Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Assassin said:
whiterock said:
Ukraine gets the weapons. US companies get paid. EU taxpayers foot the bill. NATO countries can count the spend toward the 5% Trump got them to pledge. Things get harder for Russia in Ukraine.
#winning
Genius at work!
Really? This is that much different? We added a front man.
The gymnastics you guys go through to show Trump is different than Biden and Obama is actually comical. We are adding a Front man to the sale of weapons to Ukraine, tariffs are now Monroe Doctrine...
Guy Ritchie couldn't write this stuff...
Obama didn't do anything = no lethal aid whatsoever. (Trump 1.0 did). Biden gave it directly = the US taxpayer fronted the bill. But Biden slow walked the aid, dribbling & drabbling it out in a misguided notion of not over-escalating (allowing Russia time to mobilize).
I've got it!
I know what the pattern is now. Any month that contains the letter "r," slow-walking the aid is a brilliant strategy for bleeding the Russian army and economy. Any month without an "r," it's a blunder that prolongs the war and puts Ukraine at risk of defeat. Am I right?
rarely, and even less so on this war.
The victory model for smaller countries (like Ukraine) to defeat larger powers (like Russia) typically involves a quick, decisive victory in a war of maneuver, which this war was its early stages. Biden perceived such an outcome as high-risk and therefore slow-walked aid to avoid provocative escalation, delaying for months/years the delivery of systems that would have made a difference when the conflict was still a war of maneuver. Biden's policy of "as long as it takes" guaranteed the war would devolve into a grinding war of attrition. So many restrictions on weapons systems, use of weapons systems, restrictive ROE across the board, etc....
Geopolitics is in most cases a balancing act. For a responsible major power, the imperative should not be to dominate the world but to prevent anyone else from doing so. In this case, that balancing act weighs the need to see Russia fail in Ukraine (which on balance it clearly has) without collapsing the Russian state (which has happened twice in the last 110 years following unsuccessful foreign adventures), which could set of an unstable chain reaction:
-China invading Siberia
-Turkey invading one or more Caucasus states (risking Nato unity)
-one or more new islamic states the Caucasus/Eurasian steppe
-weapons proliferations
-an even more erratic Russian successor state
-etc.....
Biden was so cautious that it actually emboldened Russian mis-assessments of western resolve, He delivered everything Ukraine asked for, a year ore more after they needed it, guaranteeing the war would devolve into the quagmire it is. Putin cannot win (unless Nato throws in the towel) but cannot afford to lose (as he would be held personally accountable). That's why we've seen Trump for 6 months allow Putin a face-saving way to exit the war via negotiations. to include building a personal relationship with Putin which often can be a difference maker in razor-edge diplomacy = Putin must see a pathway to peace that involves his personal survival. We are now seeing Trump pivot back to pressure with escalated arms sales to Ukraine and a resumption of integrated intel sharing.
Biden's error was that his escalation management policy guaranteed the war would become exactly the risk to stability of the Russian state that the policy was ostensibly intended to prevent. The Russian state could have easily survived a quick and early defeat in Ukraine with its army mostly intact. Hang a few generals for incompetence and move on down the road. Now, Putin personally owns an army is shattered, an economy is fully mobilized yet still unable to produce at a level needed to overwhelm, and recruitment bonuses are not just unsustainable but a major driver of Russian inflation. On the current course, the war seems certain to drag on another 18 months or so...Russia slowly bleeding out yet every day more and more resolved NOT to end the war.
And China smiles. A Europe preparing for war against Russia (which is where we are) is a Europe distracted from resisting Chinese expansion in Asia.
The post-WWII order prevented major power conflict for 80 years, a peace of unprecedented length in human history. But it is quite apparent that autocratic powers sense weakness in the West = deterrence lost. That's why Trump demanded Nato to increase spending to 5% of GDP. Choppy waters ahead.
