by the establishment and whether or not DeSantis regrets that and would like to adopt a more populist/America First policy (as he did with his initial Ukraine answer some weeks ago before having to walk it back) is unknown really. He does appear quite frustrated lately and I sense, for which I have no proof, he is bumping up against his GOPe advisory team.

Drago said...

Dave Begley: "And note well that it was Ike who first figured out the military-industrial complex. The guy who won WW 2."

Truman figured them out as well.

Steven said...

Most of the 'facts' in this interview are clearly nonsense.

There are not 300,000 Ukrainian military casualties. The size of the active millitary in Ukraine was 200,000 in 2022. So, if 300,000 Ukrainians had been killed or seriously wounded in the war, it would mean the Russians are now fighting conscripts and still struggling in an embarrassing fashion.

Didn't the Donbas region vote for Zelensky, the anti-Russia candidate, in the last election in 2019? The idea that a large majority of people there wanted to join Russia is also absurd.

It is right and honorable for the Ukrainians to be defending their country. We should be proud that the United States is helping them do that.

Jamie said...

Honestly I don't feel I have a good enough handle on the situation in Ukraine to form an opinion.

The thing about this post that struck me was the revelation that the Cuban Missile Crisis vision of JFK as steely-eyed missile man (yes, I know that's a NASA thing, but it seems to fit) is more myth than reality - that JFK was instead doing realpolitik. What next - it actually rained during the day, not just at night, in his Camelot? Can the philosophical offspring of that time come to terms with a JFK who wasn't a pure idealist?

JFK, on close speaking terms with the Soviet leadership. I have been assured that that sort of thing is treasonous.

Gusty Winds said...

Your flag decal won't get you into Heaven anymore....

Dave Begley said...

Yesterday there was a report that the FBI investigated whether Biden was bribed by a foreign country while VP. Ukraine?

Why not keep the grift going as POTUS? Send billions to Ukraine and Zelensky kicks back $50m-$100m or so to Joe in bitcoin or diamonds. Why not?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

RFK Jr. is carrying a lot of family baggage in that interview - his uncle, his father, his son - and his desire to appease Putin calls to mind his grandfather. A lot can be said for the proposition that the world would be a much better place today if Nixon had won the 1960 election.

Gusty Winds said...

The liberal support for Ukraine, fueled by ignorant belief in the Russian boogeyman (Russia interfered in our election...) and the sacrifice of 300,000 Ukrainians is not surprising.

Liberals have a magic way of turning a blind eye to anything. Inner city violence and crime for example.

If you are a liberal in Madison, WI, Milwaukee's crime doesn't affect you, and you can pat yourself on the back for "not" being racist. You LOVE black people.

And 300,000 dead Ukrainians doesn't affect you either. You can put the flag decal in your profile because... you LOVE Ukraine!!

Old and slow said...

He's a nut, but he's not wrong about Ukraine.

Gusty Winds said...

Let's give RFK Jr. some credit here. He's a nut on global warming, but other environmental issues like clean water...he's right.

mRNA vaccines and mandates are dangerous bullshit, promoted by nothing but lies. The vaccine schedule probably caused the autism spike among children of Generation X.

Expansion of NATO up to Russia's border was unnecessary, and Zelensky could have avoided the invasion simply by stating "Ukraine will not join NATO". Easy peasy. But the clown didn't do that.

Gusty Winds said...

$100 Billion / 300,000 dead Ukrainians = $333,333 per dead Ukrainian.

For Liberals in Madison, WI that is money well spent.

The more that die the cheaper the cost per dead Ukrainian.

narciso said...

the testimony of the nato general is sobering, we can pretend this war is being won, or we can face reality,

Koot Katmandu said...

Wow a Dem making sense. How long before he starts getting censored.

Aggie said...

I don't agree with everything RFKJr says, but there is much I can get aligned with. The most telling thing to me in this escapade has been the deliberate lack of leadership in forging a roadmap to peace - unless it's through more war, now. There has been no mention of talks, or peace plans, or of UN involvement - or even measurable goals. All of the Peacemongers have been told to Back Off! and they are dutifully complying.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

So we're calling him "Bobby" now? Boomer, please.

Jeff Weimer said...

Mark has that right - Aegis Ashore does not have any Tomahawks (and we haven't had "specials" for over 30 years), it's all SM-3/6 ballistic missile interceptors.

Lyle said...

Public state universities, like Wisconsin @ Madison, have been totally captured by the military industrial/intelligence complex too. Time to stand up folks.

Jeff Weimer said...

All of this ignores that in fact we're not "sending" Ukrainians into an "abattoir," they're defending their own country by their own will, we're standing by our promise to support their sovereignty - one that Russia also agreed to but has obviously abandoned.

Readering said...

Russia was invaded once in last 100 years. It also invaded its Western neighbors in that period.

Roger Sweeny said...

Victoria Nuland, who was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs during the Obama administration, and is now under secretary of state for political affairs under Biden is a neo-con?

Who knew?

gilbar said...

There's something disturbing when Kennedy makes more sense than the President of the Unite States,
Next thing you know.. We'll find out the Covid Vaccines didn't prevent catching or transmitting the virus

Original Mike said...

I was in a Madison shop yesterday and the proprietor had put up a sign in support of Ukraine. I don't care, but I do wonder at Americans who think we ought to be involved in this war. And it seems to be "liberal" Americans. My wife ushers at Overture and she said at the beginning of the war, Overture played the Ukrainian anthem before a performance. Everybody stood. What the hell? Seems like it's more about left/right American politics. I thought liberals were the peace-nics?

gilbar said...

tim maguire said...
The US has no right to tell Ukrainians how hard they get to fight for their own country

You're right Tim. It's too bad, that the US Government did think so, back when they caused the 2014 coup

Sebastian said...

A bit too much "If only we had done x, then Russia would have done y."

Timothy Garton Ash recently said that back in the 90s in St. Petersburg Putin already went on about restoring greater Russia.

But our basic misjudgment has been to treat Russia as a more important adversary than China. In a world of two superpowers and one semi-superpower, it made more sense to try and get the semi on our side. Our response to Ukraine weakens Russia but (therefore) also strengthens China.

Original Mike said...

"Trump has said he’d magically end the war. But how?"

Actually end the war, or just our involvement?

Narayanan said...

would not people from/via Turkey venture to repopulate Ukraine?

AMF said...

"I wonder if folks in the Ukraine think how much better off their country would be today if:"

And add:
-They had kept some of the nuclear weapons the Soviets had based in their territory.

rehajm said...

Actually end the war, or just our involvement?

I suspect he meant end the war. Art of the Deal…

Narayanan said...

In fact we know very little of what is really going on there.
===========
that is very head in sand statement >>> it is very clear $$$$$$$$ are sloshing around with sticky finger stuck in

rcocean said...

The only way to end the war is pull out the props from Zelensky. WIthout massive USA money and miliatry aide he would have to negotiate in 24 hours. That's how Trump will do it. He can't say that publically though.

Good to hear from Kennedy who's not a complete liberal/left whack job and neo-con stooge. RFK's completely right about the Cuban missile crisis. Thank God, JFK was still POTUS when that occured and not LBJ.

LBJ would've started WW III and got thousands of Americans killed. Yee haw!

Robert Cook said...

"What is the purpose of Nato?"

It is to give (and maintain) the United States' dominance in military options, power, and political influence in eastern Europe vis a vis Russia, by giving the US proxy military forces arranged on Russia's door.

Lance said...

We made a commitment to Russia, to Gorbachev, that we would not move Nato one inch to the east.

That is factually false. Bush 41 informally agreed to not station troops in the former East Germany, in exchange for Gorbachev not intervening in German reunification. That's it.

This nonsense about NATO agreeing to not expand eastward is a Putin fabrication.

Robert Cook said...

"And note well that it was Ike who first figured out the military-industrial complex."

Figured it out? He was there when it was being put together.

"The guy who won WW 2."

With a lot of help from some other guys, they having spent much blood and sweat and tears in the effort before we joined the fray.

hombre said...

The conflict in Ukraine is not just depleting Russia and Ukraine, it is depleting us and NATO as well. Later, as the consequences are upon us, we will hear the old bullshit from Democrats and "Neocon" Republicans like, "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Obama and Trump got along with Russia and Putin. Remind me again why we are pumping billions into this disaster. It sure as hell isn't because the Ukrainian government are the good guys.

QuidProJoe pays his debts?

Scrutineer said...

Dave Begley said... Trump has said he’d magically end the war. But how?

Probably by telling Ukraine the funding/arming bonanza ends if they don't negotiate with Russia to resolve the conflict. And by persuasively telling Putin that, unlike the Biden/Blinken/Nuland/Vindman crew, he doesn't want to destroy Russia, and in fact wants a peaceful, mutually beneficial relationship with them.

The war would end in weeks if that happened.

(Sclerotic Boomer conservatives will reject this because they think "we" are still fighting the Soviet Union.)

wendybar said...

What do the other GOP candidates say about this war?

5/4/23, 6:35 AM

They are all for it, as it pays to be a part of the military industrial complex. The lobbyists pay really well for their votes.

Humperdink said...

Can any war proponents tell me what the end game here is/was?

A) Was it to deplete our military resources?
B) Was it to force Russia into the arms of China?
C) Was it to kill thousands of Ukes?
D) Was it to force Europeans to pay higher utility costs?

I suspect your answer is none of the of the above.

Levi Starks said...

He’s going to find himself up on treason charges.
I don’t care what his last name is.

RideSpaceMountain said...

@AMF

"-They had kept some of the nuclear weapons the Soviets had based in their territory."

Then we would currently be engaged in a nuclear conflict. Everything I've seen tells me the Ukes would've used the nukes.

Bob Boyd said...

The regime planned to start this war under President Hillary. Trump got in their way, which is to say, the American people got in their way.
Why do you think they chose Putin as their boogeyman when they were scheming how to take down Trump? Because it fit the narrative they had already planned to establish to build popular support for the proxy war they viewed as only temporarily postponed. And it worked pretty well. They pushed ahead with the Ukraine war plan as soon as Biden got into office and with the full support of liberals, usually the peaceniks, baying for Putin's blood.

Bob Boyd said...

Obviously, we need much less freedom and democracy at home. It keeps getting in the way of bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.

Static Ping said...

Ah, the 5-to-1 or 8-to-1 kill ratio. At least it is not the 10-to-1 ratio that gets bandied about. I'm not sure why anyone would believe that statistic. If it was true, Russia would have won the war already, and easily, not desperately tossing criminals into the meat grinder to try to gain a few feet and pulling out antiques to put on the battlefield. These are the statistics of massacres, and units and armies getting battered like this tend to stop functioning. The only countries that could absorb that sort of loss and stay in a war are combatants that greatly outnumber their enemy, and that does not describe The Ukraine fighting Russia. Furthermore, armies typically take high casualties compared to their enemy when they are attacking dug in defenders, especially in an urban setting, or they are in a panicked rout and getting slaughtered as they flee. Much if not most of this war has been the Russians fighting offensive attritional warfare in urban centers and suffering sudden reverses forcing them to fall back at least somewhat chaotically.

There are good reasons to support or not support the Ukraine in this war. That ain't one of them.

Oso Negro said...

I am to the right of Attila the Hun and I totally support arming Ukraine to beat Russia. The United States is not responsible for every goddamn thing that happens in the world. The CIA did not hire my mother-in-law to protest on Maidan and it was goddamn Russian Spetsnats who grabbed Lugansk airport, not spontaneous "gunmen". Any one who wanted to run to Russia has had plenty of time to go. The Ukrainians now hate Russia with a passion, even those who were amibiguos in 2014. By the way, I happen to like Russians and Russian culture. But Putin and the Muscovites must be defeated.

FullMoon said...

Several comments regarding young liberals supporting the war.
Bring back the draft( including women), then see what happens.

FullMoon said...

And, speaking of the draft, kind of interesting how there have been reports of military recruitment not meeting quotas. Are we being set up to forcibly fill the gap?

Drago said...

"The guy who won WW 2."

Robert Cook: "With a lot of help from some other guys, they having spent much blood and sweat and tears in the effort before we joined the fray."

Well, one of the key reasons your beloved soviets "spent much blood and sweat and tears in the effort before we joined the fray" was because your beloved Stalin decided to purge and murder literally thousands of his entire officer corps in the years immediately preceding the German invasion.

Here, let me lay it out in terms even an unreconstructed stalinist might appreciate...before pitching a wailing and gnashing of teeth fit...if you kill all your experienced officers right before a war then the officers who come up behind them will have less experience and battle wisdom AND will be quite cowed in how they proceed once a military invasion of their nation is under way.

Not to worry though Cookie! Stalin made sure to purge and murder his NKVD purge and murder leaders as well, so alls well that ends well!

William said...

I think many countries in Central and Eastern Europe have more historical reasons to be wary about Russia than about NATO. I would especially include Ukraine and Poland among those countries....The Cuban crisis did not become a nuclear war because some political officer on a Soviet submarine did not countersign the order to launch a nuclear missile. There was as much luck as skill involved in the world's dodging of mutual assured destruction.....Eisenhower was pretty canny and experienced. He was not the one who approved the Bay of Pigs. Iirc, Eisenhower had stipulated that the mission could not proceed without air cover....The Ukrainians are willing to die. The territorial imperative is a strong motivator. Napoleon's armies suffered their first defeat at the hands of Spanish peasants albeit with significant English help. (Kind of rich for the Spaniards to object to foreign occupation, but that's the way it goes.) Earlier, the Ca Ira French armies were able to defeat the more professional Hapsburg armies that invaded their country....I would vote for Trump over Biden, and I hope Zelensky prevails over Putin. Choices are frequently binary. I hope that our military-industrial complex remains superior to any other military-industrial complex singly or in combination. The United States has, on occasion, used its power wrongfully, but, holy shit, its crimes are nowhere on the same level as those of Russia, the USSR, Nazi Germany or even Imperial Britain.

wendybar said...

Levi Starks said...
He’s going to find himself up on treason charges.

So will EVERYONE else who disagrees with this regime...

wildswan said...

The "Pentagon leak" and accompanying cries of dismay is like the reporting after the Tet offensive. We won the Tet offensive but reporters portrayed it as a loss nd bleated on in a despairing way that became policy. This story, the first really important piece of fake news, controlled US actions afterward and led to our retreat from possible victory. Similarly, Ukraine is about to launch a counter-offensive. Comes then a blizzard of stories from dubious sources, from "leaks" on 4chan and from the son of great father, saying, "This is like Afghanistan or the Bay of Pigs - Ukraine has lost."
Here's a first reason to doubt the statistics being flooded about.
The "Pentagon leaks" allege that Russia is killing 7 Ukrainian soldiers for every Russian death. And the Pentagon says that there have been 100,000 Russian deaths since December 2022. This would mean 700,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died since December 2022. This is ridiculous. It would mean that the entire Ukrainian Army had been killed off 2/1/2 times and still was fighting so effectively that the Russians count their advances in places like Bahkmut in meters per day.
When your source contains ridiculous errors you should think before basing policy on them just as we should have thought before accepting fake news about the Tet offensive.
Coming next:
The real question is: Can we just run home as we did after Viet Nam and still be safe? What are Russia's intentions?

Douglas B. Levene said...

Bobby is a wack-job but he’s going to get somewhere north of 20% of the primary votes in New Hampshire and that will be blood in the water, attracting stronger candidates, which will force Biden out.

Drago said...

Humperdink: "Can any war proponents tell me what the end game here is/was?

A) Was it to deplete our military resources?
B) Was it to force Russia into the arms of China?
C) Was it to kill thousands of Ukes?
D) Was it to force Europeans to pay higher utility costs?

I suspect your answer is none of the of the above."

Our govt "leaders" have made it perfectly clear for the last decade what the end game goal here:
- Weaken Putin so that he can be overthown
- Weaken Russia so it can be broken up into many little pieces that can be more easily controlled by the Davos/globalist crew
- The pathway to achieve the above was to initiate color revolutions within all nations bordering Russia, expand NATO to all those nations, and then use those nations as base ops for activities within Russia itself that would lead to Putin downfall and eventual breakup of the russian nation.

You can read just how many foreign policy old hands (Kissinger, Kennan, etc).

Here's Kennan from 1997 addressing this directly:

Noted: George Kennan on NATO Expansion
Excerpt from George F. Kennan, “A Fateful Error,” New York Times, 05 Feb 1997

“Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the Cold War, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?”

“[B]luntly stated…expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … ”

And remember, this is from the Father of the Cold War Containment Strategy of the Soviet Union.

There are lots of others as well but this is a good start.

However, the neocons have reclaimed their natural home in the deep state/globalist aligned democratical party and keep pushing these policies despite deep, deep ambivalence and/or outright opposition of the American people to enrich themselves and get the sick satisfaction of playing "Risk" with the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions.

Another example: The Sudan announces the development of a russian naval "base" (small port facility that can handle a few ships) and voila! Victoria Nuland gets involved and within 6 months of that there is wide open civil war in Sudan cranked up by the US deep staters. The russkis would have been lucky to keep 1 ship there on a rotating basis given their limited budget options (which I must also say have been improved despite of and perhaps because of our "sanctions" that were supposed to be a game-changer).

How many have died, starved, forced to migrate, abandoned towns, suffered healthwise etc just so these idiots at Foggy Bottom and in the White House can play god?

We'll never know.

AMF said...

@AMF

"-They had kept some of the nuclear weapons the Soviets had based in their territory."

Then we would currently be engaged in a nuclear conflict. Everything I've seen tells me the Ukes would've used the nukes.

5/4/23, 10:02 AM


Well, maybe that knowledge would have been enough to keep the Russians on their side of the border.

Tom T. said...

It's in character that he's spouting conspiracy theories here too (like he does with vaccines). The "14,000 Russians killed" is simply a Russian lie. That figure is what the UN says were the total deaths on both sides associated with the conflict that followed Russian invasion of the Donbass. About 10,000 were combatants, roughly half from each side. The remaining civilian deaths were divided between Donbass Russians and Ukrainians too. The largest single set of civilian deaths making up that number was the Malaysian airliner, which appears to have been shot down by a Russian missile provided to the pro-Russian forces in Donbass.

Yancey Ward said...

This disaster has been 33 years in the making. The very first response from the Biden Administration should have come in the Fall of 2021 by bringing both parties to the table to discuss long-term peace plans, but I suppose the feeling in D.C. was that we just arm the Ukranians to the teeth and deter Russia that way- didn't work. Ukraine should have been willing to give up Crimea and the Donbass long ago if the people living there choose it, which they did- they are both overwhelmingly ethnically Russian. Of course, this should have been settled in 1991 when the USSR broke apart, but it wasn't- it was allowed to fester for 32 years.

The Ukrainians can't win this war without NATO's participation in supplying, at a minimum, the air force part of active operations, and they probably need NATO troops, too. My question to those who support this conflict is this- are you prepared to risk WWIII to kick the Russians out of the Donbass and Crimea?

Tom T. said...

Can any war proponents tell me what the end game here is/was?

Isn't that up to the guy who invaded?

And what's your endgame? "When the Russians invaded Ukraine, Ukraine should have ..." what, exactly?

"Right now, with the battle lines where they are, Ukraine should ..." what, exactly?

n.n said...

Obama/Biden's World War... Slavic Spring in progress.

gahrie said...

With a lot of help from some other guys, they having spent much blood and sweat and tears in the effort before we joined the fray.

We were helping them from the beginning. FDR bent several laws to send weapons and supplies to Britain and the USSR long before we entered the war. Hitler could have quite possibly won if we had not done so. Japan would never have attacked us if we had not interfered in their invasion of China.

wildswan said...

Why we are in Ukraine.
There's a moral issue based on what the Russians are doing to the Ukrainians, namely, the scorpion policy.
And there's a realpolitik issue. We can't act everywhere. Why should we care what happens in this particular elsewhere? America Firsters think we can ask what we want from Ukraine rather than what Russia wants. We want nothing, so why be there? But can we just ignore Putin and his real intentions?

The Scorpion policy is the moral issue.
The Russians invaded with an Army that loots, rapes, and tortures while carrying out a strategy based on destroying the electrical grid, hospitals, schools and apartment buildings behind the frontlines while bombing every city or village on the frontlines flat into the ground. Meanwhile, the civilian administration in conquered areas is kidnapping children (for which they have been indicted by the International Court at the Hague), torturing men, raping women, looting deserted homes, forcing Ukrainians to adopt Russians citizenship by relating social service benefits to Russian card-carrying, and deporting Ukrainian en masse into Russia. There's no reason to think that Ukrainian life would improve if the war ended because the Russian government is so abusive toward "citizens" in conquered territories.
It doesn't make sense to make a grab for a country for its wealth and its people and then destroy them in the grab. But Russia's policy is the scorpion's policy. This why there is a moral issue.

Gusty Winds said...

Blogger Original Mike said...
I was in a Madison shop yesterday and the proprietor had put up a sign in support of Ukraine

It's nothing more than a virtue signal. That shop owner knows NOTHING about the 2014 CIA led color revolution. Doesn't know, and isn't interested in the imbalanced slaughter of the Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Probably doesn't know anything of NATO's initial creation and it's constant expansion. Couldn't tell you the similarities between NATO expansion fueling this war, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

You can be sure that shop owner is took the mRNA shots. Probably boosted too...

KellyM said...

And then once every ounce of native Ukrainian blood has been shed in this endeavor, TPTB will start prattling on about sending Americans over. And not the ones who are currently the face of the military; those whack jobs will stay safely ensconced in non-combat roles and out of the way since they're all useless. No, these will be Heritage Americans, those much-hated deplorables who won't go along with the Great Reset, but who are infinitely valuable as cannon fodder on a battlefield. It's a time-tested method and it worked well throughout the 20th Century. Why quit now?

Static Ping said...

The Ukraine would never have been able to pay for the maintenance of that nuclear arsenal, much the same as they could never have been able to pay the maintenance for the Black Sea fleet. The Ukraine negotiated those things away not only because of their fear of their former overlord and pressure from the United States, but also because it was impractical. If they could have afforded it, that may have changed things.

Since it gained its independence, the country has been poor and corrupt, neither of which is conducive to paying for high end military assets. Also explains why they don't have much of an air force.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook @ 9:04
Remember FDR and "Lend Lease"?
The United States wasn't even at war and at the direction of the Administration our industries tooled up and supplied arms to England and Russia. That was the start of the military industrial complex.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

1: The Ukrainians gave up nuclear weapon in exchange for secure borders int eh Budapest Accords
2: Only a completely morally wretched pile of scum says "sure, you had an agreement. But we're changing the agreement. pray we do not change it further
3: Either the deal is Ukraine gets complete control of everything inside the Budapest Accords defined borders of Ukraine, or else Ukraine needs to get nuclear weapons back, so they can have a reset to before the Budapest Accords

No worthwhile human being would push for anything else

Greg the Class Traitor said...

RideSpaceMountain said...
I wonder if folks in the Ukraine think how much better off their country would be today if:

They hadn't signed the Budapest Accords, and had instead focused on building up a nuclear arsenal to protect themselves from Russian invaders.

-There was no 2014 coup
The 2013 Coup where Putin's lackey tried to force the people of Ukraine to align with Russia, and be Putin's slaves, was the actual coup, and the actual problem

If they hadn't defeated Putin's lackey then, there would be no Ukraine now
So only a moron, or a Putin lackey, is sad about that

-They still abided by the Minsk Accords and remained neutral
You mean, they had allowed Russia to invade and take part of Ukraine,. and failed to find any allies, so that when Russia took the next part they'd be equally helpless?
no, only Putin's lackeys like that idea, either

-They never let NATO advisors in the country
How DARE they act like it's THEIR country, rather than Putins!

-They never shelled the Donbas
You mean, they never fought back against Russian invasion?

Why, if that happened, then the Russians would have kept on invading until they DID fight back

See Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland for how that works out

So, I guess the question is:
Are you just a complete historical ignoramus and a chickshit loser?
Or are you Putin's suck-up?

Greg the Class Traitor said...

I'm curious, how many of the people who "think" that Ukraine should have negotiated a new deal with Russia after Russia decided to no longer follow the Budapest Accords, think the GOP should similarly negotiate new "deals" with eh Democrats after they demonstrate their bad faith by violating the old one?

So, I guess the question is: are you complete and total morons who don't understand the utter stupidity of "negotiating" with someone who always operates in bad faith?

Or is just that you're an evil shit who wants to see the Ukrainians enslaved by Putin?

wildswan said...

The realpolitik issue in the Ukraine

Bad things are happening to good people in the Ukraine but why pay attention? Bad things are happening here and they are often being done by the people who most strongly support the Ukraine. We have an open border? Never mind. But the same people say we should care that the Russian crossed the Ukraine border. So some want to say STFU about the Ukraine till we get our own country back.
The premise is that we can regulate the flow of problems. First, we help ourselves; then when we are fixed, we help others. But the Russian premise is that we are weak and divided and this is an opportunity for them to seize back their lost empire bit by bit. Get back the Ukraine and its 40 million citizens and its huge share of the world grain supply. In Kenya people are hungry because they can't get Ukrainian grain. If it wins back the Ukraine, Russia could turn off the grain supply the way it's turning off the oil supply. Then Russia could go after the smaller portions of its empire, one after another. There's 180 million people in Eastern Europe that want to be part of the West and that Russian wants back to exploit, dominate and control. Is it smart to let Russia take back its empire?
I hold that the Ukrainians with our help and that of Europe are preventing Russia's recolonization attempt. From a realpolitik point of view and also from an America First point of view this is a good thing.
The Ukrainians want to fight. We have given them $46 billion in military supplies and credits to buy equipment. With our aid and with European aid they have smashed and weakened the Russian Army which, it turns out, is not the Red Army that conquered Germany from the east in World War II. This is money well spent. Some say that a year has gone by and the Ukrainians still have not finished off Russia, the largest country in the world with the second largest Army (on paper.) As a result of the Ukraine fighting back, Europe is finally re-arming in its own defense; NATO is stronger; the US is forced to confront its deficiencies in procurement.
America First? Yes. But how do we do it? At the moment the Ukrainians are fighting everyone's fight as well as their own. Our defense budget is $650 billion and with $46 billion of that the Ukrainians are beating Russia. We aren't wasting money in Ukraine. God Bless America. Slava Ukraine

wildswan said...

The realpolitik issue in the Ukraine

Bad things are happening to good people in the Ukraine but why pay attention? Bad things are happening here and they are often being done by the people who most strongly support the Ukraine. We have an open border? Never mind. But the same people say we should care that the Russian crossed the Ukraine border. So some want to say STFU about the Ukraine till we get our own country back.
The premise is that we can regulate the flow of problems. First, we help ourselves; then when we are fixed, we help others. But the Russian premise is that we are weak and divided and this is an opportunity for them to seize back their lost empire bit by bit. Get back the Ukraine and its 40 million citizens and its huge share of the world grain supply. In Kenya people are hungry because they can't get Ukrainian grain. If it wins back the Ukraine, Russia could turn off the grain supply the way it's turning off the oil supply. Then Russia could go after the smaller portions of its empire, one after another. There's 180 million people in Eastern Europe that want to be part of the West and that Russian wants back to exploit, dominate and control. Is it smart to let Russia take back its empire?
I hold that the Ukrainians with our help and that of Europe are preventing Russia's recolonization attempt. From a realpolitik point of view and also from an America First point of view this is a good thing.
The Ukrainians want to fight. We have given them $46 billion in military supplies and credits to buy equipment. With our aid and with European aid they have smashed and weakened the Russian Army which, it turns out, is not the Red Army that conquered Germany from the east in World War II. This is money well spent. Some say that a year has gone by and the Ukrainians still have not finished off Russia, the largest country in the world with the second largest Army (on paper.) As a result of the Ukraine fighting back, Europe is finally re-arming in its own defense; NATO is stronger; the US is forced to confront its deficiencies in procurement.
America First? Yes. But how do we do it? At the moment the Ukrainians are fighting everyone's fight as well as their own. Our defense budget is $650 billion and with $46 billion of that the Ukrainians are beating Russia. We aren't wasting money in Ukraine. God Bless America. Slava Ukraine

Laughing Fox said...

Not to get into the details, but when I think about the RFK Jr. collection ideas, it doesn't look appealing.

Russia naturally doesn't want nuclear arms right across their border. So I guess we kick Poland out of NATO?

80% of Donbas population are ethnically Russian. But they voted to remain in Ukraine. How do we manage that with Latvia, etc., where the populations were deliberately taken away into the USSR and replaced with Russian ethnic people?

Biden and others in the administration might receiving money from Ukraine in exchange for support.Is this a reason not to support Ukraine, or a reason to clean up our own government? If Zelensky knows he can't get support without bribery, whose fault is that?

Finally,Kennedy's stand on climate change is radical. This will be far more destructive to the US and the west in general than the war in Ukraine.

gilbar said...

Serious Questions:
How many howitzer shells are the Ukrainians consuming.. a DAY?
9,000 a DAY
How many howitzer shells is the west producing.. a YEAR?
30,000 rounds per year in peacetime. Pentagon Will Increase Artillery Production Sixfold for Ukraine

So.. 30,000/yr * SIXFOLD increase comes to about 180,000/yr
9,000/day that means next years INCREASED production will be enough for about 20 of this years days.
At this years standard production.. We used up ALL the shells made this year; in less than FIVE days.
WHEN the war with red china comes.. What are we going to fight it with? Spitballs

these serious questions brought to you, by someone that wonders WHAT THE HELL WE THINK WE'RE DOING??

Tina Trent said...

The M-I-C must be laughing their asses off that they have managed to castrate liberal opposition to war: up next, will we have pro-war movements on college campuses? Not that the last major anti-war movement wasn't entirely hijacked by pro-communist warmongers...

The current shift isn't surprising if you consider that that the more conservative and working-class families who form the backbone of our military are sick of sending their kin to serve in endless wars overseas while being scorned at home.

Part of this reaction to Ukraine among leftists and liberals is just political herd behavior: hatred of what they perceive to be support for Putin on the Right. Part is their utter ignorance of what front-line soldiers have endured since time immemorial. RFK Jr. is offering something new, though I still find him politically incoherent, and his account of the Cuban Missile Crisis is sort of a spin of omission.

But I doubt we will see a rush among the elite to enlist if Biden elevates the conflict. They don't make'em like Rupert Brooke anymore, let alone Hemingway.

Michael K said...

They are all for it, as it pays to be a part of the military industrial complex. The lobbyists pay really well for their votes.

Yup and TV hosts risk being fired by corporate media if they get too close to the truth.

Harun said...

No, Ukraine is not taking 8 casualties for every 1 they cause.

Ukraine is mainly on the defense and defenders do not lose in 8:1 ratios.

If Ukraine was losing like that, they'd have shattered morale and be routing and retreating.

Laughing Fox said...

Also, if you look at the Minsk Accords, they were accompanied by Russia's taking over Crimea. They basically stipulated that Russia would take over eastern Ukraine. The accords were directly followed by more fighting between Russia and Ukraine while Russia was in possession of Donbas and Lutansk. So a Minsk II accords was signed.
Odd how those accords with Russia don't seem to work well.
But Kennedy, using his uncle's super-powers can give peace a chance.

0_0 said...

I think Kennedy hot every one of Putin’s talking points.
He also appears to think Putin had no alternative to invasion.

Remember Russian (and Chinese) support of North Korea and North Vietnam? Not just material but actual combatants?
That opened the door for us to send materiel to Ukraine.

Like Putin would stop with Ukraine. Appeasement doesn’t work, folks.

RideSpaceMountain said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RideSpaceMountain said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
0_0 said...

> Then we would currently be engaged in a nuclear conflict. Everything I've seen tells me the Ukes would've used the nukes.

The point is that Russia would not have invaded on the first place if Ukraine had kept a few nukes.
Why do so many here think Russia deserves to invade its neighbors? Especially ones with Russians leave-behinds? No wonder the Baltics wanted them all to gtfo back to Russia.

Temp Blog said...

RFK Jr's take on the Missile Crisis is 100% spun to his benefit, but it's a false tale. The USSR wanted US missiles out of Turkey but the US wouldn't budge. Khruschev moved to put missiles in Cuba to create a bargaining chip. Kennedy did a public tough-guy pose but winds up giving in and moving the US missiles out of Turkey, which was Khruschev's objective all along. No wonder Kennedy was able to "strike a deal".

IOW, Kennedy was out-maneuvered by Khruschev and gave in to the demands of the USSR. But Kennedy got good press and burnished his legend with the adoring media.

Temp Blog said...

"I wonder if folks in the Ukraine think how much better off their country would be today if:

-There was no 2014 coup"

They would have been occupied by Russia in 2016.

Putin wants all of Ukraine, not just Donbas. He and his regime make no bones about it and have stated it clearly and repeatedly in multiple venues and media.

When a despotic regime is advertising its intents, it is best to believe them.

DanTheMan said...

>>I’ve become so cynical that I’m certain that millions is being skimmed by Zelensky with kickbacks to Biden.

It's likely that Zelensky has skimmed tens or hundreds of millions.

Now ask yourself why almost no one in either party wants an audit.

Gypsy Jenni said...

Daily Mail, 20 October 2022
In an Instagram post, Conor, 28, said he was 'moved' to enlist in the Ukrainian International Legion - a branch of foreign volunteers - earlier this year after the Ukrainian forces made a desperate plea for help.

He didn't say when he fought, nor did he specify how long he was there, but he said he being a soldier' more than he'd expected.

'I wanted to help. When I heard about Ukraine’s International Legion, I knew I was going, and I went to the embassy to enlist the next day.

'I told one person here where I was, and I told one person there my real name.

'I didn’t want my family or friends to worry, and I didn’t want to be treated differently there.
......
In April, the Legion changed its rules and began accepting only those who did have combat experience.

Corporal Damien Magrou, the legion's spokesman, said at the time: 'We have realized that training people who don’t have that experience drains a lot of resources.

'We’re grateful for the support, but people without combat experience are more of a burden than being of any help.'

minnesota farm guy said...

I have been opposed to our involvement since it became obvious that this "war" had turned into a stalemate and that we ( the West) were willing to "fight" to the last Ukrainian. My take initially was that our logistical support was appropriate and that it would lead to negotiations. Since then we continue with the "tar baby" strategy: escalate the armaments, escalate the killing and have absolutely no idea what the end game will or should be. A little realpolitik would be welcome here. Give up something to the Russians to gain security for Ukraine. Rather than do that we pretend that Ukraine has a chance to "defeat" Russia. Has anyone really gamed out what Putin will probably do should he be "losing"? What happens to the Baltic states if Russia actually takes over Ukraine? ( I await Russia's spring offensive with trepidation - no matter how brave, the Ukrainians are outnumbered and the Russians have historically been willing to advance over the bodies of their dead.) My biggest fear is that, as in Viet Nam, the side we back begins to lose and we end up trying to ride to the rescue. That course would make the casualties in Viet Nam look like a tea party.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Dave Begley said...
I’ve become so cynical that I’m certain that millions is being skimmed by Zelensky with kickbacks to Biden.

Zelensky had the ability to be the "Ukrainian gov't in exile".

From which he could have skimmed millions, and lived at no risk

Instead he staying in Ukraine, and demanded help fighting Russia, rather than payoffs to run away

It's a never ending source of amazement for me, the utter stupidity required to claim that Biden WANTED a fight against Russia.

Biden cut US oil production to give Russia more money, told Putin it would be ok to invade, and tried to get Zelensky to leave, causing the Ukrainian defenders to collapse, when Putin DID in made.

Zelensky might be paying off Biden. he might be blackmailing Biden. He might be doing both

But what there's NO "might" about is he's fighting the great evil of Putin and expansionist Russia, he's fighting to save his people from a second Holodomor, and that you can't both be a decent human being AND want Russia/Putin to win

RideSpaceMountain said...

"The point is that Russia would not have invaded on the first place if Ukraine had kept a few nukes."

To those who have disputed this premise, I disagree with it entirely. Ukrainian nuclear arsenal is to Russia what Cuban nuclear arsenal was to the United States...completely unacceptable and a totally logical casus belli.

Russia would not and will not tolerate a nuclear Ukraine and would've done anything to stop it, just like we would. Russia would not and will not tolerate a nuclear Poland either, but being NATO and having SACEUR nukes in Poland (like the ones currently being debated as we speak) will result in a commensurate short range IRBM repositioning of Russian assets.

As others have pointed out, this is real politik. Fussing about Budapest and Minsk is not going to get this fighting to stop any quicker, or delay Ukraine's and our defeat any later...unless you actually don't want the fighting to stop.

I await your hate mail.

Richard Dolan said...

Very odd to see the Russian invasion of Ukraine being treated as a story about the United States as the supposedly controlling player in this drama, and what the US should be doing to impose an end to it. Every now and again, events occur in the world that aren't instigated or controlled by the Americans. The Russian-Ukrainian war strikes me as one of those.

wildswan said...

I wonder why people think we are going to fight on land in Asia. Isn't our part going to be done by our Navy? Have we used up Navy stocks in the Ukraine> I think not.

Munitions certainly are an issue but our munitions industry could be ramped up easily. Here's what isn't easy. Munitions need to be paid for. There's a budget issue there. It could be done. The Dems stop calling us traitors; the Pentagon stops harassing men in the Armed Forces; the House listens to the Dems and the Pentagon on the need for munitions. But the Dems need to insult patriots. It's become an addiction with them. And, as it happens, they also now need the support of those very patriots whom they need to insult.
I just hope our politics do not become the Ukraine's tragedy. Or our own.

Dave64 said...

Biden and the Neocons will fight this war to the last Ukrainian.

walter said...

Amazing how this is a US concern while "EU" puts up squat.
NATO on very peculiar terms.

walter said...

As an American, I do feel a sense of obligation to Ukrainian pensions.
If not us, who?

Candide said...

One thing is clear, the beautiful dream of peaceful and prosperous Ukraine is completely dead.

The future now holds two options for Ukraine: either it will be completely defeated by Russia, with Russia taking over eastern and southern provinces, and Poland, Hungary and Rumania taking over the rest (anyone surprised about Poland, Hungary and Rumania ready to take over western Ukraine knows nothing about Eastern European history and politics); or if Ukraine manages to beat back Russia, it will emerge as a corrupt and militarized dictatorship, a constant menace to it's neighbors and maybe even to the present day benefactors, such as US.

Ukrainian mess already affected US politics for the worse, all the way to playing a part in the impeachment of US President. Future may hold even worse consequences for US. Wise men should be always prepared for the absolute unpredictable worst in international politics. For example, after US helped Afghan 'freedom fighters' to beat back Soviet invasion, Afghanistan became a base for Islamic radicals who attacked not Russia but US on 9/11.

Tina Trent said...

walter, squatting in Brussels as we fight their wars for them is precisely what NATO was designed to do, and has done, with no exceptions.

Tina Trent said...

A lot of people on the thread are peeking under the skirt from different directions but seeing much the same thing. I think it comes from actually reading books. If only Nixon had won in 1960. Or, you know...

The problem with RFK Jr. is that he is an incoherent nut but not as easily controlled as the incoherent nut in the White House. If there is enough Camelot nostalgia among the old plus blithe ignorance among the young in New Hampshire (which is true), Kennedy indeed might be able to destabilize Biden, but who would the Democrats step in then? Hillary?

Those not desiring a return to a 2020 campaign will likely be just as unhappy as a return to 2016.

Drago, you're right about DeSantis: he is bumping against his GOPe handlers, who care only about open borders. It's Florida. MAGA voted for Rubio too after he screwed them good and hard for the Al Cardenas crowd, but it might not play in Peoria for DeSantis. If I was advising him, I'd advise him to lay low for a while.

What happens next may be informed by revisiting From Russia With Love -- the novel, not the film. Which was, unsurprisingly, one of JFK's favorite books. I don't think he lived to see the film.

Everything's 1960 again.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Candide said...
One thing is clear, the beautiful dream of peaceful and prosperous Ukraine is completely dead.

One thing is clear; your'e completely full of shit

Another thing is clear: Russia is our enemy right now, and Putin is, always has been, and always will be America's enemy

If you're not against them, and in favor of them losing, you are against America

A final thing is clear: If you decide to "love" everyone who Biden currently appears to "hate", you're a mindless buffoon, taking direction from another mindless buffoon

Greg the Class Traitor said...

RideSpaceMountain said...
"The point is that Russia would not have invaded on the first place if Ukraine had kept a few nukes."

To those who have disputed this premise, I disagree with it entirely. Ukrainian nuclear arsenal is to Russia what Cuban nuclear arsenal was to the United States...completely unacceptable and a totally logical casus belli.


That was a great story line, until Ukraine got rid of their nukes under the Budapest Accords and then Russia tossed out the Budapest Accords and invaded Ukraine anyway.

This is actual realpolitik: If you chose to pose a military existential threat to your neighbors, you can not complain about them posing a military existential threat to you

Or, rather no one is going to, or should, give a shit when you whine.

So, when the Russians execute everyone involved in the 2014 attacks on Eastern Ukraine, as well as the current invasion, and solemnly agrees to completely and totally respect Ukraine's borders under the 1994 Budapest Accords, and accepts that every single country to their west is going to be part of Nato, and completely off limits to military threats, THEN we'll agree that Ukraine shouldn't have nukes.

You can babble about "Great power" bullshit all you want. the reality remains that:

1: Russia isn't a Great power. it's a 3rd world kleptocracy with some nukes
2: The Eastern Europeans, having escaped from Communism, are far better adherents to Western Civilization than anyone to their west

Which is why it is to our great societal interest to keep them safe from Russia, and integrate them into the West where they can help fight the evils of the Left

Greg the Class Traitor said...

0_0 said...
Why do so many here think Russia deserves to invade its neighbors?

it's a great question

And it's rather telling that none of them are willing to even try to answer it

Candide said...

Greg the Class Traitor said...

"If you decide to "love" everyone who Biden currently appears to "hate", you're a mindless buffoon, taking direction from another mindless buffoon"

Actually, it works exactly the opposite for me, Greg. When I find myself a target of your profane outbursts I think, dialectically, "Greg is an ignorant potty-mouth fool and Greg detests Biden. Could it be there is something good and positive about Biden that I am missing?" So I review Biden's career and always come to the same conclusion, "Greg is right to say that Biden is a mindless buffoon and I am right to say that Greg is an ignorant potty-mouth fool. Both of these things are true".

Tina Trent said...

Greg, you make a great point about Western Civilization being preserved only in former forced Communist satellites. But it will be a harder sell here to the deplorable class to fight for it elsewhere while being sued and banished for defending it at home.

And don't expect the leftist virtue signalers to step up, or to be capable if they do.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Tina,

I don't expect the deplorable class to fight for it in Ukraine.

I do expect them to be ok with us sending US weapons to help the Ukrainians fight against Russian enslavement.

Esp since:
1: We're sending things that we already have. So the "cost" figures are seriously overblown
2: The leftists who are busy screwing us over here, are all running on operating instructions they got from Putin's beloved USSR (look up Gramscian damage if you dont' know what I'm talking about. For example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260)

if you're siding with Putin, you're siding with the American left, and with the destruction of America