I don’t think that Russia needs to hurry. Just keep on trucking. If NATO sends troops, simply follow through on Russia’s commitments and target them.
Then what? The ball is in NATO’s court yet again. Every time so far during this conflict, NATO has been forced to escalate, while Russia just keeps going at the same pace.
Being unreactive and simply sticking to ones declared objective is very effective and unbalances the opponent.
Not sure I understand all political/financials moves on the chessboard, but I would think it makes more sense for Trump to partner with Russia who is poised to defeat Ukraine, giving him the same access to resources Zelensky is offering. So much deception one hardly know what to think.
I do not agree with these FT arguments. 0. Trump might have wanted to escalate to de-escalate in election campaigns and in the past. Now he has won and seen more details, the best business decision is probably to cut the loss and fight in another day. This is not the Afghanistan debacle because no US forces are on the ground and it is Biden's war. 1. Most important natural resources are already lost to Russians. Continued war will mean even more loss to Russia. 2. US commercial investments are done by BlackRock, etc., part of the "blob" and Trump's enemy in a sense. US military investment is for geopolitics. MIC have got their contracts, they simply cannot fulfill them fast enough. Parasites have sucked in enough. Although they want more, enough had been bagged (from US, UK, EU, NATO.) 3. Asian Pacific is mostly a naval war supplemented with air force. US forces in Europe are dominated by the army. An army war will bring home a lot of body bags and cause social unrest. It is also the army that has the largest quota miss in recruiting. 4. Germany and Poland probably do not want Ukraine troops within their border. 5. More US money would not change battleground reality. The US needs more weapons and manpower in the fight to change the current situation, yet still with little prospect of winning. If Ukraine does not exist, there will be no Ukrainian forces. Unless one wants the Banderalists in exile, armed, and sitting in their countries.
Outstanding viewpoint. But as long as neocons are close by, I don't see any win-win possibilities. Trump will be gone in 4 years, neocons will be with us for anoher 20 years. Any suggestions?
Well, yes, actually. I was specifically referring to this post (of Korybko's), which I commented on below. (See, "...very lucrative financial motives...").
"[The] Ukraine can facilitate the US’ 'Pivot (back) to Asia', whatever escalation he employs to this end probably wouldn’t be a bluff."
Unless I've completely misread, misunderstood and misperceived this post, it seems to me Korybko is suggesting Putin will need to sell out to Trump (and the 'Neocons') to avoid nuclear war. Will Putin become the new Gorbachyov?
There are two ways of breaking a wild horse: 1) you jump on its back and ride it until it gives in — it's broken, 2) you invest as much patience as possible into gradually getting the horse to eat from your hand, then being led around a ring; at some stage you might try putting weight on its back to get it used to the idea; eventually, if you happen across a stream or shallow river while leading it around, which it can obviously cross much more easily than you, it might let you get up onto its back to stay out of the water. Some time later it might let you put a saddle on it. This is not a quick process but, I believe — I may be wrong, I don't know; I'm not a horse whisperer.— 2) above is far more likely to be a successful return on investment than 1). Think of the FatsNuland('Neocon')MoronMcCain 2014 coup in the Ukraine as 1) above, then consider Trump's approach, with lots of money and Blackwater's eager support, as 2). I think that's how he (Trump) sees it. The question is, does Putin want to become Gorbachyov II? An offer nobody could refuse: it's this or WWIII? You're gonna love it!
If Trump doesnt oust the neocon cult, the world is going to have a much bigger bigger problem than Ukraine. Give him some time. It wont take long to see who ends up with the power that legitimately belongs to Trump. If Trump doesnt end up with it then Russia has no reason to negotiate anything.
I’m confused about how Ukraine would backfill any other military position when they are conscripting people off the street just to maintain the fight with Russia.
And pray, tell, with what will Trump escalate? Deep strikes in Russian territory with western missiles? How is that going to change the situation on the frontlines and lack of UKR manpower, or shells, which US cannot replace? Bring NATO in? Really? That is not escalation, that is WW3.
Trump can do lots and lots of hot air, I give him that...
Sorry, Andrew, but this is baloney. Trump is fully aware that Zelensky campaigned against him. And Trump doesnt forget those who do not support him. One way or another, Zelensky is on his way out.
It does not make sense to me. US had from 1994 till recently every opportunity to make money from Ukraine's natural resources. After all, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz sat on the board of Burisma which is a natural resource company. So in thirty years time there has been no development in the exploitation of this new vassal state? Or there really that much natural resources that we now suddenly learn of?
The nice thing about a MIC is that you can keep it happy by just buying its products without having to use those products. Eventually they go past their use date and you order news ones. It is just toys for boys.
Actually it is pretty stupid to start wars because they are very expensive and hugely unpopular with the people plus presenting a political risk. MAD is a very effective strategy to keep the peace and keeping a lot of people happy. After all, politics is show business for ugly people.
1. Students of history may recall that Trump was induced to remain in Syria by the prospect of robbing Syria of oil. The amount of oil was piddling, but the prospect of piracy was enough to entice Trump. For that matter, Trump was brought on board the latest Ukrainian aid package by calling it a "loan" (which everyone knows will never be repaid).
Russia has reacted wisely and correctly imo. I understand the opposite pov, but Russia now holds all the cards and Trump is not the "west." Russia can justifiably escalate but, as Mr Putin noted very early, before many of us in the US realized his thinking, escalation only plays into the hands of the neocon fools who wish the problem ro grow.
How can they escalate more? Who wants to escalate more, the UK, which are prepared to fight by sending the Poles in? Common, the west has couple of hundreds of mid range missiles left, tops, with stopped production lines, no armour, no howitzers, no 1555mm shells, and a population not willing to enter a war with Russia. What are you talking about? That they have fighter jets? Who never fought in a high density, well functioning and layered AD system?
We've been through this before. At every stage since the beginning of this war, we've heard that the West is tapped out, that they cannot escalate, that escalation is risky and reckless and futile.
In full view of — less than a lifetime away from — the chaos and confusion most people saw in the collapse of the (ex-)Soviet Union, getting a 'Gorbachyov II' to fly might be difficult. If you could slip one in under the wire and radar, though..? That could be different, that might work. In any case, it's far more likely to work than saddling up a freshly-acquired bucking bronco to settle down ploughing fields.
Did I or did I not subscribe to you? I have a charge on my credit card that I do not recognize for the same amount you charge and I'm disputing it because I don't. recognize your name or anything associated with your posts.
I don’t think that Russia needs to hurry. Just keep on trucking. If NATO sends troops, simply follow through on Russia’s commitments and target them.
Then what? The ball is in NATO’s court yet again. Every time so far during this conflict, NATO has been forced to escalate, while Russia just keeps going at the same pace.
Being unreactive and simply sticking to ones declared objective is very effective and unbalances the opponent.
Not sure I understand all political/financials moves on the chessboard, but I would think it makes more sense for Trump to partner with Russia who is poised to defeat Ukraine, giving him the same access to resources Zelensky is offering. So much deception one hardly know what to think.
Ukraine lost the war the day Russia entered the Donbass. It now has no troops capable of anything.
I do not agree with these FT arguments. 0. Trump might have wanted to escalate to de-escalate in election campaigns and in the past. Now he has won and seen more details, the best business decision is probably to cut the loss and fight in another day. This is not the Afghanistan debacle because no US forces are on the ground and it is Biden's war. 1. Most important natural resources are already lost to Russians. Continued war will mean even more loss to Russia. 2. US commercial investments are done by BlackRock, etc., part of the "blob" and Trump's enemy in a sense. US military investment is for geopolitics. MIC have got their contracts, they simply cannot fulfill them fast enough. Parasites have sucked in enough. Although they want more, enough had been bagged (from US, UK, EU, NATO.) 3. Asian Pacific is mostly a naval war supplemented with air force. US forces in Europe are dominated by the army. An army war will bring home a lot of body bags and cause social unrest. It is also the army that has the largest quota miss in recruiting. 4. Germany and Poland probably do not want Ukraine troops within their border. 5. More US money would not change battleground reality. The US needs more weapons and manpower in the fight to change the current situation, yet still with little prospect of winning. If Ukraine does not exist, there will be no Ukrainian forces. Unless one wants the Banderalists in exile, armed, and sitting in their countries.
"...the best business decision is probably to cut the loss and fight in another day."
Unless, of course, a better deal is to be cut some other way.
Outstanding viewpoint. But as long as neocons are close by, I don't see any win-win possibilities. Trump will be gone in 4 years, neocons will be with us for anoher 20 years. Any suggestions?
"...Any suggestions?..."
Well, yes, actually. I was specifically referring to this post (of Korybko's), which I commented on below. (See, "...very lucrative financial motives...").
"[The] Ukraine can facilitate the US’ 'Pivot (back) to Asia', whatever escalation he employs to this end probably wouldn’t be a bluff."
Unless I've completely misread, misunderstood and misperceived this post, it seems to me Korybko is suggesting Putin will need to sell out to Trump (and the 'Neocons') to avoid nuclear war. Will Putin become the new Gorbachyov?
There are two ways of breaking a wild horse: 1) you jump on its back and ride it until it gives in — it's broken, 2) you invest as much patience as possible into gradually getting the horse to eat from your hand, then being led around a ring; at some stage you might try putting weight on its back to get it used to the idea; eventually, if you happen across a stream or shallow river while leading it around, which it can obviously cross much more easily than you, it might let you get up onto its back to stay out of the water. Some time later it might let you put a saddle on it. This is not a quick process but, I believe — I may be wrong, I don't know; I'm not a horse whisperer.— 2) above is far more likely to be a successful return on investment than 1). Think of the FatsNuland('Neocon')MoronMcCain 2014 coup in the Ukraine as 1) above, then consider Trump's approach, with lots of money and Blackwater's eager support, as 2). I think that's how he (Trump) sees it. The question is, does Putin want to become Gorbachyov II? An offer nobody could refuse: it's this or WWIII? You're gonna love it!
If Trump doesnt oust the neocon cult, the world is going to have a much bigger bigger problem than Ukraine. Give him some time. It wont take long to see who ends up with the power that legitimately belongs to Trump. If Trump doesnt end up with it then Russia has no reason to negotiate anything.
I’m confused about how Ukraine would backfill any other military position when they are conscripting people off the street just to maintain the fight with Russia.
Maori War Chant: The comments on X are just horrendous with total lack of cultural differences or understanding. Same people who control our politics.
https://www.rt.com/news/607653-new-zealand-haka-parliament/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email
Anything goes for PROFIT!
https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-997
The 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
Sounds like we've reached the bargaining stage.
And pray, tell, with what will Trump escalate? Deep strikes in Russian territory with western missiles? How is that going to change the situation on the frontlines and lack of UKR manpower, or shells, which US cannot replace? Bring NATO in? Really? That is not escalation, that is WW3.
Trump can do lots and lots of hot air, I give him that...
Sorry, Andrew, but this is baloney. Trump is fully aware that Zelensky campaigned against him. And Trump doesnt forget those who do not support him. One way or another, Zelensky is on his way out.
It does not make sense to me. US had from 1994 till recently every opportunity to make money from Ukraine's natural resources. After all, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz sat on the board of Burisma which is a natural resource company. So in thirty years time there has been no development in the exploitation of this new vassal state? Or there really that much natural resources that we now suddenly learn of?
The nice thing about a MIC is that you can keep it happy by just buying its products without having to use those products. Eventually they go past their use date and you order news ones. It is just toys for boys.
Actually it is pretty stupid to start wars because they are very expensive and hugely unpopular with the people plus presenting a political risk. MAD is a very effective strategy to keep the peace and keeping a lot of people happy. After all, politics is show business for ugly people.
1. Students of history may recall that Trump was induced to remain in Syria by the prospect of robbing Syria of oil. The amount of oil was piddling, but the prospect of piracy was enough to entice Trump. For that matter, Trump was brought on board the latest Ukrainian aid package by calling it a "loan" (which everyone knows will never be repaid).
2. Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
Syria is not a nuclear peer.
So? The West has done nothing butescalate in the face of Russian indecision.
Russia has reacted wisely and correctly imo. I understand the opposite pov, but Russia now holds all the cards and Trump is not the "west." Russia can justifiably escalate but, as Mr Putin noted very early, before many of us in the US realized his thinking, escalation only plays into the hands of the neocon fools who wish the problem ro grow.
Thw West can escalate a lot more.
And Trump remains weak, stupid and easily manipulated. Call him "Putin puppet!" and he will fold like the pathetic cuck he is.
How can they escalate more? Who wants to escalate more, the UK, which are prepared to fight by sending the Poles in? Common, the west has couple of hundreds of mid range missiles left, tops, with stopped production lines, no armour, no howitzers, no 1555mm shells, and a population not willing to enter a war with Russia. What are you talking about? That they have fighter jets? Who never fought in a high density, well functioning and layered AD system?
Please.
We've been through this before. At every stage since the beginning of this war, we've heard that the West is tapped out, that they cannot escalate, that escalation is risky and reckless and futile.
They escalate, all the same.
"...very lucrative financial motives..."
Is Putin the New Gorbachyov?
In full view of — less than a lifetime away from — the chaos and confusion most people saw in the collapse of the (ex-)Soviet Union, getting a 'Gorbachyov II' to fly might be difficult. If you could slip one in under the wire and radar, though..? That could be different, that might work. In any case, it's far more likely to work than saddling up a freshly-acquired bucking bronco to settle down ploughing fields.
Did I or did I not subscribe to you? I have a charge on my credit card that I do not recognize for the same amount you charge and I'm disputing it because I don't. recognize your name or anything associated with your posts.