whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Poland doesn't want Russians in Kyiv, which is a real possibility if Zelensky doesn't come to his senses.

---

how the **** are they gonna get to Kiev? They can't even get through the equivalent of Commerce right now, and have been tryin fluke hell for 10 months.

---

Once Ukraine wears itself out with counter-offensive after counter-offensive, what's to stop them?

---

they haven't even started a comprehensive counteroffensive dude. They're picking their points right now and playing games with the Russians who are well too thin to defend an 800 km front line and are goin through horrific morale and supply problems. Their main offensive is going to be loaded with newly well trained groups with loads of western machinery facing depleted and depressed "force" more or less hoping to get their mom a new Lada. Knife meet butter

---

Amusing.

---

Amusing, your lack of anything outside of "Mighty Russia!"

---

Russia's defenses are substantial. Ukraine will have some nice technology, yes, but they won't have any experience using it in the real world, much less integrating it with the hodgepodge of equipment they have. Their air power is minimal and artillery limited. They've never mounted such an offensive, which calls for overwhelming numbers. In fact they're the ones outnumbered six to one, and that's before Russia adds any of the troops they're currently marshaling at home. The fundamental elements just aren't there for Ukraine.

---

Ukraine is marshaling nearly 50k trained troops who've spent 4-6 months with superior weaponry against Civil War/WWI defenses. Once they pick their spots, they're going to roll through areas with a swift fury. Then they'll dial back and see how the untrained russian replacements react, and batter them wholesale. It's going to be ugly.

---

I think the size of the Ukrainian reserves are closer to 70k. Those forces include experienced units, as well as newly raised units. They have indeed been training on all the new equipment. That is an incredibly significant fact missed by the Russo-philes. Also significant that Ukraine has stymied the Russian offensive virtually in its tracks. Fred Kagan observed that he is unaware of an instance where a major armored assault has been stopped cold. More typically the pathology of defeat is: race forward, outrun supplies, get pushed back. Most importantly, Ukraine did that while holding back significant forces in reserve. Meanwhile, Russia is all in. tapped out. Scraping the streets to throw untrained troops into the line piecemeal. One giant rule of command is HOLD ON TO YOUR RESERVES - the general who commits his reserves last usually wins the battle. (Russia is all in....Ukraine is not.)

---

Weird. If you flipped "Russia" and "Ukraine," you'd have a pretty spot-on analysis there.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Poland doesn't want Russians in Kyiv, which is a real possibility if Zelensky doesn't come to his senses.

---

how the **** are they gonna get to Kiev? They can't even get through the equivalent of Commerce right now, and have been tryin fluke hell for 10 months.

---

Once Ukraine wears itself out with counter-offensive after counter-offensive, what's to stop them?

---

they haven't even started a comprehensive counteroffensive dude. They're picking their points right now and playing games with the Russians who are well too thin to defend an 800 km front line and are goin through horrific morale and supply problems. Their main offensive is going to be loaded with newly well trained groups with loads of western machinery facing depleted and depressed "force" more or less hoping to get their mom a new Lada. Knife meet butter

---

Amusing.

---

Amusing, your lack of anything outside of "Mighty Russia!"

---

Russia's defenses are substantial. Ukraine will have some nice technology, yes, but they won't have any experience using it in the real world, much less integrating it with the hodgepodge of equipment they have. Their air power is minimal and artillery limited. They've never mounted such an offensive, which calls for overwhelming numbers. In fact they're the ones outnumbered six to one, and that's before Russia adds any of the troops they're currently marshaling at home. The fundamental elements just aren't there for Ukraine.

---

Ukraine is marshaling nearly 50k trained troops who've spent 4-6 months with superior weaponry against Civil War/WWI defenses. Once they pick their spots, they're going to roll through areas with a swift fury. Then they'll dial back and see how the untrained russian replacements react, and batter them wholesale. It's going to be ugly.

---

I think the size of the Ukrainian reserves are closer to 70k. Those forces include experienced units, as well as newly raised units. They have indeed been training on all the new equipment. That is an incredibly significant fact missed by the Russo-philes. Also significant that Ukraine has stymied the Russian offensive virtually in its tracks. Fred Kagan observed that he is unaware of an instance where a major armored assault has been stopped cold. More typically the pathology of defeat is: race forward, outrun supplies, get pushed back. Most importantly, Ukraine did that while holding back significant forces in reserve. Meanwhile, Russia is all in. tapped out. Scraping the streets to throw untrained troops into the line piecemeal. One giant rule of command is HOLD ON TO YOUR RESERVES - the general who commits his reserves last usually wins the battle. (Russia is all in....Ukraine is not.)

---

Weird. If you flipped "Russia" and "Ukraine," you'd have a pretty spot-on analysis there.

---

We'll see soon, if you're correct, won't we?

"As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist," Schwarzkopf declared, "he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that he's a great military manI want you to know that."

The same would be said for Vladimir Putin. He is a KGB thug and a dictator with a bad temper. Not much more.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Poland doesn't want Russians in Kyiv, which is a real possibility if Zelensky doesn't come to his senses.

---

how the **** are they gonna get to Kiev? They can't even get through the equivalent of Commerce right now, and have been tryin fluke hell for 10 months.

---

Once Ukraine wears itself out with counter-offensive after counter-offensive, what's to stop them?

---

they haven't even started a comprehensive counteroffensive dude. They're picking their points right now and playing games with the Russians who are well too thin to defend an 800 km front line and are goin through horrific morale and supply problems. Their main offensive is going to be loaded with newly well trained groups with loads of western machinery facing depleted and depressed "force" more or less hoping to get their mom a new Lada. Knife meet butter

---

Amusing.

---

Amusing, your lack of anything outside of "Mighty Russia!"

---

Russia's defenses are substantial. Ukraine will have some nice technology, yes, but they won't have any experience using it in the real world, much less integrating it with the hodgepodge of equipment they have. Their air power is minimal and artillery limited. They've never mounted such an offensive, which calls for overwhelming numbers. In fact they're the ones outnumbered six to one, and that's before Russia adds any of the troops they're currently marshaling at home. The fundamental elements just aren't there for Ukraine.

---

Ukraine is marshaling nearly 50k trained troops who've spent 4-6 months with superior weaponry against Civil War/WWI defenses. Once they pick their spots, they're going to roll through areas with a swift fury. Then they'll dial back and see how the untrained russian replacements react, and batter them wholesale. It's going to be ugly.

---

I think the size of the Ukrainian reserves are closer to 70k. Those forces include experienced units, as well as newly raised units. They have indeed been training on all the new equipment. That is an incredibly significant fact missed by the Russo-philes. Also significant that Ukraine has stymied the Russian offensive virtually in its tracks. Fred Kagan observed that he is unaware of an instance where a major armored assault has been stopped cold. More typically the pathology of defeat is: race forward, outrun supplies, get pushed back. Most importantly, Ukraine did that while holding back significant forces in reserve. Meanwhile, Russia is all in. tapped out. Scraping the streets to throw untrained troops into the line piecemeal. One giant rule of command is HOLD ON TO YOUR RESERVES - the general who commits his reserves last usually wins the battle. (Russia is all in....Ukraine is not.)

---

Weird. If you flipped "Russia" and "Ukraine," you'd have a pretty spot-on analysis there.

---

We'll see soon, if you're correct, won't we?

---

Yes, but probably not quite as soon as some think. Once the counter-offensive begins in earnest and the Russians are fully on the defensive, I'm sure many here will declare victory within hours. It will take some weeks for reality to become apparent.

Both your "low odds" and "easily doable" scenarios involve something the Ukrainians have so far avoided at Bakhmut -- taking on the Russians face to face and in the open. Whenever they've tried it before, they've gotten clobbered.

Also of note: funding for US aid will run out in July. New aid is being proposed under the Security Assistance Initiative, not the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which means new contracts will have to be negotiated before new material is produced and finally shipped to Ukraine. The process will easily stretch into next year, and that's without taking into account resistance from some Republicans in Congress. Ukraine is likely facing a shortage of supplies right when they need it the least.

ETA: Meanwhile Hungary blocks aid from the EU.

https://apnews.com/article/hungary-blocks-military-aid-ukraine-0f9108a3ca67440342feac3c03170507#

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would of winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

You know maybe that gives Putin what he wants, a DMZ. He literally is taking us back to the Cold War of the 70's. More things change, ...

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

You know maybe that gives Putin what he wants, a DMZ. He literally is taking us back to the Cold War of the 70's. More things change, ...

---

A DMZ is better than a shooting war.

Someone we have had that on the Korean peninsula since the 1950s.

And it has certainly worked out well for the people of South Korea and the Western bloc

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would of winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

---

Funny how the uber left and uber right are both playing the "white guilt" game on this one. Strange bedfellows, and beautiful Greek theater to me.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would of winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

---

Funny how the uber left and uber right are both playing the "white guilt" game on this one. Strange bedfellows, and beautiful Greek theater to me.

---

Amazing, we found something we can all agree on. Let's see if they know how to deal with that! Been a long time!

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would of winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

---

Funny how the uber left and uber right are both playing the "white guilt" game on this one. Strange bedfellows, and beautiful Greek theater to me.

---

Please explain "white guilt" and how it relates to this discussion of war in eastern euorpe.

From what I under stand "white guilt" would be more relevant when say at certain university tears down the statue of one its important Presidents and places a massive gaudy slave martyr memorial at the center of its campus because of something that happened 200 years ago.

How is "white guilt" relevant to this situation are the argument in the article?


[White guilt is a belief that white people bear a collective responsibility for the harm which has resulted from historical or current racist treatment of people belonging to other racial groups, as for example in the context of the Atlantic slave trade, and the genocide of indigenous peoples.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would of winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

---

Funny how the uber left and uber right are both playing the "white guilt" game on this one. Strange bedfellows, and beautiful Greek theater to me.

---

Please explain "white guilt" and how it relates to this discussion of war in eastern euorpe.

From what I under stand "white guilt" would be more relevant when say at certain university tears down the statue of one its important Presidents and places a massive gaudy slave martyr memorial at the center of its campus because of something that happened 200 years ago.

How is "white guilt" relevant to this situation are the argument in the article?

---

It's right out of the Obama playbook bro. You're literally preaching the same line that he did 8 years ago. Blaming America for everything. How would we feel if??? You posted the article because you almost certainly agree with all its content. It's more talking points that are wrapped up in Kremlin-approved taglines. You, and quite a few others, literally believe almost all of this ordeal is the fault of the US. It's the same playbook as "white guilt", so that's my comparison here.

Creative way to "find" some more money.

Exclusive: Pentagon accounting error overvalued Ukraine aid by $3 billion - sources https://t.co/CFm2j5W3uK

— Jonathan Landay (@JonathanLanday) May 18, 2023

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would have winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

---

Funny how the uber left and uber right are both playing the "white guilt" game on this one. Strange bedfellows, and beautiful Greek theater to me.

---

Association fallacy. And it's our provoking and prolonging of this war that make for true Greek theater: folly and hubris on the grandest of scales. Let's hope Nemesis isn't feeling equally grand.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would of winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

---

Funny how the uber left and uber right are both playing the "white guilt" game on this one. Strange bedfellows, and beautiful Greek theater to me.

---

Please explain "white guilt" and how it relates to this discussion of war in eastern euorpe.

From what I under stand "white guilt" would be more relevant when say at certain university tears down the statue of one its important Presidents and places a massive gaudy slave martyr memorial at the center of its campus because of something that happened 200 years ago.

How is "white guilt" relevant to this situation are the argument in the article?

---

It's right out of the Obama playbook bro. You're literally preaching the same line that he did 8 years ago. Blaming America for everything. How would we feel if??? You posted the article because you almost certainly agree with all its content. It's more talking points that are wrapped up in Kremlin-approved taglines. You, and quite a few others, literally believe almost all of this ordeal is the fault of the US. It's the same playbook as "white guilt", so that's my comparison here.

---

This is very accurate and comical to see play out on here and elsewhere.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-blind-path-to-war/

[Moralizing and hubris have brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation:


If updates on the war in Ukraine have struck you as sparse, repetitive, and somehow even a little boring of late, you are not alone. From the view appropriate to an average American watching from over here which is to say from a very high, abstract, and political perspective very little has changed or appears likely to change about the war.

Indeed, as regular readers of The American Conservative already know, very few significant realities have changed since the conflict's opening campaigns. The war was eminently predictable and predicted. The invasion and sanctions in response have largely detached the European economy from Russia, and given NATO a new lease on life. Despite an unexpectedly strong performance from Ukrainian forces and poor performance by Russian troops, Ukraine cannot hold out, let alone initiate a counteroffensive, without massive amounts of American military aid and operations support.

So readers will perhaps not find much to surprise them in Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne's tremendous recent essay for Harper's Magazine explaining why we, you, me, and America are in Ukraine. But as the pair lay out the history of moralizing myopia and rank hubris that has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have been in a generation, perhaps you can still be shocked. The very serious people administering our empire have been mendacious scolds, and more unforgivable stupid. In America, "intelligence community" does not mean something like Mensa.

It is the lack of imagination that really depresses. Schwarz and Layne spoke to a civilian military analyst who, in lectures to Pentagon and intelligence officials, has asked what the U.S. reaction would be "if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara." The responses were predictable and appropriate for such a clear violation of our sphere of influence and threat to our security. But when the analyst has connected that scenario to Moscow's reaction to NATO's expansion eastward and American policy in Ukraine, the officials "have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, 'Damn, I never thought out what we're doing to Russia in that light.'"

Never mind that for a Cold War obsessed defense establishment the complex negotiations and tradeoffs around the Cuban missile crisis ought to provide a little food for thought, or that the Mexico analogy is an obvious one. Indeed, just last month two career diplomats, David H. Rundell, a former chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and Michael Gfoeller, a former ambassador and a Council on Foreign Relations member, made the Mexico comparison in the pages of Newsweek.

"The classic requirements for a just war include a reasonable possibility of victory," they wrote. "While a generation of Ukrainian men are dying, the sad reality is that Ukraine has about as much chance of winning a war against Russia as Mexico would of winning a war with the United States. Prolonging the conflict will not change that equation." If one wants to minimize the bloodshed of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then the right thing is to push for a negotiated settlement, and to stop enabling a grinding war of attrition by supplementing limited manpower with less, though not un-, limited arms and support.]

---

Funny how the uber left and uber right are both playing the "white guilt" game on this one. Strange bedfellows, and beautiful Greek theater to me.

---

Please explain "white guilt" and how it relates to this discussion of war in eastern euorpe.

From what I under stand "white guilt" would be more relevant when say at certain university tears down the statue of one its important Presidents and places a massive gaudy slave martyr memorial at the center of its campus because of something that happened 200 years ago.

How is "white guilt" relevant to this situation are the argument in the article?

---

It's right out of the Obama playbook bro. You're literally preaching the same line that he did 8 years ago. Blaming America for everything. How would we feel if??? You posted the article because you almost certainly agree with all its content. It's more talking points that are wrapped up in Kremlin-approved taglines. You, and quite a few others, literally believe almost all of this ordeal is the fault of the US. It's the same playbook as "white guilt", so that's my comparison here.

---

lol Obama literally started the USA on the path to regime change in Ukraine and to this present war.

You should love him.

He also tried to get us involved in the Syrian civil war as well. Remember all his idiotic talk of "red lines" and talk of poison gas attacks by Assad?

And who did Victoria Nuland work for again? Oh yea Obama.

He might have disliked White people but Obama loved foreign war and liberal interventionism.

p.s.

Just looked up when the first US troops got sent to Syria…surprise surprise it was under Obama.

And who stated the military build up and "aid" to Ukraine at US taxpayer expense? Obama

"Ultimately between 2014 and 2016, the Obama administration committed more than $600 million in security aid to Ukraine."

There is so much deception ops going on in this war that it's difficult for the average person to get any clear idea of who is doing what to whom. Both sides are pumping out so much disinfo that we can only wait and see what happens. https://t.co/meAWrxUVve

— QuintusCurtius (@QuintusCurtius) May 18, 2023

❝NATO’s strength is its diversity❞

Speaking on #IDAHOBIT, Secretary General @jensstoltenberg said that NATO's mission extends beyond protecting territories to safeguarding our diverse populations#WeAreNATO

— NATO (@NATO) May 17, 2023

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

You know maybe that gives Putin what he wants, a DMZ. He literally is taking us back to the Cold War of the 70's. More things change, ...

---

But but Obama laughed and said the cold war was over in that one debate.....

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

You know maybe that gives Putin what he wants, a DMZ. He literally is taking us back to the Cold War of the 70's. More things change, ...

---

But but Obama laughed and said the cold war was over in that one debate.....

---

He was uniquely arrogant and naive all at the same time.

As well as being a 100% totally unethical person.

---

Agree with your first comment , but not the 2nd .

Obama was 50% unethical.

Biden on the other hand is 100% unethical.

Necessary reminder that Pussy Riot was on the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) payroll "in the name of freedom" or some shit https://t.co/kgXPyZ9t0f pic.twitter.com/1J2g3292gW

— FbF (@FistedFoucault) May 18, 2023

Daily update from ISW. Uke offensive has not begun, yet Russia has lost momentum to localized Uke attacks.

The limited nature of #Wagner’s ongoing offensive operations in #Bakhmut compared to the localized Ukrainian counterattacks underscores the loss of Russian initiative in the area. 🧵https://t.co/x4d8VUsgOm https://t.co/bmlQGX8Y5x pic.twitter.com/DkgTbYJz5R

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) May 19, 2023

Kissinger: "[China and the US] are in the classic pre-WW1 situation in which any disturbance of the equilibrium can lead to catastrophic consequences.

The fate of humanity depends on [them] getting along. They only [have] 5-to-10 years to find a way"https://t.co/LVBH9WRhaA

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) May 19, 2023

Russians expecting a major attack from the Zapo front toward Melitopol. Melitopol is over 60 miles behind Russian lines……

Southern #Ukraine Update:

The #Ukrainian Melitopol Mayor reported on May 18 & 19 that #Russian forces are preparing for an anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive by flooding the fields of Vasylivkskyi raion and Yakymivskyi raion (in the #Melitopol area).https://t.co/LN8iPwP9O7 pic.twitter.com/G0NViQYeVu

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) May 20, 2023

Breaking: the head of Russias Wagner private military group has claimed to have completely captured Bakhmut. This comes after just yesterday Ukraine claimed they were advancing and forcing Russia to retreat according to multiple outlets including the NYT. Ukraine has yet to… pic.twitter.com/2izNI6FshL

— 🇺🇸Travis🇺🇸 (@Travis_in_Flint) May 20, 2023

Not saying it will happen here, but I believe the German Army got cut off and surrounded a little over 2 weeks after Hitler publicly announced a German victory at Stalingrad. Wagner may indeed hold the city, for whatever that's worth, but their flanks are getting tested right now.

HuMcK said:

---

Not saying it will happen here, but I believe the German Army got cut off and surrounded a little over 2 weeks after Hitler publicly announced a German victory at Stalingrad. Wagner may indeed hold the city, for whatever that's worth, but their flanks are getting tested right now.

---

Oh sure.

Literally anything could happen in this war.

I mean who would have thought last year that they would both be engaged in trench warfare?

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Not saying it will happen here, but I believe the German Army got cut off and surrounded a little over 2 weeks after Hitler publicly announced a German victory at Stalingrad. Wagner may indeed hold the city, for whatever that's worth, but their flanks are getting tested right now.

---

Oh sure.

Literally anything could happen in this war.

I mean who would have thought last year that they would both be engaged in trench warfare?

---

Prigozhin has approx 20% the number of troops he started with and is watching his flanks get rolled up, so he's doing the smart thing - declaring victory and withdrawing from the field of battle before he gets encircled. Would be REALLY bad for business (he is mercenary, you know....) if that happened.

his basis for declaring victory? He captured the last multi-story building in downtown Bakhmut. (and ISW has not been able to verify either the capture or withdrawal via geo-location.(

HuMcK said:

---

Not saying it will happen here, but I believe the German Army got cut off and surrounded a little over 2 weeks after Hitler publicly announced a German victory at Stalingrad. Wagner may indeed hold the city, for whatever that's worth, but their flanks are getting tested right now.

---

Igor Girkin “Strelkov” in reference to Bakhmut.

“The winter-spring joint campaign of the RF Armed Forces and Wagner to exterminate our infantry on the Donetsk sector of the front ended successfully.”#Bakhmut #Ukraine #Donetsk pic.twitter.com/MI1wmkcW2w

— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) May 21, 2023

Girkin says the Bakhmut battle was unnecessary and turned out to be Phyrric (longread). He notes that all Russian forces are now exhausted while trying to achieve at least some sort of victory for propaganda purposes, and Ukraine is now in a position to deal several strikes where… pic.twitter.com/LrahqUsB7v

— Dmitri (@wartranslated) May 21, 2023

This could turn in to an interesting test of whether or not Russia has sufficient reserves to staunch this without affecting other fronts.

Footage has shown multiple armored vehicles in use, and even a tank that may have had Ukrainian ID markings.

Free Russian Legion, during the ongoing joint operation with Russian Volunteer Corps, liberated Gora-Podol settlement and currently advancing on Grayvoron, says the official social media channels of Free Russian Legion.https://t.co/GrlOX8x4za pic.twitter.com/QfUrv5vXBN

— MilitaryLand.net (@Militarylandnet) May 22, 2023