I borrowed that title from an article by M. K. Bhadrakumar—more from him later. The point is that there’s an almost palpable sense that the conflict in Ukraine is moving inexorably towards an endgame. That doesn’t mean this week or this month. It may not happen until next year, but since Vilnius the signs keep accumulating.
I don’t see Putin doing anything that shortsighted. He’s holding four aces and the Neocons are sucking canal water. They pretty much came unarmed to a battle of wits, and their undoing will be a sight to behold. The wildcard remains, are they willing to go nuclear?
“Therefore, Russia will want facts on the ground to anchor a peace, and the only way to obtain those facts on the ground is through warfare.” MKB
Right - facts vs delusional, narrative-weaving thinking. Do we really think that after goading and poking the Bear to invade (using “sovereignty” and the whole hit parade of rules-based-order nonsense), that we could click our heels together and all would be well, the Russians would saunter to the negotiating table and duly submit to their punishment?? Also, very bad news about Nuland failing upwards.
NB - a concise clear and compelling history of our poking, over the last 30+ years - I’ve had to refer to this due to family members who all cry out in unison, “but Putin!” Funny, it’s either Trump or Putin, both evil dictators, never facts…
However this mess finally shakes out, I don’t see the neocons giving up their delusional take on reality without pitching a fit and that’s what bothers me. Just how far are they willing to before they finally relent.? I’m still not completely convinced that they have ruled out a nuclear engagement.
Scary to think that people so bereft of common sense are in such powerful positions.
In the dictionary, negotiation comes after annihilation. Putin would be crazy to make any deals before the Ukrainian army and NATO are entirely neutered. If Nuland really is the main player in the State Dept, she will soon be up to her old tricks if Putin lets her.
...because USAID-orchestrated privatization worked out so well for Russia in the early '90s. Same exact cabal buying on the cheap, no doubt, while touting their investment in Western "norms," Slava Ukraini and all that good sh!t.
Looks like the Russians are taking the gloves off - at last! I wonder how much of Ukraine they'll need to take over? There's no guarantee that a rump Ukraine state can be made to stay neutral.
I rather think that Putin is abandoned hope of Ukraine as a buffer state. If that is true, then he needs to take enough of Ukraine to create a militarized buffer.
But there is danger in that strategy, as Lukashenko discussed recently, namely that over-rumping Ukraine risks western Ukraine being taken by Poland and encircling southwest Belarus.
I agree, but the devil is in the details. How, with the West's complete untrustworthiness, would Putin guarantee a strong, neutral, demilitarized Ukraine? This would only happen with a complete change in mindset in the West.
In theory, yes, Rascal. In practice, I think the neocons have invested so much in this that for them too it's existential. NATO is a US tool. If it is humiliated (even further!), it's one more nail in the coffin of US hegemony.
I'd definitely take issue with Mearshimer on that. It's existential for Russia because the West has made no bones about its intent to subjugate Russia and loot it--it's intent is a return to the Yeltsin years. That's existential for any nation. The Russian people know that.
Existential for the US? In what conceivable sense? Russia isn't coming across the Atlantic/Pacific to subjugate the US. Is it existential for the Neocons? No. They'll live to direct US policy another day. Support for this war in the US--the only country that matters--is a mile wide and an inch deep. You can see that in the support that Trump and RFK are getting.
I still get the feeling that for the globalists and neocons, crushing Russia is existential. They see her and China as their biggest obstacles to maintaining and extending hegemony. Ukraine itself is existential to the extent that it is the best option at present at really get back at Russia.
I think most people agree with you, Mark: its not existential for the US. But to make a fine point, Mearsheimer's point isn't whether the war is existential for the US (and NATO), I think his point is that the leaders of the US and NATO think it is. And that, Mearsheimer submits, is what matters and that is why he is pessimistic about a happy ending.
It's an unsettling insight into how people who seek power for power's sake operate. If a reasonably normal person was in charge of America, maybe they would be realistic enough to accept US decline and attempt to reshape the country as just one of many important nations. However, for the psychopaths in charge of us, that reduced global status would never suffice. It's Number One or nothing for them.
I thought Nuland had been sidelined from the number 2 spot.? As Donald Rumsfeld used to say, “ that’s not helpful”!
There are so many balls in the air right now that I don’t think anyone has a clue where things are headed. Not a good situation when you have the village idiot play acting as President and apt to say or do just about anything before his handlers can stop him. What could possibly go wrong?
I've heard that the negotiations aren't going anyway. The West is proposing completely unrealistic things and Russia isn't interested. The hypersonic diplomacy will continue until the West comes to its senses.
The British elite actually believe that world peace can be achieved through English-speaking hegemony. They have been pursuing this agenda for well over 100 years, and it led directly to both world wars. I do not think a few hundred thousand casualties here and there mean much to them.
I was talking to a Danish friend (very anti-Putin) recently. He was wearing a t-shirt with a silkscreen image of a beach in Thailand. I remarked that the Danes love Thailand, don't they? My friend said, Well we used to, but its all Russians and Chinese now at the beach resorts. I said, So what's the problem? He said, Well the Russians, in particular, ruin it. They come with enormous families. They take all the chairs on the beach. They take all the food from the buffet table and they play annoying Russian music and talk too loud. They are really intolerable. They have ruined Thailand.
How much of the anti-Russian mindset in Europe is simply cultural?
The difference between Russia and America seems to be that from what I have read Russia is concerned with what their public thinks. Our government isn't.
You can predict the West's negotiation stances. We're moving from "dismantlement of Russia", through "Freeze the war" to "Can we at least keep Starbucks open in Lviv?"
Putin likes to follow the law but I see no reason, what with the illegal ways in which Russia has been treated by the "international community", why he would respect these contracts made with an illegitimate Kiev regime.
Pushed the wrong button, comment was a reply to “21”. Sorry.
I don’t see Putin doing anything that shortsighted. He’s holding four aces and the Neocons are sucking canal water. They pretty much came unarmed to a battle of wits, and their undoing will be a sight to behold. The wildcard remains, are they willing to go nuclear?
“Therefore, Russia will want facts on the ground to anchor a peace, and the only way to obtain those facts on the ground is through warfare.” MKB
Right - facts vs delusional, narrative-weaving thinking. Do we really think that after goading and poking the Bear to invade (using “sovereignty” and the whole hit parade of rules-based-order nonsense), that we could click our heels together and all would be well, the Russians would saunter to the negotiating table and duly submit to their punishment?? Also, very bad news about Nuland failing upwards.
NB - a concise clear and compelling history of our poking, over the last 30+ years - I’ve had to refer to this due to family members who all cry out in unison, “but Putin!” Funny, it’s either Trump or Putin, both evil dictators, never facts…
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/not-one-inch-brief-review-archives-nato-expansion
For others who could use some meaning in history!
Ooops, should read “to go”.
However this mess finally shakes out, I don’t see the neocons giving up their delusional take on reality without pitching a fit and that’s what bothers me. Just how far are they willing to before they finally relent.? I’m still not completely convinced that they have ruled out a nuclear engagement.
Scary to think that people so bereft of common sense are in such powerful positions.
In the dictionary, negotiation comes after annihilation. Putin would be crazy to make any deals before the Ukrainian army and NATO are entirely neutered. If Nuland really is the main player in the State Dept, she will soon be up to her old tricks if Putin lets her.
I wonder if they have anything I’d want to buy.
...because USAID-orchestrated privatization worked out so well for Russia in the early '90s. Same exact cabal buying on the cheap, no doubt, while touting their investment in Western "norms," Slava Ukraini and all that good sh!t.
I see it as Ukrainian scavengers see the end is near, and want to steal as much as possible:
> Western scavangers also appear to be active
Looks like the Russians are taking the gloves off - at last! I wonder how much of Ukraine they'll need to take over? There's no guarantee that a rump Ukraine state can be made to stay neutral.
I rather think that Putin is abandoned hope of Ukraine as a buffer state. If that is true, then he needs to take enough of Ukraine to create a militarized buffer.
But there is danger in that strategy, as Lukashenko discussed recently, namely that over-rumping Ukraine risks western Ukraine being taken by Poland and encircling southwest Belarus.
I agree, but the devil is in the details. How, with the West's complete untrustworthiness, would Putin guarantee a strong, neutral, demilitarized Ukraine? This would only happen with a complete change in mindset in the West.
In theory, yes, Rascal. In practice, I think the neocons have invested so much in this that for them too it's existential. NATO is a US tool. If it is humiliated (even further!), it's one more nail in the coffin of US hegemony.
This is what Mearsheimer wrote in his most recently lengthy article: that it has become 'existential' for both sides.
I'd definitely take issue with Mearshimer on that. It's existential for Russia because the West has made no bones about its intent to subjugate Russia and loot it--it's intent is a return to the Yeltsin years. That's existential for any nation. The Russian people know that.
Existential for the US? In what conceivable sense? Russia isn't coming across the Atlantic/Pacific to subjugate the US. Is it existential for the Neocons? No. They'll live to direct US policy another day. Support for this war in the US--the only country that matters--is a mile wide and an inch deep. You can see that in the support that Trump and RFK are getting.
I still get the feeling that for the globalists and neocons, crushing Russia is existential. They see her and China as their biggest obstacles to maintaining and extending hegemony. Ukraine itself is existential to the extent that it is the best option at present at really get back at Russia.
I think most people agree with you, Mark: its not existential for the US. But to make a fine point, Mearsheimer's point isn't whether the war is existential for the US (and NATO), I think his point is that the leaders of the US and NATO think it is. And that, Mearsheimer submits, is what matters and that is why he is pessimistic about a happy ending.
It's an unsettling insight into how people who seek power for power's sake operate. If a reasonably normal person was in charge of America, maybe they would be realistic enough to accept US decline and attempt to reshape the country as just one of many important nations. However, for the psychopaths in charge of us, that reduced global status would never suffice. It's Number One or nothing for them.
I.e. 'existential'. For them.
I thought Nuland had been sidelined from the number 2 spot.? As Donald Rumsfeld used to say, “ that’s not helpful”!
There are so many balls in the air right now that I don’t think anyone has a clue where things are headed. Not a good situation when you have the village idiot play acting as President and apt to say or do just about anything before his handlers can stop him. What could possibly go wrong?
Turtle didn’t look on top of things today. Pulled a Biden and had to be helped from the podium.
That's yet another way in which we've traded places with the old USSR: we're run by a gerontocracy.
I've heard that the negotiations aren't going anyway. The West is proposing completely unrealistic things and Russia isn't interested. The hypersonic diplomacy will continue until the West comes to its senses.
And imagine what the Russians think of them.
Boris Johnson is a war criminal.
BJ is known as a congenital liar. He was sacked from The Times (London) for making up quotations. He's probably a psychopath.
The British elite actually believe that world peace can be achieved through English-speaking hegemony. They have been pursuing this agenda for well over 100 years, and it led directly to both world wars. I do not think a few hundred thousand casualties here and there mean much to them.
There's US neocon delusion...and then there's British elite delusion.
I guess I don’t know what is so bad about Russia compared to the current state of America. Seems like the government lies less in Russia
I was talking to a Danish friend (very anti-Putin) recently. He was wearing a t-shirt with a silkscreen image of a beach in Thailand. I remarked that the Danes love Thailand, don't they? My friend said, Well we used to, but its all Russians and Chinese now at the beach resorts. I said, So what's the problem? He said, Well the Russians, in particular, ruin it. They come with enormous families. They take all the chairs on the beach. They take all the food from the buffet table and they play annoying Russian music and talk too loud. They are really intolerable. They have ruined Thailand.
How much of the anti-Russian mindset in Europe is simply cultural?
The difference between Russia and America seems to be that from what I have read Russia is concerned with what their public thinks. Our government isn't.
You can predict the West's negotiation stances. We're moving from "dismantlement of Russia", through "Freeze the war" to "Can we at least keep Starbucks open in Lviv?"
Right. Corresponding to the Stages of Denial.
Thanks for that update.
That's still bad news. However, in the long run, she won't come out of this with her reputation (such as it is) enhanced.
Putin likes to follow the law but I see no reason, what with the illegal ways in which Russia has been treated by the "international community", why he would respect these contracts made with an illegitimate Kiev regime.