Let’s go from the specific to the general. We’ll start with Tom Luongo’s translation of an Italian language tweet that summarizes the EU/French pilgimage to Beijing this past week. The Italian tweeter compares this event to clearing the decks for a new Yalta. For reasons unknown to me, Substack no longer allows me to embed tweets—No,
Russia will only accept a peace where they have demilitarized Ukraine., and taken control of all Russian speaking areas. Basically Eastern Ukrain. Ukraine will be landlocked. I expect significant Russian gains with 6 months.
If the leak is true, Ukraine will have major issues by end of May.
Although I am a MacGregor fan in many ways I’m not a fan of those who criticize the actions of our people during World War 2. Maybe the Germans did suffer fewer dead at the Bulge. So what?? They lost. Maybe I’m missing the bigger picture but it irks me all the same.
As Ray-SoCa also explains, the issue has to do with US propensity to maintain ineffective military structures and strategies that leave us ill prepared for challenges we may face. In the past we could rely on two oceans to buy us time, and to some extent that remains true. But hypersonic missiles make that no longer as true as it was--and yet we continue throwing our weight around based on a military superiority that 1) we can't really afford--it was built on inflation--and 2) is increasingly debatable.
I don’t see it as disrespectful of the sacrifices of us troops in WW2, but just data to better understand the current options. After WW2 the us army studied a lot of German military theories, it was a big fad, even with them losing.
The headache is fake or slanted history influences a lot of present day actions. There is a lot of truth in the phrase “the victors write history”.
WW2, and even the civil war, have huge influences on how the US military fights today. The “victory” in Iraq does too.
Here are two pictures / videos (ala Scott Adam’s):
1. US / Western military technology and training are superior to Russian forces, and are helping the Ukrainian’s inflict heavy casualties against superior numbers. Quality over quantity is a huge winner. Russia will collapse any day from the sanctions, and just a few more are needed. Putin is sick, and a coup could happen any day.
2. Western Equipment is fragile, over priced, and not that effective. Hypersonic missiles, ecm / electronic warfare, industrial warfare, a 10x artillery advantage are allowing the Russians at 1/10 the casualties to slowly grind through huge lines of fortifications and overwhelming Western C4ISR support. The West is winning the propaganda war, but losing the economic war. Russia is actually in better shape due to the sanctions, that are causing a lot of pain in Europe.
I’m very worried the US has a military that focuses on pricey technologies (uss ford, f-35, lcs, etc) that don’t work and only benefits the defense industry, and has a woke leadership that will lead to a lot of U.S. casualties if we get into a real war. And our elites are blind to this, and full of hubris. To paraphrase, They are talking loudly, and carrying a little stick.
Given the likely Russian victory in Ukraine (& versus NATO, US petro-dollar status, energy-hegemony), a humble question: are the MAGA options now less dependent on Trump, in the sense that in 2016 DJT was a singular force against WEF-style globalism? (CCP-style globalism remains, and to me puts Russia and CCP on an ultimately divergent & antagonistic path.) Were Trump to become #47, does the outcome in Ukraine give him a freer hand to focus on US domestic issues?
That would certainly be the hope. The question that remains is draining the swamp--sweeping out the dead wood of Neocon / globalist ideology from their bureaucratic sinecures. To do that I believe change in the Senate is required.
I would think so. Message around all the damage done domestically sprinkle in some China saber rattling too. Questions will be how is messages delivered and how received? Don’t count on MSM.
WW2 was a great power war with comparable technology with advances in different areas by various nations. Russia suffered massive casualties as did the Chinese. They fought the bulk of the Germans and Japanese armies, respectively. We entered late and had massive manufacturing to replace equipment. Plus we supplied the Allies with equipment while they bought time and spent blood. It seems that in any future great power war there will be a mix of technological advancements by the various combatants. The Chinese are ready to be the arsenal of autocracy. The Russians are manufacturing and perhaps they will be the farm, fuel, and mines of autocracy. Will Europe be neutral or will they tell us that we are nuts and join with the rest of the ‘World Island?’ With a great deal of wealth and technology? How long until our ‘leadership’ understands that the Chinese will not sell us all of the things we need to fight the next war? Perhaps when their children are dying from infections curable if only antibiotic ma were still available. Antibiotics? Churchill had pneumonia during WW2. The sulfa was from a British company, using German technology. Would Adolf have filled the prescription? How long can we hold out without medications from China and India? Will we experience a post-antibiotic age? Will we have the will to fight while experiencing life without antibiotics? This is just one aspect of not having a manufacturing base. Can we even sustain our military long enough to fight for a year in a high intensity conflict? If we can’t have we lost deterrence?
I think that's a valid perspective, with much more to be added. Clearly by the mid 60s--twenty years after the end of WW2--the social pathologies of the West were metastasizing.. The end of the Cold War and then the heady Neocon triumph of Desert Storm masked what was going on, but we are now beginning to see the results.
Given the copious amount of lies & propaganda from our own US leadership, how do we know for sure the intent & goals of other countries' leaders?
One thing I'm fairly sure of is that we've used King Dollar to maintain global autocracy for most of my life. I was kind of looking forward to moving along to a world where each countries' strengths & resources make up the basis of negotiation & exchange between each other, but maybe that's hopelessly simplistic? Do we have to or even need to have just one common currency across the globe? This article (title) seems to say yes, but I'm not sure if that's true, or if the authors are so indoctrinated in "one global currency" ideology they can't think outside of that box? https://insiderpaper.com/brics-common-currency-replace-the-us-dollar/
I sorta laugh to think on Mark's "transocracy" comment - if we went back to actually making use of our multitudes of resources in the US & Americans once again made things, teachers would have to start truly educating again & the last thing young folk would be pondering at the end of a long day of study & work is changing genders.
The Battle of the Pacific, the US Submarines did an amazing job. I can see the attrition part, but that was later abandoned for Island Hopping.
Finland joining NATO puzzles me, I just don't see how this benefits Finland. I guess the theory for NATO, is it expands the border with Russia. Same with Sweden. I guess one benefit is virtue signaling, Russia Bad.
Twitter is seeing Substack Notes as a competitor, and does not want to drive traffic to it. Substack Links on Twitter are being blocked.
I think Follow the Money applies to Finland’s joining NATO. Finland and Russia have shared a forever border. Why NATO, why now? Let’s ask the dimwits who serve as negotiators for the Land of the Free. You know them - the ones who give away dollars they don’t have, to make your dollar worthless.
Also on the Twitter Substack feud… Taibbi is pissed. He says he’s dropping Twitter and instead staying with Stack. He says most of his reads on Stack were a result of his Twitter posts.
Attrition wasn't actually abandoned--the purpose was accomplished in the Solomons campaign and New Guinea, but the principle of "leapfrogging" was simultaneously followed by simply isolating Rabaul. That was basically MacArthur's strategy. The "island hopping" was a strategy put forward by the Navy, and led to disproportionate casualties for small bits of island territory, most with not too much strategic value.
In that vein, from renowned Military Historian Max Hastings:
“On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."
Mark, who was interviewing McGregor? He was very interesting and knowledgeable on his own.
The name was "Tony," so I'm guessing Tony Schaffer, although I was unable to nail that down. The profile is a pretty exact fit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_officer)
Now we have both Merkel and former French President Francios Hollande confirming the us has been plotting a proxy war against Russia since 2014.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/04/08/about-that-new-york-times-story-concerning-the-online-leak-of-u-s-military-and-geopolitical-intentions/
https://news.yahoo.com/putin-disappointed-merkels-words-minsk-140859136.html
Impact:
Russia will only accept a peace where they have demilitarized Ukraine., and taken control of all Russian speaking areas. Basically Eastern Ukrain. Ukraine will be landlocked. I expect significant Russian gains with 6 months.
If the leak is true, Ukraine will have major issues by end of May.
Good read Mark. Thx.
Although I am a MacGregor fan in many ways I’m not a fan of those who criticize the actions of our people during World War 2. Maybe the Germans did suffer fewer dead at the Bulge. So what?? They lost. Maybe I’m missing the bigger picture but it irks me all the same.
As Ray-SoCa also explains, the issue has to do with US propensity to maintain ineffective military structures and strategies that leave us ill prepared for challenges we may face. In the past we could rely on two oceans to buy us time, and to some extent that remains true. But hypersonic missiles make that no longer as true as it was--and yet we continue throwing our weight around based on a military superiority that 1) we can't really afford--it was built on inflation--and 2) is increasingly debatable.
I don’t see it as disrespectful of the sacrifices of us troops in WW2, but just data to better understand the current options. After WW2 the us army studied a lot of German military theories, it was a big fad, even with them losing.
The headache is fake or slanted history influences a lot of present day actions. There is a lot of truth in the phrase “the victors write history”.
WW2, and even the civil war, have huge influences on how the US military fights today. The “victory” in Iraq does too.
Here are two pictures / videos (ala Scott Adam’s):
1. US / Western military technology and training are superior to Russian forces, and are helping the Ukrainian’s inflict heavy casualties against superior numbers. Quality over quantity is a huge winner. Russia will collapse any day from the sanctions, and just a few more are needed. Putin is sick, and a coup could happen any day.
2. Western Equipment is fragile, over priced, and not that effective. Hypersonic missiles, ecm / electronic warfare, industrial warfare, a 10x artillery advantage are allowing the Russians at 1/10 the casualties to slowly grind through huge lines of fortifications and overwhelming Western C4ISR support. The West is winning the propaganda war, but losing the economic war. Russia is actually in better shape due to the sanctions, that are causing a lot of pain in Europe.
I’m very worried the US has a military that focuses on pricey technologies (uss ford, f-35, lcs, etc) that don’t work and only benefits the defense industry, and has a woke leadership that will lead to a lot of U.S. casualties if we get into a real war. And our elites are blind to this, and full of hubris. To paraphrase, They are talking loudly, and carrying a little stick.
I agree with the last paragraph for sure.
Given the likely Russian victory in Ukraine (& versus NATO, US petro-dollar status, energy-hegemony), a humble question: are the MAGA options now less dependent on Trump, in the sense that in 2016 DJT was a singular force against WEF-style globalism? (CCP-style globalism remains, and to me puts Russia and CCP on an ultimately divergent & antagonistic path.) Were Trump to become #47, does the outcome in Ukraine give him a freer hand to focus on US domestic issues?
That would certainly be the hope. The question that remains is draining the swamp--sweeping out the dead wood of Neocon / globalist ideology from their bureaucratic sinecures. To do that I believe change in the Senate is required.
I would think so. Message around all the damage done domestically sprinkle in some China saber rattling too. Questions will be how is messages delivered and how received? Don’t count on MSM.
WW2 was a great power war with comparable technology with advances in different areas by various nations. Russia suffered massive casualties as did the Chinese. They fought the bulk of the Germans and Japanese armies, respectively. We entered late and had massive manufacturing to replace equipment. Plus we supplied the Allies with equipment while they bought time and spent blood. It seems that in any future great power war there will be a mix of technological advancements by the various combatants. The Chinese are ready to be the arsenal of autocracy. The Russians are manufacturing and perhaps they will be the farm, fuel, and mines of autocracy. Will Europe be neutral or will they tell us that we are nuts and join with the rest of the ‘World Island?’ With a great deal of wealth and technology? How long until our ‘leadership’ understands that the Chinese will not sell us all of the things we need to fight the next war? Perhaps when their children are dying from infections curable if only antibiotic ma were still available. Antibiotics? Churchill had pneumonia during WW2. The sulfa was from a British company, using German technology. Would Adolf have filled the prescription? How long can we hold out without medications from China and India? Will we experience a post-antibiotic age? Will we have the will to fight while experiencing life without antibiotics? This is just one aspect of not having a manufacturing base. Can we even sustain our military long enough to fight for a year in a high intensity conflict? If we can’t have we lost deterrence?
D.M. Makes clear to me we got no chance… not in our current state.
Something catastrophic has to occur first. Followed by a decade of recovery.
I think that's a valid perspective, with much more to be added. Clearly by the mid 60s--twenty years after the end of WW2--the social pathologies of the West were metastasizing.. The end of the Cold War and then the heady Neocon triumph of Desert Storm masked what was going on, but we are now beginning to see the results.
Given the copious amount of lies & propaganda from our own US leadership, how do we know for sure the intent & goals of other countries' leaders?
One thing I'm fairly sure of is that we've used King Dollar to maintain global autocracy for most of my life. I was kind of looking forward to moving along to a world where each countries' strengths & resources make up the basis of negotiation & exchange between each other, but maybe that's hopelessly simplistic? Do we have to or even need to have just one common currency across the globe? This article (title) seems to say yes, but I'm not sure if that's true, or if the authors are so indoctrinated in "one global currency" ideology they can't think outside of that box? https://insiderpaper.com/brics-common-currency-replace-the-us-dollar/
I sorta laugh to think on Mark's "transocracy" comment - if we went back to actually making use of our multitudes of resources in the US & Americans once again made things, teachers would have to start truly educating again & the last thing young folk would be pondering at the end of a long day of study & work is changing genders.
Meanwhile we've already become the arsenal of transocracy.
Wow on the Battle of the Bulge Casualties.
The Battle of the Pacific, the US Submarines did an amazing job. I can see the attrition part, but that was later abandoned for Island Hopping.
Finland joining NATO puzzles me, I just don't see how this benefits Finland. I guess the theory for NATO, is it expands the border with Russia. Same with Sweden. I guess one benefit is virtue signaling, Russia Bad.
Twitter is seeing Substack Notes as a competitor, and does not want to drive traffic to it. Substack Links on Twitter are being blocked.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/113342440
I think Follow the Money applies to Finland’s joining NATO. Finland and Russia have shared a forever border. Why NATO, why now? Let’s ask the dimwits who serve as negotiators for the Land of the Free. You know them - the ones who give away dollars they don’t have, to make your dollar worthless.
Also on the Twitter Substack feud… Taibbi is pissed. He says he’s dropping Twitter and instead staying with Stack. He says most of his reads on Stack were a result of his Twitter posts.
And Finland torched their non-aggression pact they had with Russia for decades to join NATO with an army of 25K strong.
Attrition wasn't actually abandoned--the purpose was accomplished in the Solomons campaign and New Guinea, but the principle of "leapfrogging" was simultaneously followed by simply isolating Rabaul. That was basically MacArthur's strategy. The "island hopping" was a strategy put forward by the Navy, and led to disproportionate casualties for small bits of island territory, most with not too much strategic value.
Ray -
“Wow on the Battle of the Bulge Casualties.”
In that vein, from renowned Military Historian Max Hastings:
“On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
But what about vision? What about age? How much can they relax this?? I want in too!!! LOL
Hell, yes...Top Gut, sign me up!