Colors of Blue and Gold

[Richard Smith]

Ukraine has already taken back 50 % of the land taken by Russia in the first month of invasion of 2022. Let's say they take back another 25 %, regaining a total of 75 %. And then make a peace deal.

This would be a good deal for Ukraine? Russia would have learned this lesson? No. Putin would control the narrative. We would spin it as a hard won victory. And while gaining only a small slice of Ukraine in 2022-2023(?) war may seem minor, it still puts Russia closer to taking back all of Ukraine. They would be free to try again once they rebuild their military.

Remember, Russia has a history of launching an aggressive war, suffering major defeats, and coming back for more. They tried to overrun Poland in 1920. And suffered a major defeat. Learned their lesson? No, they just came back in 1939.

Do I think Ukraine can take back all of the gains Russia made in 2014 and 2022? I think this may be tough. As the Russians get pushed back to their own border, they get closer and closer to their own source of supplies. Russia logistics are not very strong. They can't support a deep advance into Ukraine. They don't have enough quality trucks. They could really use some Lend Lease Dodge trucks like the thousands they had in 1943-1945. But at some point, within a few miles of the border, they should be able to hold. Still, if the army morale suffers enough, who knows?

The two things Ukraine can and should take back are:
1. The Crimea Land Bridge.
2. Crimea.

The Crimean Land Bridge should be relatively easy. It's a logistical nightmare. A long narrow corridor leading a relatively long way back into Russia. Might even be possible to trap a good portion of the Russia army with their backs to the very shallow Sea of Azov, with a low to zero chance of evacuating.
Crimea seems tough. But once they take the Crimea Land Bridge and destroy the Russia build bridge (not to be confused with the 'Crimean Land Bridge') it will be isolated and they should be able to take it back.

Losing Crimea, Losing the Naval Base at Sevastopol, that the Russians took in 2014 would be a big psychological blow. It might be enough to convince Russians that war is not the answer.

Who knows. Maybe Russian morale will collapse enough for the Ukrainians to take back all their territories. But they better not make peace without taking the Crimean Land and Crimea. Otherwise, the Russians are sure to come back once they have rebuild their army and rigorously rid it of excessive corruption. They will be too encouraged by whatever gains they end up with from 2022 not to press on a few years down the road.

Is their risk in doing this? Yes. Russia may use Neclear weapons. But if we don't stand up to them at some point they can overrun Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, Germany and beyond. If we are ever going to stand up to them, it had better be now. Or not at all.

If we back down now, but make a strong stand later, for let's say Poland, Russia is bound to think that the threat of Nuclear War was enough in 2023. Surely a few real Nuclear Strikes will work in 2030.

We must make a strong stand now. Or rigorously resolve not to make a strong stand in the future against any Russian advance. Making a strong stand now, or resolving not to make a strong stand ever, are our two best options. Backing down now, but making a strong stand later, is our worst option.

Question for both Jon and Richard, or anyone else?

Which option do you believe we should make?

1. Make a strong stand now.
2. Not make a strong stand now, but do so if Russia tries again, as it did in 2014 and 2022.
3. Not to ever make a strong stand in Europe, anywhere, no matter what Russia invades. The risks of Nuclear War are just too great.

And, as always, it's important not to dodge tough questions. Facing questions is the key to coming to better understanding. Otherwise, one is stuck in always maintaining one's current beliefs.

Can either of you answer one simple, tough question?

It's up to the Ukrainians and Russians how this war ends.  The US and NATO should be facilitating that settlement, however, instead of funding endless war.  Despite the expenditure of billions of US taxpayer dollars to extend the war, there has been to my knowledge been no effort by the US to figure out how it should be ended.  None.  Just an open checkbook for more war.  It is not even clear what the US objective is here except send billions to the companies that benefit from war (who then fund the election campaigns of the establishment politicians who fund the war in a vicious circle). 

How many years will the US fund this war before deciding enough is enough?   It took decades to get out of Afghanistan and Vietnam and the war mongers complained when it did eventually happen.  All the lies that things were going well and just holding out a bit longer and spending more money would eventually achieve success are being repeated.  Ironically by exactly the same people who made that argument about Afghanistan and were never held accountable.  It is unreal that the intelligence, military, and contractors who conducted the war in Afghanistan were not tried for perjury and treason for the lies they told to fund that war and cause the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and countless civilians based on their lies to Congress.   All for no purpose.  Twenty years of war for nothing.  Who can even believe the information being provided by Ukraine and the US about how things are going with a long track record of absolute lies and the media operating as a state sponsored arm of the government?  There is no independent confirmation. 

[Jon Banks]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win

During the early years of America's Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln sought a limited conflict against people he still regarded as fellow countrymen and with whom he sought reconciliation. Only after three years of stalemate did he turn to "Unconditional Surrender Grant," who in turn unleashed General William Tecumseh Sherman to "make Georgia howl" and help bring the war to its decisively violent conclusion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin waited only six months before switching from a special military operation to full scale war against Ukraine. Putin's initial assault was limited to barely 150,000 troops. He expected a quick victory followed by negotiations on his principal concerns: Russian control of Crimea, Ukrainian neutrality, and autonomy for the Russian population in the Donbas, but he was wrong. Putin had not counted on Ukraine's stiff resistance or the West's massive military and economic intervention. Faced with a new situation, Putin changed his strategy. Now he is about to unleash his own General Sherman and make Ukraine howl.

Last month Putin gave General Sergey Surovikin overall command of Russia's war in the Ukraine. Surovikin comes from the technologically sophisticated Aerospace Forces, but has fought on the ground in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Syria where he is credited with saving the Assad regime. Surovikin has stated publicly that there will be no half measures in Ukraine. Instead, he has begun to methodically destroy Ukraine's infrastructure with precision missile attacks. Armies need railroads and while Sherman systematically tore up the tracks leading to Atlanta, Surovikin is destroying the electricity grid which powers Ukrainian railroads. This has left Ukrainian cities cold and dark, but Surovikin seems to agree with Sherman that "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."

Some have presented this conflict as a morality play, between good and evil, but the reality is more complex. Ukraine is no flourishing democracy. It is an impoverished, corrupt, one-party state with extensive censorship, where opposition newspapers and political parties have been shut down. Before the war, far right Ukrainian nationalist groups like the Azov Brigade were soundly condemned by the U.S. Congress. Kiev's determined campaign against the Russian language is analogous to the Canadian government trying to ban French in Quebec. Ukrainian shells have killed hundreds of civilians in the Donbas and there are emerging reports of Ukrainian war crimes. The truly moral course of action would be to end this war with negotiations rather than prolong the suffering the Ukrainian people in a conflict they are unlikely to win without risking American lives.

https://www.newsweek.com/lessons-us-civil-war-show-why-ukraine-cant-win-opinion-1764992

The authors are retired US diplomats.

The best case scenario for Ukraine seems to be a Stalemate. I don't view Russia's unconditional surrender as a likely outcome of this war.

[Joe Elliott]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Winhttps://www.newsweek.com/lessons-us-civil-war-show-why-ukraine-cant-win-opinion-1764992

The authors are retired US diplomats.

The best case scenario for Ukraine seems to be a Stalemate. I don't view Russia's unconditional surrender as a likely outcome of this war.

The main point of this article seems to be that Ukraine can't win. Sherman helped win the Civil War by "Making Georgia Howl" and destroying the rail network. This is, supposedly similar to destroying the Power grid of Ukraine. Sherman didn't win by making Georgia Howl. He won by putting boots on the ground. Using Long Range bombardment to destroy the Power Grid is more equivalent to using Long Range bombardment to bombard Fort Sumter and bombardment. It made South Carolina howl, but it did not cause Fort Sumter to fall. Nor Charleston to fall. Nor the Confederacy to fall. And while the Confederacy could not repair destroyed rail lines after the Union Army passed through, it appears that Ukraine can repair the Power Grid over time. And we have reinforced their missile defense which makes it much harder successfully attack the Power Grid. Even with the best conventional weapon system they still have in reserve, the Iranian Drones And with the coming of the Patriot Missile Systems we are finally sending, this ability will be further weakened.

But neither Jon Banks nor Richard Smith have answered my previous question. If we reduce our support for Ukraine, the Russians will conclude that it is the threat of Nuclear War that caused us to back off. So, when is the best time to stand up to the Russians? Now? If Russian later assaults Ukraine by land again in ten years? Or with Nuclear Weapons in one year? Or attacks the Baltic States, or Finland, or Poland, or Germany? Or is it best not to stand up to them at all and allow Russia to overrun all of Central Europe right up to the French border? What is our best option and why?

[Joe Elliott]

President Zelensky is scheduled to address the U. S. Congress this week. I was hoping this could be done after the war was won. When President Biden could, for the second time, offer Zelensky a ride. On Air Force One. With all the honors accorded to him as it would be to a U. S. President. Including referring to this plane as "Air Force One" as long as Zelensky was on board, both coming and going. Biden could await him in Washington D. C. And there Zelensky could address a Joint Session of Congress.

President Trump used to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. But he supported and praised Putin, the enemy of the 21st Century Churchill. I prefer a President who does not keep a bust of Churchill, but who does support Zelensky and who stands against Putin.

Well, I guess this won't happen quite the way I envisioned it. But I do hope that President Zelensky will reflect, that if his parents were American and not Ukrainian, he might have had his own American T. V. show.

[Richard Smith]

President Zelensky is scheduled to address the U. S. Congress this week. I was hoping this could be done after the war was won. When President Biden could, for the second time, offer Zelensky a ride. On Air Force One. With all the honors accorded to him as it would be to a U. S. President. Including referring to this plane as "Air Force One" as long as Zelensky was on board, both coming and going. Biden could await him in Washington D. C. And there Zelensky could address a Joint Session of Congress.

President Trump used to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. But he supported and praised Putin, the enemy of the 21st Century Churchill. I prefer a President who does not keep a bust of Churchill, but who does support Zelensky and who stands against Putin.

Well, I guess this won't happen quite the way I envisioned it. But I do hope that President Zelensky will reflect, that if his parents were American and not Ukrainian, he might have had his own American T. V. show.

The military complex is loving it.  The pending bill will significantly increase the Pentagon budget to levels never seen in history.  There are billions allocated for Ukraine with no end to that war in sight.  Nor is any desired by the military officials and politicians who are benefitting from this war.  They want it to continue forever.  Like Afghanistan and Vietnam.  Zelensky is just a propaganda tool for that purpose.  They have sold a fake narrative about this war being about "democracy".   The same people are telling us it is going well (just like in Afghanistan and Vietnam!).  What they won't say is how long it's going to last or the objective or how to bring about an end.  It's another endless war.   Imagine if a fraction of those billions were spent on homeless Americans or other domestic causes instead of endless war?  How long will it last and how much will it cost?  They won't say. 

[Joe Elliott]

The military complex is loving it.  The pending bill will significantly increase the Pentagon budget to levels never seen in history.  There are billions allocated for Ukraine with no end to that war in sight.  Nor is any desired by the military officials and politicians who are benefitting from this war.  They want it to continue forever.  Like Afghanistan and Vietnam.  Zelensky is just a propaganda tool for that purpose.  They have sold a fake narrative about this war being about "democracy".   The same people are telling us it is going well (just like in Afghanistan and Vietnam!).  What they won't say is how long it's going to last or the objective or how to bring about an end.  It's another endless war.   Imagine if a fraction of those billions were spent on homeless Americans or other domestic causes instead of endless war?  How long will it last and how much will it cost?  They won't say.

Was Afghanistan a democracy?
Was South Vietnam a democracy?
Is Iraq a democracy?

For once, we are supporting a real democracy. Not just any old democracy, but one that is the bulwark against Russian expansion. The Russians can't help themselves. They are already talking about, including on TV broadcasts, the future need to take over the Baltic States and Poland.

Look, I'm willing to compromise.

We already have tried your way. Send Ukraine minimum support. Like we have done up from 2014 into 2021. And it hasn't work. Stupidity is defined as keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep withholding aid to other countries to stop Russia and being "surprised" each time they come up with a new excuse to grab as much land as they can from a neighbor. Let's try something different in Europe. We got a real democracy to help this time. Let's stop helping Authoritarian regimes and start helping a democracy for a change.

You don't seem to mind helping an authoritarian regimes like Iraq. You have hardly complained about that at all, if at all. It's supporting Ukraine you object to.

I have two proposals:

1. We can cut our regular defense spending by 20 %. Use 10 % each year to help Ukraine. And the other 10 % each year to build up more of the wall along our Southern border. Which, after giving Trump four years to pour money into it, it still doesn't seem to work too well. I don't care. We can still keep trying if you like. Let's just make a stand against Russia overrunning central Europe. And this needs to start with Ukraine. With Russia tied down at the moment and we (mainly) only have China to worry about, I think we can cut down our military expenditures while the war in Ukraine lasts.

2. Or, let's drop our support for Iraq. And use the money we save on Afghanistan and Iraq each year to give Ukraine a chance.

Suddenly cutting off Ukraine makes it likely that Russia will soon overrun all of Ukraine and within a decade overrun all of central Europe. Removing one of the great regions of democracy from the world. The generation that undoes the work of the greatest generation will be the worst generation.

Ukraine is not guaranteed to remain a democracy? True. Until recently, it was an authoritarian regime, which Putin had no problem with. But so what? There is no guarantee that any country will remain a democracy, even the United States. Particularly if Trump, a candidate you strongly supported until recently, somehow wins/cheats his way back into the White House. And maybe makes Charles Flynn Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with a host of other changes guaranteeing elections end up the way he and his successors want in the future. In the coming struggle, I'm betting on the people of Ukraine to defeat the vultures who will try to take over Ukraine from within if Russia is defeated. I trust the courage and determination of the people of Ukraine more than I trust a solid third of my fellow Americans (in name only).

[Richard Smith]

Was Afghanistan a democracy?
Was South Vietnam a democracy?
Is Iraq a democracy?

For once, we are supporting a real democracy. Not just any old democracy, but one that is the bulwark against Russian expansion. The Russians can't help themselves. They are already talking about, including on TV broadcasts, the future need to take over the Baltic States and Poland.

Look, I'm willing to compromise.

We already have tried your way. Send Ukraine minimum support. Like we have done up from 2014 into 2021. And it hasn't work. Stupidity is defined as keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep withholding aid to other countries to stop Russia and being "surprised" each time they come up with a new excuse to grab as much land as they can from a neighbor. Let's try something different in Europe. We got a real democracy to help this time. Let's stop helping Authoritarian regimes and start helping a democracy for a change.

You don't seem to mind helping an authoritarian regimes like Iraq. You have hardly complained about that at all, if at all. It's supporting Ukraine you object to.

I have two proposals:

1. We can cut our regular defense spending by 20 %. Use 10 % each year to help Ukraine. And the other 10 % each year to build up more of the wall along our Southern border. Which, after giving Trump four years to pour money into it, it still doesn't seem to work too well. I don't care. We can still keep trying if you like. Let's just make a stand against Russia overrunning central Europe. And this needs to start with Ukraine. With Russia tied down at the moment and we (mainly) only have China to worry about, I think we can cut down our military expenditures while the war in Ukraine lasts.

2. Or, let's drop our support for Iraq. And use the money we save on Afghanistan and Iraq each year to give Ukraine a chance.

Suddenly cutting off Ukraine makes it likely that Russia will soon overrun all of Ukraine and within a decade overrun all of central Europe. Removing one of the great regions of democracy from the world. The generation that undoes the work of the greatest generation will be the worst generation.

Ukraine is not guaranteed to remain a democracy? True. Until recently, it was an authoritarian regime, which Putin had no problem with. But so what? There is no guarantee that any country will remain a democracy, even the United States. Particularly if Trump, a candidate you strongly supported until recently, somehow wins/cheats his way back into the White House. And maybe makes Charles Flynn Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with a host of other changes guaranteeing elections end up the way he and his successors want in the future. In the coming struggle, I'm betting on the people of Ukraine to defeat the vultures who will try to take over Ukraine from within if Russia is defeated. I trust the courage and determination of the people of Ukraine more than I trust a solid third of my fellow Americans (in name only).

Ukraine is not a democracy.  They oppress free speech and religion almost as much as the US.  Ukraine does not have the capability to force an end to this war through military means.  No matter how many weapons they are sent.  They can't conquer Russia and force a surrender.  The only strategy outlined by Zelinsky to end this war is to hold out for as long as it takes.  A North Vietnam-like strategy that plays the long game.  A decade or more of war until Russia decides to leave.  The US is already in over $100 billion in the first year.  Europe and the rest of the world are laughing their arses off at us.  They are contributing almost nothing.  Our corrupt establishment politicians used Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq to funnel trillions of dollars to their supporters.  They are doing exactly the same thing in Ukraine.  McConnell recently said that Ukraine is the number one priority of Republicans.  Number one.  Not crime, inflation, an open border, crashing stock market or homelessness, but Ukraine.  Why?  Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict?  Of course not.  McConnell is using the war as an excuse to funnel an inexhaustible amount of money to military contractors who will support him and other establishment politicians in future campaigns.   An endless cycle.  Not every wrong can be righted.  There are many wars in the world.  Ukraine is just a cause for our corrupt politicians to control the money.