Europe at War

[Madiel]

This whole episode - and I am referring to the conduct of Germany during to entire war AND Germany's Russia policy leading up to the war - will have serious impact on the future balance of power in Europe. Initially everyone in Europe was counting on German leadership, but no more. The influence of Poland has significantly increased, which will continue to increase once the expected political shift to a pro-EU course will take place at the next elections. A Poland with a more progressive, pro-EU leadership will find likely allies in the Baltic and Nordic states. Add to that the Czechs and Slovaks. A future accession of Ukraine, with its eternal alliance with Poland forged by this war, to the EU will seal this eastward shift of polical power in the EU.

Yes, I do rather wonder what this situation is doing to Germany's leadership.

I also wonder how France is going. Apparently France was Ukraine's leading military before the war.

[Todd]

If he is purposely aiming for a military stalemate, he'd better say so. But he doesn't... A stalemate would be in Russia's favour in the long run since it has unlimited amount of cannon fodder and it will lead to prolongued slaughter and loss of human lives.

Stalemate is the reality.  Explicit US policy in this war is clear: permanently weaken Russia.  There is no guesswork or ambiguity; Lloyd Austin stated it publicly.  NATO has officially taken the line that this war will last.  European politicians have publicly embraced the idea.  A war of attrition is policy.  Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian civilians must die for the policy.  Hundreds of thousands or millions of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers must die for the policy.

German actions, which are entirely reasonable, will likely not have much impact.  They only can if Germany publicly and openly breaks with NATO policy.  Germany should do so.

There are two alternatives to stalemate.  First, is a negotiated settlement, with the US taking the lead in immediately and publicly calling for a ceasefire, ceasing support for Ukraine, and pushing for a settlement.  This is the morally superior and economically more just option.  Far fewer innocent people would die.

Second is escalation, whereby NATO and the US send more and more advanced weapons to Ukraine, resulting in the deaths of more soldiers, the accelerated death of civilians in Ukraine as the result of Russian reprisals, and the possibility of the use of chemical or nuclear weapons by Russia.  Escalation is callous, cavalier, and innately immoral.  Unfortunately, escalation is quite possible. 

As an article in Foreign Policy stated, Ukraine's War Is Like World War I, Not World War II The West is using the wrong analogy for Russia's invasion—and worsening the outcome. 

(I know, I know, the author works for the Quincy Institute.)

[Madiel]

Far fewer innocent people would die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Madiel]

I presume Todd has been banned from New Hampshire?

[LKB]

Stalemate is the reality.  Explicit US policy in this war is clear: permanently weaken Russia.  There is no guesswork or ambiguity; Lloyd Austin stated it publicly.  NATO has officially taken the line that this war will last.  European politicians have publicly embraced the idea.  A war of attrition is policy.  Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian civilians must die for the policy.  Hundreds of thousands or millions of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers must die for the policy.

German actions, which are entirely reasonable, will likely not have much impact.  They only can if Germany publicly and openly breaks with NATO policy.  Germany should do so.

There are two alternatives to stalemate.  First, is a negotiated settlement, with the US taking the lead in immediately and publicly calling for a ceasefire, ceasing support for Ukraine, and pushing for a settlement.  This is the morally superior and economically more just option.  Far fewer innocent people would die.

Second is escalation, whereby NATO and the US send more and more advanced weapons to Ukraine, resulting in the deaths of more soldiers, the accelerated death of civilians in Ukraine as the result of Russian reprisals, and the possibility of the use of chemical or nuclear weapons by Russia.  Escalation is callous, cavalier, and innately immoral.  Unfortunately, escalation is quite possible. 

As an article in Foreign Policy stated, Ukraine's War Is Like World War I, Not World War II The West is using the wrong analogy for Russia's invasion—and worsening the outcome. 

(I know, I know, the author works for the Quincy Institute.)

And as usual in so many of your posts, Putin - who is responsible for the war and is the one person who can end it at any time - is not mentioned at all.

[Todd]

And as usual in so many of your posts, Putin - who is responsible for the war and is the one person who can end it at any time - is not mentioned at all.

Putin is bad.  Hope that helps.

[Florestan]

Gentlemen, forget WWII, forget WWI. Go back to the American Revolutionary War, in which 13 British colonies  fought for independence from UK (ie, they wanted to escape the British Crown's sphere of influence) and were heavily helped militarily by France and to a lesser extent by Spain and The Netherlands.

According to you know who, the morally superior and economically just option a year into the war were for France to taking the lead in immediately and publicly calling for a ceasefire, ceasing support for the rebel colonies, and pushing for a settlement. Far fewer innocent people would have died.

[Florestan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

It didn't affect in any way the safety of the US citizens or the economical interests of the US. Why so much fuss about it, then?

[Madiel]

Gentlemen, forget WWII, forget WWI. Go back to the American Revolutionary War, in which 13 British colonies  fought for independence from UK (ie, they wanted to escape the British Crown's sphere of influence) and were heavily helped militarily by France and to a lesser extent by Spain and The Netherlands.

According to you know who, the morally superior and economically just option a year into the war were for France to taking the lead in immediately and publicly calling for a ceasefire, ceasing support for the rebel colonies, and pushing for a settlement. Far fewer innocent people would have died.

I was cryptic about it, but I refer you to New Hampshire. And its state motto.

[Madiel]

And as usual in so many of your posts, Putin - who is responsible for the war and is the one person who can end it at any time - is not mentioned at all.

Of course he can't see Putin, because Putin is standing behind him with his hand shoved in. This is how puppets work.

[Florestan]

I was cryptic about it, but I refer you to New Hampshire. And its state motto.

Hah!
But then again, you know, quod licet Jovi*, non licet bovi**.

* ie, the proud, free-loving and freedom-deserving Anglo-Saxon Americans

**, ie, why should any proud, free-loving and freedom-deserving Anglo-Saxon American care about whether Ukrainian Slavs are ruled by Russian Slavs? They are not inhabitants of the land of the free, nor do they dwell in the home of the braves...

[Todd]

Gentlemen, forget WWII, forget WWI. Go back to the American Revolutionary War, in which 13 British colonies  fought for independence from UK (ie, they wanted to escape the British Crown's sphere of influence) and were heavily helped militarily by France and to a lesser extent by Spain and The Netherlands.

According to you know who, the morally superior and economically just option a year into the war were for France to taking the lead in immediately and publicly calling for a ceasefire, ceasing support for the rebel colonies, and pushing for a settlement. Far fewer innocent people would have died.

France supported the colonies.  The US should not support Ukraine.

Also, WWII is a better analogy to the current war, and it is a worthless analogy.

[Que]

The US should not support Ukraine.

Because Russia should win this war? Brilliant.

[Todd]

Because Russia should win this war? Brilliant.

As always, one needs to define what is meant by the word "win".

The US should not be engaged in any war, either directly or via material economic and military support, unless US strategic and economic interests are harmed or at risk.  The war in Yemen has more potential to harm US interests over the next thirty to forty years than the war in Ukraine.  Ukraine can be ruled by Russia outright and the US would be safe and secure.  Critical allies in Europe, too.  (Not all allies in Europe are equally important.)  Bellicose European countries can continue to provide all financial and military assistance to prevent Russia from "winning".  Europeans need to step up.

Of course, multiple institutional interests are driving the US to pursue a reckless, militaristic, expansionary policy that is overextending and will continue to overextend it.  The full array of tools deployed in this war are not having the desired effect and are exposing weaknesses in the international system and showing the limits of US power.  This is especially true in the economic realm.  The illusion of great power cannot be maintained if just perceptions of economic power falter.  The US is accelerating its decline as a result of its foolish policies in this war, though not hugely - the US will not "collapse" in the next ten years, or anything like that. 

[Que]

As always, one needs to define what is meant by the word "win".

Russia will win this war when it can do with Ukraine as it pleases.

The enemies of Britain supported the insurrection in the American colonies to weaken Britain, and they succeeded.

[Todd]

Russia will win this war when it can do with Ukraine as it pleases.

That is an unlikely outcome.  If European countries step up as needed, the outcome could be avoided without any additional support from the US. 

The enemies of Britain supported the insurrection in the American colonies to weaken Britain, and they succeeded.

This is historically inaccurate.  The British Empire reached its zenith around the time of the Great War.  France succumbed to revolution only a few short years after expending blood and treasure supporting the colonies.  And the US engaged in an undeclared war with France only a few short years after the French Revolution.  Late 18th Century France doesn't really offer a meaningful analog to today's events.

Russia is weaker than the USSR.  If it manages to rule all of Ukraine, it would still be weaker than the USSR.  Russia is a declining empire by every measure.

[drogulus]

    Russia is putting Pantsir-S1 SAM Systems on Moscow rooftops. It's a pity they can't shoot down stray cigarettes.

    Prolonging the war kills more civilians than providing the weapons to allow the Ukes to finish it. Cutting off weapons entirely can't be done.

    Germany wants to be forced to allow the Leopards to roll. It stands out a mile. Peacemongery is in the national DNA. I understand, and I almost sympathize.

[Que]

Macron and Scholz mend strained France-Germany friendship

Olaf Scholz called on France and Germany to be Europe's 'driving force' while Emmanuel Macron said the two countries could be the continent's 'pioneers'.

(Le Monde)

Hilarious quotes... Keep on dreaming, gentlemen...

[Madiel]

I see we're back to the part where Todd is unable to see how the USA benefits from one of the world's most important agricultural economies being stable.

I think we ran around that particular circle in... April? Something like April.

When he's not being a troll he's just being a brick wall. The value of argument doesn't go up.

Now if you want to know how DANES pronounce the letter V, the answer is... where possible they don't so much pronounce it as kind of glide over it, like it's a brief catch in the stream of vowels.

[LKB]

As always, one needs to define what is meant by the word "win".

The US should not be engaged in any war, either directly or via material economic and military support, unless US strategic and economic interests are harmed or at risk.  The war in Yemen has more potential to harm US interests over the next thirty to forty years than the war in Ukraine.  Ukraine can be ruled by Russia outright and the US would be safe and secure.  Critical allies in Europe, too.  (Not all allies in Europe are equally important.)  Bellicose European countries can continue to provide all financial and military assistance to prevent Russia from "winning".  Europeans need to step up.

Of course, multiple institutional interests are driving the US to pursue a reckless, militaristic, expansionary policy that is overextending and will continue to overextend it.  The full array of tools deployed in this war are not having the desired effect and are exposing weaknesses in the international system and showing the limits of US power. This is especially true in the economic realm.  The illusion of great power cannot be maintained if just perceptions of economic power falter.  The US is accelerating its decline as a result of its foolish policies in this war, though not hugely - the US will not "collapse" in the next ten years, or anything like that.

Factually incorrect, to the point of being utterly comedic. Also typically disingenuous, but that's obvious enough that l hesitate to even mention it.

Todd, in all seriousness you should simply admit that you're on Putin's side, and want him to annihilate Ukraine's national identity and re-establish imperial Russia. It would make matters here easier for everyone, including you.