Rebranding A Frozen Conflict; GOP: Eek! We Never Said We Want Impeachment!
Yesterday we saw glimpses of an endgame in Ukraine. Today we see glimpses of denialism. The US appears to be trying to rebrand the “frozen conflict” narrative as an “open conflict”—which, of course, amounts to very much the same thing. The basic idea remains the same. The US is trying to convince Russia that the conflict in Ukraine is one that nobody can win, but one that NATO—meaning, America—can support indefinitely. So why not agree to just pretend it never happened—or maybe do some negotiating? Dave DeCamp discussed this not so new concept or narrative a couple of days ago:
US and Allies Preparing to Support an Open-Ended Conflict in Ukraine
It's unclear if the US and NATO policy of pouring billions of dollars in weapons into Ukraine is sustainable
Sustainable war mongering—now there’s an interesting concept! Is it or isn’t it? Judging from the openly mocking tone of Putin’s recent remarks, I think we know where he comes down on that. That doesn’t bode well for this ploy.
DeCamp’s article is based on a report from the WSJ, which openly stated that the US and its NATO vassals are worried over the “stalled” Ukrainian offensive:
The report said the US was hoping Ukraine would regain some territory and that would pave the way for a negotiated settlement, although the US has discouraged diplomacy throughout the war. “My hope is and my expectation is you’ll see that Ukraine makes significant progress on their offensive and it generates a negotiated settlement somewhere along the line,” President Biden said in Helsinki earlier this month.
But without significant Ukrainian gains, the West is preparing to support the proxy war against Russia for years to come. “The only real response is an industrial mobilization that will give Ukrainians, and the Russians, a clear message that the Ukrainians will always have plenty of what they need,” an unnamed Western diplomat told the Journal.
Industrial mobilization? That’s a laugh. It hasn’t started yet, and would take years to get going. As for giving Ukrainians “plenty of what they need”, to take one example, the Leopard 1 and French tanks are little more than glorified personnel carriers—a suicidal proposition on the Ukrainian battlefield. The same goes—only much more so—for the ubiquitous US M113 personnel carriers one sees in so many videos. They’re Vietnam War vintage and even then offered notoriously little protection. Even more frontline NATO equipment like the German Leopard 2 tanks and the US Bradley appear to be little more than target practice for Russia’s ‘Alligator’ attack helicopters.
The diplomat said that the US might have to accept that the war won’t end anytime soon. Biden administration officials have repeatedly said they’re willing to arm Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” but it’s unclear if the US and its NATO allies can sustain support for Ukraine as officials are warning Western military stockpiles are running low. Time is also on Russia’s side as potential political changes in the US could impact the level of support Ukraine receives.
The Journal report said a stalemate could bolster the argument of those inside the US who oppose supporting Ukraine in the conflict, although opposition to the policy of pouring tens of billions of dollars in weapons into Ukraine is still relatively small in Congress.
About that potential for political change, one suspects members of Congress may get an earful from their constituents over their vacation:
Hannity Visibly Frustrated As RFK Jr. Dismantles Ukraine Talking Points
… when the issue of Ukraine became a focal point during a town hall event Tuesday. It also didn't take long for RFK Jr. to win over the crowd. Hannity wasn't happy that RFK was "blaming America's role in this" for the Ukraine crisis...
Bobby Kennedy Jr had the Fox News audience on his side all night.
"You do not need to make an enemy out of Russia. We won the Cold War." pic.twitter.com/q6iiZ4n18M— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 26, 2023
Kennedy Jr. focused his comments on exposing NATO's role in pushing Moscow into a corner, given its historic expansion east and turning Ukraine into a proxy, but Hannity sought to interrupt him multiple times
…
"Well, let me answer your question," replied Kennedy Jr., who then accused the U.S. of sabotaging the Minsk agreements in 2014 and 2015, which aimed to end the Donbas war yet largely failed to stop the fighting between Russian separatists and Ukraine’s armed forces.
"Putin, in good faith, began withdrawing troops from the Ukraine. What happened? We sent Boris Johnson over there to torpedo it because we don’t want peace. We want the war with Russia," he argued, drawing applause from the audience.
Kennedy then harped on the clearly documented history of NATO expansion east, and further highlighted that Ukraine is undergoing NATO militarization right on Russia's border. There was also this moment:
Hannity: "Do you trust Putin? Why are you blaming America's role in this? Putin to me is an evil murdering dictator thug."
RFK Jr: "On two occasions the Russians tried to sign a peace agreement. You do not need to make an enemy out of Russia. We won the Cold War."
He also emphasized that Russia is going to do anything not to lose. "It would be like us losing a war to Mexico," RFK Jr. said. "They are not going to lose the war."
…
Hannity is so blatantly stupid it is astonishing. Nothing in his brain beyond memorized bumper stickers. How embarrassing that this is the best the MSM has to offer... https://t.co/QFhRoMcbkX
— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) July 26, 2023
Left-wing activist and academic firebrand Cornel West, who is also running for president, recently made a similar argument on CNN, stunning the mainstream media show host Kaitlin Collins.
As I observed not long ago, West must be giving establishment Dems nightmares. When RFK isn’t. In other words, Ukraine may be giving Dems nightmares every single night. And you can be sure that Trump is watching and developing his own strategy. As long as it takes? Don’t bet on that.
Now, are you ready for a good laugh? The Neoconnish pseudo-Russian Moscow Times has run a story that Zerohedge reprises:
Details Of Secret US-Russia Talks Revealed As Ukraine Counteroffensive In Bad Shape
The narrative that the Moscow Times is trying to propagate is that the US is seeking to spare Russia embarrasment, and that the Russians know they made a big mistake. And guess what? The US wants a strong Russia—to help the US in “other parts of the world” (that’s code for “China”).
Wanna buy a bridge? But tell me, who does it sound like is desperate for some kind of off ramp? It sounds to me like the US knows it screwed up—big time:
“We were given some access to the Kremlin’s thinking, though not as much as we would have liked.”
Translation: We’re winging on this. We really don’t have a clue.
From his vantage point, sitting across from senior Kremlin officials and advisers, it was apparent that the greatest issue was that the Russians were unable to articulate what exactly they wanted and needed.
“They don't know how to define victory or defeat. In fact, some of the elites to whom we spoke had never wanted the war in the first place, even saying it had been a complete mistake,” said the official.
“But now they’re at war — suffering a humiliating defeat is not an option for these guys.”
And now here’s a US first—working constructively with Russian national security concerns. Again, about that bridge …
“It was here that we made clear that the U.S. was prepared to work constructively with Russian national security concerns,” the official added, breaking from the official U.S. line of squeezing Russia financially and isolating it internationally so as to prevent it from continuing its war against Ukraine.
“An attempt to isolate and cripple Russia to the point of humiliation or collapse would make negotiating almost impossible — we are already seeing this in the reticence from Moscow officials,” he said.
Isolate and cripple Russia just a bit. Right. Putin will bite on that one. “A strong enough Russia.” In fact Russian power is something we could embrace. Gotta luv that one, too. Great line—the Russians will fall for that hook, line, and sinker—not!
“In fact, we emphasized that the U.S. needs, and will continue to need, a strong enough Russia to create stability along its periphery. The U.S. wants a Russia with strategic autonomy in order for the U.S. to advance diplomatic opportunities in Central Asia. We in the U.S. have to recognize that total victory in Europe could harm our interests in other areas of the world.
“Russian power,” the official concluded, “is not necessarily a bad thing.”
That’s some bad companions Kennedy and Paul are running with. The nuns warned us about that.
Hannity: “Putin to me is an evil murdering dictator thug." Poor Hannity, brain-dead spouter of playground slurs, deep in over-his-head territory and delusional enough to think he somehow belongs there.
Fascinating article, I think a reader posted a link to another article by the writer:
https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/round-two-there-is-no-round-two
His point is Nato Weapons were designed for basically retreating in a short, high intensity conflict. And if you are retreating logistics is not a huge focus.
And since WW2, all the Western War Experience has been against inferior foes. Not heavy artillery (ignoring Dien Bien Phu), but usually lightly armed and where the West had air superiority.
And there is a huge difference between Russian vs Western doctrine on airplane usage. And since the Russian doctrine is different, you won’t have massive dog fights to establish air superiority.
Very thought provoking.