"It is fair to ask, what does the US gain by supporting an expansionist NATO policy?" So far, it has gained lucrative defense contracts, and long prosperous careers for the government officials promoting the policies.
Scandinavians, Poles and Baltics love it. By going against Russia, Washington is building alliances in North-Eastern Europe. My feeling is the overwhelming majority of Finns, Swedes and Poles are happy about it, nursing grievances from back in the 18th century when Russians defeated Swedes at Poltava - not too far from the current line of control. It's not really about Neocons or some defense contracts.
The Germans, Austrians, Italians, Hungarians and Slovaks are obviously unhappy about the current situation - but remember: they were the enemies at the start of the 1st and 2nd WW.
How many divisions can the Baltic Republics field? How many wings of attack aircraft do they have? With the exception of Poland, all these alliances do is increase our chances of a major war. They're worse than useless.
It will be at least three closely integrated divisions between the three Baltic countries. Finland will be more. No aircraft to my knowledge. They're providing fighters on the ground, familiar with the local terrain. They're also buying artillery, HIMARS, I think. And don't forget, they've supported, with real fighting, all GWOT theatres since before they were in NATO. They are good fighters, by all accounts, including the Taliban. They also have provided the use of their countries as the front. So, if you think that the west wants a fight with Russia, I think it's the Eastern countries that, once again, are acting as a shield for the west. It's the eastern countries that have the right to question the west about THEIR readiness and commitment to fight, not the other way around. My opinion is that they are naive in this matter and may be betrayed and used by the West.
Russia found fighting against the Finns in 1944 difficult, even while they found their groove vis-a-vis the Wehrmacht, see operation Bagration. Never mind the absolute horror show of winter 1939, which seeded the idea of Barbarossa in the first place. If Russians fought better then, maybe Wehrmacht would have decided to march on India and not on Moscow in 1941.
Obviously, Baltics collapsed against the Red Army in 1944 easily. But that was because Wehrmacht saw no point in defending Baltics a good idea, so they denuded the territory of SS divisions staffed with Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians.
"Ukraine could rebuild its military, gets its economy back on track, and confront the Russians some years in the future when the prospects are better". Well...
I want peace as much as anyone, but given the mood in the Ru "siloviki" sector, Putin will be removed & replaced by a military hardliner, should he try to move in this direction.
Ru started this "operation" in order to prevent Ukr from being turned into a Western military bulwark on its border. It is much angrier&more determined now than it was in 2022. Unless it is out of men&materiel, it will not stop until this goal is achieved.
Любое решение президента будет принято большей частью населения. Его не могут снять, но он может умереть, что будет катастрофой для Украины. Его преемник человек гораздо более жесткий.
Что преемник будет жестче и "правее", полностью согласна. На Западе мало кто понимает, что слева от Путина - вакуум.
Не думаю, что сценарий "removed&replaced" совершенно невозможен, но согласна, что не очень вероятен. Не секрет, что патриоты винят Президента в нерешительности, говоря, в т.ч., что всех нынешних проблем можно было избежать, действуй он более жестко в 14-15 годах; что Минск оказался шарадой, что "партнеры" просто водили его за нос, итп. Ясно, что новая попытка "договориться" будет воспринята в этом свете - те же грабли, только в профиль. Но он и сам знает/говорит об этом, и поэтому на подобные договоры на 99% не пойдет. Но в крайне маловероятном сценарии, что пойдет (brain tumor? Alzheimer?), не думаю, что силовики скажут "ну ладно".
"Of course that won't stop Europe and some in Washington for pushing the proposal anyway, while shoveling more arms to Ukraine, hoping the Ukrainians can hold out until well after the US elections."
After the US elections are over and can no longer be a referendum on WWIII is when the escalation will begin in earnest.
Robert Yates, I see the “hit to American prestige” argument often and although it is reasonable, the Afghanistan withdrawal suggests it won’t matter. After 20 years the Americans humiliated themselves in Afghanistan, but nothing changed.
So yeah, you are right, Ukraine will be a hit to American prestige, but what of it? Maybe prestige is an antiquated notion, maybe it’s just power and damn the optics.
I don’t think the inevitable failure of the global American Empire and NATO in Ukraine will matter one bit. Sure, the naked power will be once again be exposed, but it will not alter their course. Iran is next, buckle in.
Afghanistan was bad and a hit on US prestige. This is different though. Afghanistan can be blamed on poor planning. The US gets quite a bit of support for its arms industry with overseas sales. A failure in Ukraine is a failure of US weapons when faced with Russian weapons and countermeasures. It can't help but hurt foreign weapon sales. It's not just the loss of prestige. It's the loss of the perception of the superiority of American weapons that will push US intervention.
There is no referendum on anything, both major candidates have substantially identical positions on foreign policy. NATO (in practice big decisions dominated by US) is not escalating UA because the Ukrainians manpower situation can't keep up any more, and US is going to have to fight in half a dozen countries in the middle east as soon as Netanyahu can scrape together the next provocation vs Iran.
You make good points - in the end, it will not matter who wins the US presidential elections, the war is baked in the cake.
However, Trump is perceived by the public to be against further escalation vis-a-vis Russia, and in practice he may require a little "management" before he gets there in the end.
Then there is the question of whether the US fights Russia or Iran first (most of the rest of the Middle East leadership craves American carrot and fears American stick). My pure SWAG is that Russia is seen as the more immediate problem, while Iran cna be kept at a distance.
On the question of which one first.... IMO, due to long standing inertia, the order of priority in Washington and the universe of "US political stakeholders" like the MSM, couldn't be clearer. (1) Israel (2) everything else.
They'll keep shoveling money and material to Ukraine partially by default, and also because it's objectively less dangerous for the US than making equivalent moves vs China. I'm starting to see signs of the reality of US having to settle for #2 actually being recognized now. Unfortunately this doesn't reduce US tendency to make trouble, only redirects it.
There may be some think tanks that write papers about how US doing a reprise of Iraq and Afghanistan would be self defeating, and totally opposite of widely agreed strategic goals (ie maintain US global position). But they did the same thing during the GWOT, were perfectly correct, yet it went on for decades.
I hear what you are saying, but I recall a cynical and once rather wily old politician say something to the effect that a man's spending shows his priorities more than his words. That old creep got to be president, even though he is senile, now.
Measured by that standard, Ukraine is far more important than Israel in recent years.
Anyway, the neocons got what they wants out of Iraq, which was to make it a failed state. Afghanistan was of little value to the US by the time we left. The neocons see Ukrain as The Whole Enchilada, which is why they are happy to gamble our lives for control of it.
Wise words for sure. But by the same token, they spent on the order of $100B / year on Afghanistan years after the advocates of its strategic importance moved on. The act of spending was the priority. Grift and political inertia...
Like William Ward said, NATO is simply a costume designed to disguise US hegemony as "The Alliance of the Good Guys". It is not a credible military alliance.
“Zelensky understands that any concession he might make to Russia would be fatal for him.” To remove any ambiguity here, let’s be clear: Zelensky will be assassinated by his Azov associates if he appears willing to negotiate…that train has left the station. One would think his American handlers understand his dilemma. Perhaps they are working on a plan to extract him (along with all his embezzled American taxpayer dollars) to a safe country.
Why aren't you honest? The US uses other countries as a pawn to weaken Russia. The Georgia war, that was instigated and initiated by Georgia, clearly showed what was going on. Georgia was armed and promised the US would help in case Russia fights back and when the Russians punched back the US disappeared. Nothing else is happening in Ukraine since the US has no intention to fight Russia directly and why would they? Russia is probably the only country that can nuke the US multiple times. In the end, this policy only benefits the military industrial complex and the senators that are either directly involved or keep their citizens employed in various weapons manufacturers. It's a sick business model that the US citizens are paying for. The US simply can't live without war.
Ron Paul writes the following in his column this week:
“Has this Administration explained to us why Americans suffering after the catastrophic Hurricane Helene are on their own because we need to spend billions on a war that is none of our business? No. The neocons have wanted this war for decades and for them it’s always America last.”
Dr. Paul’s column was addressing the impending Israel/Iran war, but his words could just as easily apply to our proxy war against Russia (using the hapless Ukrainians as our cannon fodder).
Another monster storm is bearing down on the Florida Gulf Coast. No doubt FEMA will be short of money to cleanup in the aftermath.
The ‘elite’ who rule us don’t give a damn about America or Americans. Their goal is to extend the ‘American Century’ as long as possible (or at least until it ruins us all). Greed and power is the name of the game.
Here’s an off the wall thought for the October surprise: Putin has made a deal with Trump to blow Zelenskyy to kingdom come and march into Kiev thus collapsing NATO and wiping out the neocons which are goals of Trump. IN addition Putin makes peace with Israel and helps Trump settle the Middle East conflicts. Together they agree to create a new world order. Pipe dream for sure but someone has to dream.
If Trump had simply taken the money he borrowed from his father and parked it in an S&P 500 Index Fund and reinvested the proceeds, he'd be richer than he is today.
There may well be stupid rich people using your definition of stupid but there are very few if any weak and easily manipulated rich people. No one who has ever done business with Trump says that it was easy to make money from it by taking advantage of him so that he ended up with nothing and they walked away with all the profits and assets.
It is true as you seem to believe that if he simply put his one million dollar loan into the S and P index funds twenty five years ago, he would have theoretically increased that investment to five hundred million by now. Of course, that would require reinvesting the profits meaning he would have to work in a seven eleven or something while not touching the income for that twenty five years. Not to mention leaving aside inflation and taxes flowing from the accumulated income.
From what I have seen of Trump, I'm pretty sure he found it much more interesting to operate the business of the Miss America pageant rather than simply collecting perhaps greater (but untouched) passive income from your Index Fund investment scheme. Even more interesting than working as a vice-president in charge of the claims adjustment division of an insurance company or whatever you think it is that would have been the smart thing for him to do while watching his Index funds grow.
No. It's all about dick swinging. Who ends up with most toys. Being recognized as a driving force in the world's major financial, cultural, social and geopolitical events. The yukks come from listening and watching critics say....no big deal, anyone could have done it, I would have done it if I wanted to but I'm too superior to bother doing it........
How can anyone disprove your beliefs about Trump? You start with the belief rather than looking at evidence to reach a conclusion.
Trump was a neo con all the time he was President! Sure thing. How can anyone disprove that? Any counterfactual example is just a case of what a slippery neo con he was. Done for no other reason than to hide just how neo con he was. Unending denunciation of Trump by neo cons and their allies....just a smoke screen to manipulate simpletons like me.
"Officially Russia wants Luhansk, Donbas, Zaphorize, and the Crimea recognized"
Donetsk.. and of course Kherson too.
Though my guess is that they will accept an adaptation of oblast boundaries to 'natural' lines like the Dnieper south of Kherson city, while keeping the left bank of the Oskil now in Kharkiv oblast, after they've fully taken it.
In that context I'm a bit surpised by the recent move into Plavni south of Zaporizhia, but I guess like the previous small and highly contested incursions into Kharkiv oblast south of Belgorod it's more tactical than an indication of wider territorial ambitions.
As I've said a few times here already, for me the biggest remaining question is the fate of Kramatorsk (along with smaller neighbour Sloviansk) south of the Oskil, currently capital of the rump Ukrainian Donetsk oblast.
I'd expect Donetsk Oblast, including the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk-etc arc of cities, will be taken in its entirety. The long process of doing it will consume the remaining manpower reserves of UA. When the Western public starts to digest the magnitude of the body count - already kindof beyond easy comprehension - they'll want nothing to do with a ground war there.
"It is fair to ask, what does the US gain by supporting an expansionist NATO policy?"
Biden said you gain jobs in the Death Industry.
But more importantly, shareholders get bumper dividends and capital gains, and the well-paid clients of Big Defense in Congress get re-election and other help.
Here's a report on the economics of the current Middle East project, now that Ukraine is on the back burner, and America tries to refocus its 'Big Gun Problem' on the next growth market in the Pacific:
"Israel's wars mean 'massive' returns for US arms company investors - One year after Oct. 7, arms industry stocks way outperformed the S&P 500 index fund"
Everyone focusing on NATO expansion but, what happens if Russia installs a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Then Ukraine joins BRICS. That puts Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia on the border of BRICS countries. The EU has been basically shitting on those countries for a while, yet their economies are doing well if not great. What if those Central Europe countries leave the EU+NATO and join BRICS and their joint defense agreements.
Спасибо за ваш комментарий. Я предполагаю, что люди, занимающие государственные должности в Украине, в большинстве своем избираются, и, следовательно, представляют избирателей.
Я понял вас : «старая добрая демократия» - удобное , но протертое на локтях пальто ..."Украинцы - сами выберут ..."
Когда украинцы избрали комика ,"прославившегося" своим пошло - плоским юмором , произошла "обратная проекция" этого пошлого юмора , из народа - на политику ! «Голобородько - наш президент ! » Где , здесь - ответственный электорат ? Скорее - "благодарный зритель" , объевшийся попкорном ...
Can you imagine Kamala negotiating with Putin? Lucky for her, if she wins, she does not speak Russian and Putin does not speak English. She would have to send a team of negotiators in advance to iron out a deal. Once completed, she can fly over to Russia have a photo op cession as she reads from a teleprompter. Here is Kamala panicking not knowing what to say when the teleprompter turns off by accident:
"It is fair to ask, what does the US gain by supporting an expansionist NATO policy?" So far, it has gained lucrative defense contracts, and long prosperous careers for the government officials promoting the policies.
Not to mentionm european grovelling.
As far as the neocons are concerned, things have gone swimmingly.
Scandinavians, Poles and Baltics love it. By going against Russia, Washington is building alliances in North-Eastern Europe. My feeling is the overwhelming majority of Finns, Swedes and Poles are happy about it, nursing grievances from back in the 18th century when Russians defeated Swedes at Poltava - not too far from the current line of control. It's not really about Neocons or some defense contracts.
The Germans, Austrians, Italians, Hungarians and Slovaks are obviously unhappy about the current situation - but remember: they were the enemies at the start of the 1st and 2nd WW.
How many divisions can the Baltic Republics field? How many wings of attack aircraft do they have? With the exception of Poland, all these alliances do is increase our chances of a major war. They're worse than useless.
It will be at least three closely integrated divisions between the three Baltic countries. Finland will be more. No aircraft to my knowledge. They're providing fighters on the ground, familiar with the local terrain. They're also buying artillery, HIMARS, I think. And don't forget, they've supported, with real fighting, all GWOT theatres since before they were in NATO. They are good fighters, by all accounts, including the Taliban. They also have provided the use of their countries as the front. So, if you think that the west wants a fight with Russia, I think it's the Eastern countries that, once again, are acting as a shield for the west. It's the eastern countries that have the right to question the west about THEIR readiness and commitment to fight, not the other way around. My opinion is that they are naive in this matter and may be betrayed and used by the West.
Russia found fighting against the Finns in 1944 difficult, even while they found their groove vis-a-vis the Wehrmacht, see operation Bagration. Never mind the absolute horror show of winter 1939, which seeded the idea of Barbarossa in the first place. If Russians fought better then, maybe Wehrmacht would have decided to march on India and not on Moscow in 1941.
Obviously, Baltics collapsed against the Red Army in 1944 easily. But that was because Wehrmacht saw no point in defending Baltics a good idea, so they denuded the territory of SS divisions staffed with Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians.
"Ukraine could rebuild its military, gets its economy back on track, and confront the Russians some years in the future when the prospects are better". Well...
I want peace as much as anyone, but given the mood in the Ru "siloviki" sector, Putin will be removed & replaced by a military hardliner, should he try to move in this direction.
Ru started this "operation" in order to prevent Ukr from being turned into a Western military bulwark on its border. It is much angrier&more determined now than it was in 2022. Unless it is out of men&materiel, it will not stop until this goal is achieved.
Неверно оцениваете ситуацию.
Любое решение президента будет принято большей частью населения. Его не могут снять, но он может умереть, что будет катастрофой для Украины. Его преемник человек гораздо более жесткий.
Что преемник будет жестче и "правее", полностью согласна. На Западе мало кто понимает, что слева от Путина - вакуум.
Не думаю, что сценарий "removed&replaced" совершенно невозможен, но согласна, что не очень вероятен. Не секрет, что патриоты винят Президента в нерешительности, говоря, в т.ч., что всех нынешних проблем можно было избежать, действуй он более жестко в 14-15 годах; что Минск оказался шарадой, что "партнеры" просто водили его за нос, итп. Ясно, что новая попытка "договориться" будет воспринята в этом свете - те же грабли, только в профиль. Но он и сам знает/говорит об этом, и поэтому на подобные договоры на 99% не пойдет. Но в крайне маловероятном сценарии, что пойдет (brain tumor? Alzheimer?), не думаю, что силовики скажут "ну ладно".
Россия не Пакистан. Армия не имеет политической субъектности. Глава спецслужб на посту президента. О каких “силовиках” мы говорим?
"Of course that won't stop Europe and some in Washington for pushing the proposal anyway, while shoveling more arms to Ukraine, hoping the Ukrainians can hold out until well after the US elections."
After the US elections are over and can no longer be a referendum on WWIII is when the escalation will begin in earnest.
You're probably right regardless of who wins. The US has invested too much prestige to just walk away.
I wish I were wrong. I hope I am wrong.
However, the abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is assuredly entirely intentional.
Robert Yates, I see the “hit to American prestige” argument often and although it is reasonable, the Afghanistan withdrawal suggests it won’t matter. After 20 years the Americans humiliated themselves in Afghanistan, but nothing changed.
So yeah, you are right, Ukraine will be a hit to American prestige, but what of it? Maybe prestige is an antiquated notion, maybe it’s just power and damn the optics.
I don’t think the inevitable failure of the global American Empire and NATO in Ukraine will matter one bit. Sure, the naked power will be once again be exposed, but it will not alter their course. Iran is next, buckle in.
Afghanistan was bad and a hit on US prestige. This is different though. Afghanistan can be blamed on poor planning. The US gets quite a bit of support for its arms industry with overseas sales. A failure in Ukraine is a failure of US weapons when faced with Russian weapons and countermeasures. It can't help but hurt foreign weapon sales. It's not just the loss of prestige. It's the loss of the perception of the superiority of American weapons that will push US intervention.
Ya, American weapons defeated that is different. Good point.
Addendum:
George Orwell ,
The past will be erased, the erasure will be forgotten, and the lie will become the truth.
Prestige assumes you care.
There is no referendum on anything, both major candidates have substantially identical positions on foreign policy. NATO (in practice big decisions dominated by US) is not escalating UA because the Ukrainians manpower situation can't keep up any more, and US is going to have to fight in half a dozen countries in the middle east as soon as Netanyahu can scrape together the next provocation vs Iran.
You make good points - in the end, it will not matter who wins the US presidential elections, the war is baked in the cake.
However, Trump is perceived by the public to be against further escalation vis-a-vis Russia, and in practice he may require a little "management" before he gets there in the end.
Then there is the question of whether the US fights Russia or Iran first (most of the rest of the Middle East leadership craves American carrot and fears American stick). My pure SWAG is that Russia is seen as the more immediate problem, while Iran cna be kept at a distance.
On the question of which one first.... IMO, due to long standing inertia, the order of priority in Washington and the universe of "US political stakeholders" like the MSM, couldn't be clearer. (1) Israel (2) everything else.
They'll keep shoveling money and material to Ukraine partially by default, and also because it's objectively less dangerous for the US than making equivalent moves vs China. I'm starting to see signs of the reality of US having to settle for #2 actually being recognized now. Unfortunately this doesn't reduce US tendency to make trouble, only redirects it.
There may be some think tanks that write papers about how US doing a reprise of Iraq and Afghanistan would be self defeating, and totally opposite of widely agreed strategic goals (ie maintain US global position). But they did the same thing during the GWOT, were perfectly correct, yet it went on for decades.
I hear what you are saying, but I recall a cynical and once rather wily old politician say something to the effect that a man's spending shows his priorities more than his words. That old creep got to be president, even though he is senile, now.
Measured by that standard, Ukraine is far more important than Israel in recent years.
Anyway, the neocons got what they wants out of Iraq, which was to make it a failed state. Afghanistan was of little value to the US by the time we left. The neocons see Ukrain as The Whole Enchilada, which is why they are happy to gamble our lives for control of it.
Wise words for sure. But by the same token, they spent on the order of $100B / year on Afghanistan years after the advocates of its strategic importance moved on. The act of spending was the priority. Grift and political inertia...
True, but after 20 years, the empire's priorities had shifted.
Ukraine gets way more than $100B/year.
Like William Ward said, NATO is simply a costume designed to disguise US hegemony as "The Alliance of the Good Guys". It is not a credible military alliance.
I call it "The Enforcement Arm of American Capitalism"
Can you call it capitalism when taxpayers bail out billionaires?
“Zelensky understands that any concession he might make to Russia would be fatal for him.” To remove any ambiguity here, let’s be clear: Zelensky will be assassinated by his Azov associates if he appears willing to negotiate…that train has left the station. One would think his American handlers understand his dilemma. Perhaps they are working on a plan to extract him (along with all his embezzled American taxpayer dollars) to a safe country.
Why aren't you honest? The US uses other countries as a pawn to weaken Russia. The Georgia war, that was instigated and initiated by Georgia, clearly showed what was going on. Georgia was armed and promised the US would help in case Russia fights back and when the Russians punched back the US disappeared. Nothing else is happening in Ukraine since the US has no intention to fight Russia directly and why would they? Russia is probably the only country that can nuke the US multiple times. In the end, this policy only benefits the military industrial complex and the senators that are either directly involved or keep their citizens employed in various weapons manufacturers. It's a sick business model that the US citizens are paying for. The US simply can't live without war.
Ron Paul writes the following in his column this week:
“Has this Administration explained to us why Americans suffering after the catastrophic Hurricane Helene are on their own because we need to spend billions on a war that is none of our business? No. The neocons have wanted this war for decades and for them it’s always America last.”
Dr. Paul’s column was addressing the impending Israel/Iran war, but his words could just as easily apply to our proxy war against Russia (using the hapless Ukrainians as our cannon fodder).
Another monster storm is bearing down on the Florida Gulf Coast. No doubt FEMA will be short of money to cleanup in the aftermath.
The ‘elite’ who rule us don’t give a damn about America or Americans. Their goal is to extend the ‘American Century’ as long as possible (or at least until it ruins us all). Greed and power is the name of the game.
Dr. Paul’s entire column can be found here:
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/american-neocons-get-their-iran-war-as-congress-sleeps/
Here’s an off the wall thought for the October surprise: Putin has made a deal with Trump to blow Zelenskyy to kingdom come and march into Kiev thus collapsing NATO and wiping out the neocons which are goals of Trump. IN addition Putin makes peace with Israel and helps Trump settle the Middle East conflicts. Together they agree to create a new world order. Pipe dream for sure but someone has to dream.
Don't kid yourself. Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
But a person has the right to dream! 😄
You’re the one kidding himself. One doesn’t become a billionaire buildings in nyc if what you say were true.
If Trump had simply taken the money he borrowed from his father and parked it in an S&P 500 Index Fund and reinvested the proceeds, he'd be richer than he is today.
As if there were no stupid rich people, lol.
There may well be stupid rich people using your definition of stupid but there are very few if any weak and easily manipulated rich people. No one who has ever done business with Trump says that it was easy to make money from it by taking advantage of him so that he ended up with nothing and they walked away with all the profits and assets.
It is true as you seem to believe that if he simply put his one million dollar loan into the S and P index funds twenty five years ago, he would have theoretically increased that investment to five hundred million by now. Of course, that would require reinvesting the profits meaning he would have to work in a seven eleven or something while not touching the income for that twenty five years. Not to mention leaving aside inflation and taxes flowing from the accumulated income.
From what I have seen of Trump, I'm pretty sure he found it much more interesting to operate the business of the Miss America pageant rather than simply collecting perhaps greater (but untouched) passive income from your Index Fund investment scheme. Even more interesting than working as a vice-president in charge of the claims adjustment division of an insurance company or whatever you think it is that would have been the smart thing for him to do while watching his Index funds grow.
www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/02/trumps-small-loan-from-his-father-was-more-like-60point7-million-nyt.html
Anyway, the idea that Trump is doing it all for the yukks is a laugh.
No. It's all about dick swinging. Who ends up with most toys. Being recognized as a driving force in the world's major financial, cultural, social and geopolitical events. The yukks come from listening and watching critics say....no big deal, anyone could have done it, I would have done it if I wanted to but I'm too superior to bother doing it........
You’re just full of TDS. That’s another myth
Should be easy to disprove, but instead you do the equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"
We had Trump’s record from 2016-2020, a pathetic little cuck bullied into submission by the neocons.
How can anyone disprove your beliefs about Trump? You start with the belief rather than looking at evidence to reach a conclusion.
Trump was a neo con all the time he was President! Sure thing. How can anyone disprove that? Any counterfactual example is just a case of what a slippery neo con he was. Done for no other reason than to hide just how neo con he was. Unending denunciation of Trump by neo cons and their allies....just a smoke screen to manipulate simpletons like me.
I was having the same day dream.
"Officially Russia wants Luhansk, Donbas, Zaphorize, and the Crimea recognized"
Donetsk.. and of course Kherson too.
Though my guess is that they will accept an adaptation of oblast boundaries to 'natural' lines like the Dnieper south of Kherson city, while keeping the left bank of the Oskil now in Kharkiv oblast, after they've fully taken it.
In that context I'm a bit surpised by the recent move into Plavni south of Zaporizhia, but I guess like the previous small and highly contested incursions into Kharkiv oblast south of Belgorod it's more tactical than an indication of wider territorial ambitions.
As I've said a few times here already, for me the biggest remaining question is the fate of Kramatorsk (along with smaller neighbour Sloviansk) south of the Oskil, currently capital of the rump Ukrainian Donetsk oblast.
I'd expect Donetsk Oblast, including the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk-etc arc of cities, will be taken in its entirety. The long process of doing it will consume the remaining manpower reserves of UA. When the Western public starts to digest the magnitude of the body count - already kindof beyond easy comprehension - they'll want nothing to do with a ground war there.
"It is fair to ask, what does the US gain by supporting an expansionist NATO policy?"
Biden said you gain jobs in the Death Industry.
But more importantly, shareholders get bumper dividends and capital gains, and the well-paid clients of Big Defense in Congress get re-election and other help.
Here's a report on the economics of the current Middle East project, now that Ukraine is on the back burner, and America tries to refocus its 'Big Gun Problem' on the next growth market in the Pacific:
"Israel's wars mean 'massive' returns for US arms company investors - One year after Oct. 7, arms industry stocks way outperformed the S&P 500 index fund"
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/october-7-hamas-attack/
*Follow the Money*
Everyone focusing on NATO expansion but, what happens if Russia installs a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Then Ukraine joins BRICS. That puts Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia on the border of BRICS countries. The EU has been basically shitting on those countries for a while, yet their economies are doing well if not great. What if those Central Europe countries leave the EU+NATO and join BRICS and their joint defense agreements.
Этого , ни в коем - не должно повториться !
Амнистия бандеровцев 1955 .
«Александр Мясников, писатель и историк:
- По оценкам американских и западногерманских источников, среди которых Мюнхенский институт по изучению СССР и Восточной Европы, не менее трети бывших бандеровцев, которых западные исследователи называют украинскими националистами, а также членов их семей к середине 1970-х годов, то есть спустя 20 лет после хрущевской амнистии, вошли в руководство райкомов, горкомов и обкомов партии, а также районных и городских исполкомов в западных областях Украинской ССР. Многие стали руководителями разного ранга в украинских республиканских министерствах и ведомствах. Среди немолодых уже бандеровцев были даже «комсомольские вожаки».»© КП
Спасибо за ваш комментарий. Я предполагаю, что люди, занимающие государственные должности в Украине, в большинстве своем избираются, и, следовательно, представляют избирателей.
Я понял вас : «старая добрая демократия» - удобное , но протертое на локтях пальто ..."Украинцы - сами выберут ..."
Когда украинцы избрали комика ,"прославившегося" своим пошло - плоским юмором , произошла "обратная проекция" этого пошлого юмора , из народа - на политику ! «Голобородько - наш президент ! » Где , здесь - ответственный электорат ? Скорее - "благодарный зритель" , объевшийся попкорном ...
С уважением,Игорь .
Can you elaborate on the "neo-Nazi elite brigades"?
Can you imagine Kamala negotiating with Putin? Lucky for her, if she wins, she does not speak Russian and Putin does not speak English. She would have to send a team of negotiators in advance to iron out a deal. Once completed, she can fly over to Russia have a photo op cession as she reads from a teleprompter. Here is Kamala panicking not knowing what to say when the teleprompter turns off by accident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPBxxZ7JM8M&t=27s
Good analysis, but the conclusion one should draw is time to leave NATO, among other places.
Time to cut the euro slackers loose.