Politics

[mdwest]

I read the Brookings article and there are a lot of problems with that one, in my humble opinion.

The title is What Are the West's Strategic Goals in the Ukraine War? One might expect that the author answers this question. One soon realizes that he is confused on the mater, not only as the world turns and different realities will emerge, but also at any given snapshot in the war's history. War is good we can make sense of it later.

1) The question on the table was US objectives. This is an article about the West. No doubt there is an overlap, but they are not the same as US objectives. He goes on to point out how The West went ahead without involving the UN, or large areas of the globe in The South. He advances a global search for legitimacy and meaning.

2) What is the West in these divided times and do all those players have the same objectives, if they did it might not be necessary to blow up their gas lines, though come to think of it, that might indicate they were on the same page to the degree they had foreknowledge.

3) "At the beginning of the war, the Western allies emphasized that defending the United Nations Charter and democracy were their primary objectives." This is a switch from the overthrow of an earlier Ukrainian democratic administration. These are obviously laughable goals, nothing could be further from their minds. But it also raises another mater, on language. He doesn't say these are the goals, he merely says they put emphasis on these goals. Elsewhere he speaks of narratives (story telling); "overall settlements" of a specious variety that would require a victory well beyond the Ukraine; One gets that "some U.S. strategists and officials advocated", well after things were underway, for certain strategic goals.; Then he seems to have his own pet projects he would like to fit into the picture.

4) One needs a lexicon for terms so that they current meanings can be understood. "Does the West... envisage a “victory” in Ukraine that lays the foundations for a world in which democracy is more secure and global governance more inclusive and effective?" Democracy and more inclusive global governance are pretty much opposites. They are like two locomotives that may be traveling to the same destination, but not in the same direction... When one sees a litany that includes democracy and global administration, you can be sure that democracy is the part they are not praying for.

5) It is an odd article that celebrates the role the Soviets played in alleviating colonialism's effects, while bemoaning that the bribes to 3rd world dictators have as yet not been paid. But you can see the connection. China and Russian do not want to be part of a global system of administration that is being organized outside their borders, and that is why it is worth isolating them when possible. I think you can generally bet safely on BIG. There is likely to be a global administrative system of government. People today do not want it. Getting there will require a great deal of corruption. It is going to happen. When some of the smartest people in the world can't seem to make themselves understood, there is normally a reason.

Wouldnt disagree with your assessment on most items at all..

Brookings tries very hard to be a-political (although I see them as a left leaning group personally) and usually attempts to appear to be pursuing neutral, politically disinterested ground...

The point in presenting a brookings article alongside a hoover article (clearly a right leaning group) was to demonstrate the consistencies (there are obviously some inconsistencies as well) between both left and right thinkers on the strategic value in assisting the Ukranians in their effort to defeat the Russians..

There is very little the left and right agree on in this country anymore.. Ukraine however seems to have the majority of the country in agreement.. with the extreme right really being the only folks with a position of extreme dissent..

 

[mdwest]

"In late spring, some U.S. strategists and officials advocated permanently weakening Russia as a strategic goal, although it is not clear whether this would still be an objective in the event of regime change in Russia."

Brookings article seems old, and unsure relative to the objective you list.

I think "old" is a relative term..

Its from the summer of 2022.. just barely over a year old.. and references conversations that were going on within the DOD and other agencies within the US govt a few months prior to that..

The question is.. is the desire for a weakened russia no longer present?

I'd maintain that it is still very much a strategic desire.. for a multitude of reasons.. including, but not limited to global geopolitical influence, regional geopolitical influence, economic security, physical security, and cyber security (Russia is one of the biggest state sponsors of cyber attacks against US economic infrastructure ranging from the Fortune 50 to our own government institutions).

The question Brookings appears to be asking is whether or not a permanently weakened Russia is a priority if there is a regime change? If Putin and his henchmen are gone, does Russia remain the global and regional geopolitical, economic, physical, and cyber threat to the US that it is currently? Or do the Russians decide they'd rather play nice and pursue their future in a different manner?

 

[Brent in Az]

Steve Scalise running for speaker. McCarthy 2.0

No thank you.

 

[Red Leg]

A short but worthwhile apolitical read by Andrew Alexander Michta - a man who is a recognized expert in his field. In my professional lifetime, the US military, and particularly the army, embraced two dramatically different philosophies with respect to warfare. During the Cold War, and as how those forces were employed in Desert Storm, the art of war was to create the means to bring maximum combat power to bear at the critical point in space and time in the tactical, operational, and strategic environments. Colin Powell simply called it the use of maximum available force.

In the post 911 world, led by the shock and awe converts, the application of force became confused with the capabilities of precision strike. During the planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq the prevailing organization for combat as decreed by Donald Rumsfeld and implemented by Tommy Franks could be described as the employment of minimal force necessary enabled by precision attack. Twenty years of non-conventional warfare resulted.

Russia's struggles in Ukraine underscore the fallacy of that concept of war.

Mass still matters: What the US military should learn from Ukraine

The overarching lesson from the unfolding war in Ukraine is simply the scale of what’s required to fight a modern state-on-state war.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

 

[Hunter4752001]

G'day @geoff rath

We both have the same opinion of the current PM. I'd probably add comments along the line of vacuous and out of his depth in a car park puddle.

My post was a dig relating to the literal meaning of the term 'bastard'.

 

[BSO Dave]

 

[Red Leg]

As always, I find your content to be most interesting even when I don't necessarily agree...

This one paragraph in that article you linked jumped out at me which makes two distinct yet related assertions. One I simply disagree with, and the other one pretty much captures what I believe to be the root of the dysfunction within the current republican party....

"Contrary to popular belief, chaos for the sake of chaos isn't a strategy. It's a lack of strategy. It's a lack of a plan, which is something Republicans desperately need right now. Disruption is all fine and dandy if you have something ready to replace what you've disrupted. But we don't have that right now, which means anything else useful that could be done won't be. Republicans now have to put out the fire their own members started, and you can bet the moderates aren't going to be siding with conservatives nearly as much now because they feel burned by Gaetz."

The first assertion is in regard to the "chaos" this ousting is going to cause which I am still waiting for the media and pundits to define or exemplify... And for the record, chaos can absolutely be a strategy if the creation of the chaos itself is necessary to prompt the intended radical change. Gaetz used the metaphor that the vote to oust McCarthy was the ripping off of the band-aid... It would have been a fitting metaphor if it were not for the fact that a band-aid cannot begin to conceal the gaping wound that is the perpetual pit of reckless government spending and debt that nobody except for 8 so-called "radical" republicans seem to be taking seriously. Chaos is also a ladder for opportunity...

The second comment that jumped out at me was the assertion that republican "moderates" won't be nearly as willing to work with conservatives now... What the hell is a republican moderate? Either you are a republican committed to the fiscally conservative platforms that are supposed to be definitive of the party or you are not.. If someone is fiscally moderate, they are not a conservative, and therefore why are they a member of the republican party? A moderate republican is an oxymoron, and there should be no such term in existence as a moderate republican. Unfortunately, the fact that there is such a term is the core root of the problem. Today's republican leaders and elected representatives are a far cry from Reagan's brand of fiscal conservatism. In fact, their entire platform across the board is way more moderate than Reagan's republican party.

These moderate republicans have mutated away from fiscal conservatism for a few reasons with the main factors being self-enrichment and political preservation. They have sold out the working middle class American family, who only recently helped briefly revive the republican party in 2016 when ironically Trump, a former democrat and populist, showed up on scene and pulled back the curtain on theses scumbags. Moderate republicans are tone deaf to this... Hopefully, McCarthy will be the first of many to learn that lesson.

This whole "chaos" narrative is a bunch of political hyperbole being exploited by both sides of the isle in an attempt to isolate and demonize the MAGA republicans upon which both parties are betting will be cast as the scapegoat for the ensuing "chaos"... Guess what happens when you introduce chaos to gridlock? Nothing... Which is actually a good thing with the alternative being more debt and spending.

That is well written assessment of the article and a view of the current situation. obviously, I do not agree with much of it.

From my perspective, I think the title brilliantly sums up the current state of play. Gaetz caught the 18 wheeler and had not the slightest clue what to do with it once he did. I am personally convinced that Gaetz allowed his personal animus for McCarthy to outweigh what is best for his party and hopefully for the country. I will also admit that I absolutely despise the self-indulgent little man. Of one thing I am certain, he is unlikely to hold a key committee position in the next congress whomever ends up speaker.

Rather like siding with Russia's strategic goals and objectives, I would simply note initiating an action that is supported by every single member of the democratic caucus is a strange place to find oneself with the interests of his party at heart.

I am curious what you would call a non-fiscal conservative in the republican party. One name we could use would be Donald Trump, and I would assume his supporters? While I admit COVID was a significant contributor, our national debt increased by 39% under Trump, and during the first two years of his presidency, when he had both houses, he did nothing to reduce our debt trajectory. Indeed the tax cut accelerated it, at least in the short term. If anyone is mutating the party, it is Trump.

With his repeated commitment to the current structure of MEDICARE and Social Security, I am confident fiscal conservatism will not be exactly front and center in his 2024 platform either.

Finally, as long as republicans can't stomach the term moderate, then we will consign ourselves to an ever smaller and shriller place in the electorate. In fully half the congressional districts in this country, only a moderate republican has a prayer of a successful candidacy. I would far rather work with someone who agrees with me 80% of the time than someone who doesn't agree with me at all. That, of course, was a cornerstone of Reagan's big tent political philosophy. Purity tests are poisonous and self-destructive.

 

[Louis Toadvine]

Did I read it? Well ..... according to your insulting comments, I guess I don't have the ability to read or comprehend anything that technical.

Social media is full of condescending armchair experts. Just ask Red leg.

"Hi there, the article you posted seems to actually oppose and not support the argument you were making. Did you read it? Also, what support do you have for the assertions you made?"

"That's an insult! Accordingly, I refuse to answer your questions, will not discuss any of the actual content in the article, and won't present additional support for my argument! Oh, and armchair experts!!"

This is what winning looks like, folks. You may not like it, but this is peak discourse.

 

[Brent in Az]

"Hi there, the article you posted seems to actually oppose and not support the argument you were making. Did you read it? Also, what support do you have for the assertions you made?"

"That's an insult! Accordingly, I refuse to answer your questions, will not discuss any of the actual content in the article, and won't present additional support for my argument! Oh, and armchair experts!!"

This is what winning looks like, folks. You may not like it, but this is peak discourse.

Yeah...o.k. Toadstool troll.

 

[John Wasmuth]

.

 

[rookhawk]

I think it depends upon which timeline is being considered. If it is the tactical timeline, then they have about two - four weeks before the fall mud sets in greatly limiting mobile operations. The onset of that weather does seem to be a bit late this year. They will not reach the sea or retake Bakhmut by then. True armored maneuver ops will be possible again when the ground fully freezes in late December or early January. Last winter neither side attempted very much under those conditions.

The strategic timeline is more complex. I think there is a general supposition in this country that Ukraine and Europe would be forced to seek an immediate negotiated settlement if US support were greatly curtailed. I am not sure that is correct. NATO, less the US, is already providing aid to Ukraine equal to this country (try to find a Trump supporter who realizes that fact). In terms of percentage of GDP they are providing far more. I suspect the threat posed by Russia will hardly appear any less to Europe if the US resorts to picking lint from its navel rather than continuing to pursue its national interests.

An extended war of attrition is, however, not in Ukraine's interests. From a sheer manpower perspective, that would favor Russia. Certainly Russia is trying very hard to create the impression it is preparing for such a conflict.

I suspect Russian commitment to such an enduring conflict is actually fairly brittle. Putin does not dare call for general mobilization. His military industry is capable of delivering approximately a 10th of the MBTs and AFVs needed to replace losses. That means ever greater reliance on outdated equipment. As the UK MOD noted yesterday, the Black Sea Fleet has essentially been defeated and withdrawn to Russian waters. Ukrainian Special Forces carried out a seaborne raid on the Crimean Coast last night.

Over the next 18 months, I seriously question the Kremlin's ability to actually sustain support for the Special Military Operation both within the military and the general population. We will see.

It is important to remember that this war will end in negotiations. Neither side has the military power to dictate peace in either Moscow or Kyiv. But the outcome of those negotiations will be very different based upon the respective military and economic positions at the time they begin.

The longer the war goes on, the more convinced I am that the goal is the extinction of Russia. Just let it run its course with equivelant losses on both sides. The population pyramid in Russia has inverted and every day of war kills a breeder.

After a half million dead Russians occurs, regardless of how borders are drawn, there is one arch-enemy for the US/EU/NATO to contend with worldwide….China.

Call me cynical, but as long as NATO/US troops aren’t dying, I think the West is playing the slow game for long-term benefit to the west.

I’m sure Ukranian and Russian mothers are mutually appalled by the callousness of these statements, but both sides are pawns in the dismantling of existential threats to Western interests.

All this could turn on a dime if there is a coup d’ tat in Russia or if Putin dies. If either of those happen, Russia will sue for peace.

 

[fourfive8]

What is the situation in Ukraine, are the Ukranians going to be able to achieve anything significant in the south given the time left?

Good question and one I see the proponents have been artfully skirting. 6 months? A year? 10 years? I have not seen a single, reasonable answer to the simple question of what is the exit strategy and end game for the US, since we are the number one sugar daddy for Volod. A word smithing exercise practiced since Vietnam.

 

[Red Leg]

Good question and one I see the proponents have been artfully skirting. 6 months? A year? 10 years? I have not seen a single, reasonable answer to the simple question of what is the exit strategy and end game for the US, since we are the number one sugar daddy for Volod. A word smithing exercise practiced since Vietnam.

I actually attempted to answer his question. The response had exactly nothing to do with Vietnam - neither does the conflict in Ukraine.

 

[Red Leg]

Think someone is reading the polling?!?

Mayorkas cites ‘immediate need’ to waive regulations, build border wall in Texas as immigration surges

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is citing an "immediate need" to waive federal laws and build border barriers at the southern border.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Tanner Lee]

Think someone is reading the polling?!?

Mayorkas cites ‘immediate need’ to waive regulations, build border wall in Texas as immigration surges

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is citing an "immediate need" to waive federal laws and build border barriers at the southern border.

www.foxnews.com

Got to love election season. Nothing like a election to make politicians to start calling for or do the right thing. Like normal nothing is going to actually happen. It’s all about votes

 

[wesheltonj]

Think someone is reading the polling?!?

Mayorkas cites ‘immediate need’ to waive regulations, build border wall in Texas as immigration surges

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is citing an "immediate need" to waive federal laws and build border barriers at the southern border.

www.foxnews.com

Looks like it but, I think it’s for show. Rio Grande City is not the problem area. Maverick County is where the problem is occurring. They head north on St Hwy 16 and IH 35.

 

[sestoppelman]

Things are heating up over semi auto's in Canada.

MSN

 

[sestoppelman]

Looks like it but, I think it’s for show. Rio Grande City is not the problem area. Maverick County is where the problem is occurring. They head north on St Hwy 16 and IH 35.

Ya gotta love it. 3 years in and 2.7 million illegals have come across to stay, both parties have been screaming for more help on the border and NOW all of a sudden Joe wants to build more Trump border walls??
It would be funny if it wasnt so obvious and disgusting.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

People say Biden’s policies are destroying the USA, they are indeed, but they aren’t his policies, he couldn’t make one if he tried. It is plainly the far left and greens feeding through a mush of all sorts of their wish list items. Some of it could be slightly sensible if enacted over ten or twenty years, but they tried to ram it through their puppet in two years because that is what they had. The result of course is a huge mess that common sense just can’t reconcile with and is now rebelling against. Ironically, what is now needed is not a ram-rod drastic swing to the other side, but a smooth, steady steering correction. A strong, sensible, steady leader who quietly puts it all right, because it will need everyone to be on board to fix this. Pendulum swings are hugely wasteful and even the massively powerful USA can’t afford it.

 

[Ray B]

the title brilliantly sums up the current state of play.

I find my stress level and blood pressure much healthier by avoiding too much involvement with national politics BUT I will say this: Any proposal in the House that received 100% of the DemonRat vote is something that I am very likely to be against.