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:
Slightly off topic, but of interest (correct summary of facts & hilariously delivered) is Julie Kelly's substack (https://www.declassified.live/p/one-doj-official-could-have-stopped) how Jack Smith, during his 2010-2015 tenure as head of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section (I kid you not) could have / should have exposed the Zhou/Hunter corruption show. Julie crafts a credibility crushing narrative while being very inside baseball funny. Tidbit - she quotes Andrew Weissman commenting on Jack Smith's bona fides as being "a consummate professional"; why yes, and Andrew would certainly know ;-)
The Moscow Times? A spinoff of the Financial Times - although clearly an out and out propaganda machine for the arch-evil Putin crowd, as well as portraying the US as involved in some very serious head-scratching, trying to put “lipstick on a pig” - ie the debacle of our decades-old policy to weaken and destroy Russia. And suddenly it’s time to distance Russia from China? Wait, wasn’t their renewed friendship a direct result of our out-of-control Nato meddling and war-mongering (cf G Keenan’s warning)?? Boomeranged on us. Haas and company should realize that no amount of Chanel raisin rouge is goong to fool the Russians.
Right. MT = Neoconnish. Mercouris has a good segment on that article, deeper than I did. Haass is not simply China bad. China has always been the endgame for the Neocons. Russia was and is part of the way to that end. Nuland and company thought they could do that by proxy war--and let's be clear, that was the universal Neocon position for two decades. Putin has to go so we can control Russia against China. Now Haass, who is likely behind the "negotiations", is trying to finesse the debacle. He's not more reasonable.
How is the pivot to China the neocon end game? They want Russia’s assets, not friendship and an alliance. The neocons want to destroy Russia, but find themselves in a classic overreach scenario. Besides these same neocons and our politicians (many are one and the same) are so in bed with China much of our industrial base is now in China. The U.S. has shot itself in the foot with this neocon war on Russia. China is nothing more than a distraction from their great mistake. A conflict with China would sever that source of wealth they all depend on.
The Neocons see China as the major threat to US global hegemony--ask any of them and they'll tell you. Therefore they need China to be kept in its place. The very first thing the Neocons did once Zhou was installed was to hold that big pow-wow with China in Alaska and Blinken tried to put them in their place. They've been continually talking up war with China.
If that’s the case, Mark help me understand why they keep allowing China to buy hard U.S. assets, steal our classified secrets (with their help) and our corporate class continue to off shore our production to China? Not only that they go hat in hand bowing and scraping to get them to buy even more bonds? How can we see ourselves as the world’s hegemon when our debt is so high, our turn toward financialization and tech gadgets while producing useless military hardware and reducing our population into poverty through ever more debt fueling inflation. My sense says we are negotiating from a position of weakness while promising to give China control of our country through stealth, propaganda and an elite who do not care just as long as they continue to get richer and buy bigger yachts? Nothing makes sense.
Yes, I saw the Mercouris segment. He was almost (!) at a loss for words, but of course he found le mot juste! As you say, and as M reminds us, these people are not realists.
OT: I've been thinking these days that Joe Biden increasingly reminds me of Bernie Madoff. Both complete and utter frauds. Both utterly fake. And Jill Biden reminds me of Ruth Madoff. She's all in with Joe, as Ruth was with Bernie. Until the boom falls and she discovers what the full impact of their 50 year grift will turn out to be. And poor, broken Hunter Biden reminds me of the Madoff's son, Mark, who couldn't escape the web of doom and hung himself. There is nothing good in store for this family.
Hannity isn't stupid, he had his narrative marching orders. When he lost control of the situation he knew he messed up. It is reassuring in the extreme that the audience is clearly well informed and took the position of a traditionally far left politician over a right wing commentator in this instance
It's just disappointing that Hannity did not speak appropriately to the circumstance; that, in this forum, called for measured words, calm consideration, and a lifting of the level of discourse. So he came across as a bomb-thrower - or revolutionary, or neocon - take your pick.
No doubt he has marching orders, but nah. He’s stupid. Did you watch those handoffs between Tucker and Hannity? The contrast between the two was stark enough to cause mental whiplash. Hannity never failed to cause me to groan or eyeroll.
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.
That's another one I've had open in a tab since yesterday. Another implicit point in the article is this. Not only did the war we prepared for never come--although the scare talk and propaganda fueled Tom Clancy's bank account--but it never was going to come. The Russians never planned to invade to the Atlantic. They wound up in a certain position after a traumatic Great Patriotic War, determined that they'd never be unprepared again and needed a buffer zone. Inertia set in, fueled by Western threats. Blame all around, but a lot of fantasy, too. The CIA war on the USSR in Ukraine certainly helped feed Russian concerns about America. Gary Powers--how many Russian spy planes overflew the US? Operation Gladio? Russians weren't without blame, but ...
Yes, and very interesting from a strictly military standpoint. Expeditionary warfare has rarely been a success against anything approaching a peer. When successful it has usually involved significant local participation. East India Co. etc.
Your discussion here and the related articles suggest that present day air defenses (i.e., Russia's air defense capabilities) have reached the point where offensive air power is effectively neutralized...do I have that right? And that offensive wars of aggression will have to be fought the old-fashioned way...inch by inch and trench by trench? (Or drone by drone?)
If this is the case, I'm not sure where the US Armed Woke Forces fits in in Eastern Europe...
I keep getting the feeling, watching, for example, Douglas Macgregor, that he believes it would take a 'real' army, comprised of real 'men' with 'boots on the ground', with real officers, and a real strategy, and real courage to defeat Russia on its doorstep and win a war in Ukraine.
But Anthony Blinken has announced to the world that American boots will never set foot on the ground in Ukraine...
That--paragraph 1--is about the size of it. Or to put it in a slightly different way. I think the idea being put forward is that conventional warfare between at least near peers has become something of a stalemate, a bit like in WW1--a comparison I've seen. Modern militaries, when properly trained and fully equipped, are capable of inflicting massive casualties on any offensive force--even in defeat. Russia's tactics reflect that understanding, and their entire military has been built upon that understanding.
In a case like Ukraine, where one side is lacking in certain capabilities--air defense being the prime factor--resulting in the other side having a distinct advantage, the conflict resolves into one of attrition. One difference today is that few Western countries have the type of manpower reserves that they possessed going into the two world wars. That includes Russia. Further, the training required in a modern military is too intensive that manpower is too valuable to be sacrificed willy nilly. The West assumed that Russia didn't understand that, but they do. Russia will not sacrifice a generation of too scarce young men for the sake of a quick victory.
Re Macgregor, he continues to predict that the Russians will launch the kind of tank offensive that he led against the Iraqi forces. My speculative view is that the Russians will continue to attrit the Ukrainians, simply because the Ukrainians retain enough firepower to inflict more casualties than the Russians are willing to accept in that kind of offensive--at this point. As Scott Ritter has put it, the Ukrainian army was the second best NATO army going into the war. They can't be discounted. It's about casualties at this point, not so much about capabilities.
I never thought about why the U.S. thinks it has the right to fly over other countries.
Rules Based Order explains that, which means that ideology goes back to the 50’s when the U2 was developed. Korean War, Berlin Air Lift, loss of China that heralded the start of the Cold War.
Actually, I've had that article open in a tab since yesterday and meant to at least link it. Very familiar with it, followed it for years. To me had the ring of truth.
In the course of my totally unsatisfying attempts to discuss the lies and corruption and criminality of the Dems, Deep State, RINOs, MSM, etc over the past seven or so years with various family members and 'friends', I have tried to make the case that...as a highly educated and very thoughtful (to a fault) person...who reads voraciously...whose very survival as a practicing lawyer for 45 years depended on sussing out the truth of a matter by listening carefully to both sides...I have developed a pretty reliable BS meter. As you put it, I have pretty well-honed 'truth' instincts. In other words, my conclusions are pretty well grounded in actual facts.
Yet, as far as my sister or my nephew is concerned, I am simply a gullible consumer of fake Fox News and that master of news infotainment, Tucker Carlson. Its really pretty insulting. :-)
Get that. My brother-in-law doesn't trust my "sources." Dyed-in-the-wool Democrat liberal. The issue though is that we have also been lied to by our "side," not just the liberals by theirs. And they see the lies we once believed (and some still do), just as we see the lies they still believe. Clearing that muck is a mess. Keep trying!!
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.
My divorce was finalized in March 2022 with the head cheerleaders, Levin and Hannity, on camera proclamations of being "ashamed" of the US response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that we will look back with regret and wonder "why didn't we do more" (Levin) and suggestions that Putin be assassinated and that NATO should bomb Russian troops (Hannity).
I had a flashback reading the Hannity quote. My intelligent, educated, professional, liberal, white, suburban "friend" used almost the exact verbiage, ruining a pleasant carb feast of pizza. The catalyst was her using the word "unprovoked", and my impulsive attempt to counter that. I knew better than to feed the beast by responding. I'm blaming the carbs. She isn't a Fox News fan and because she's "educated", not a former house painter turned media mouthpiece, used the word tyrant rather than thug.
That kind of propaganda is standard fare in war. The opponent is always ultimate evil, so we can feel good about the evil that we do. Now, of course, the Left has extended that type of discourse to cultural differences as war, as well. Words as "violence", conservatives as ignorant and subhuman. Etc.
Slightly off topic, but of interest (correct summary of facts & hilariously delivered) is Julie Kelly's substack (https://www.declassified.live/p/one-doj-official-could-have-stopped) how Jack Smith, during his 2010-2015 tenure as head of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section (I kid you not) could have / should have exposed the Zhou/Hunter corruption show. Julie crafts a credibility crushing narrative while being very inside baseball funny. Tidbit - she quotes Andrew Weissman commenting on Jack Smith's bona fides as being "a consummate professional"; why yes, and Andrew would certainly know ;-)
The Moscow Times? A spinoff of the Financial Times - although clearly an out and out propaganda machine for the arch-evil Putin crowd, as well as portraying the US as involved in some very serious head-scratching, trying to put “lipstick on a pig” - ie the debacle of our decades-old policy to weaken and destroy Russia. And suddenly it’s time to distance Russia from China? Wait, wasn’t their renewed friendship a direct result of our out-of-control Nato meddling and war-mongering (cf G Keenan’s warning)?? Boomeranged on us. Haas and company should realize that no amount of Chanel raisin rouge is goong to fool the Russians.
Right. MT = Neoconnish. Mercouris has a good segment on that article, deeper than I did. Haass is not simply China bad. China has always been the endgame for the Neocons. Russia was and is part of the way to that end. Nuland and company thought they could do that by proxy war--and let's be clear, that was the universal Neocon position for two decades. Putin has to go so we can control Russia against China. Now Haass, who is likely behind the "negotiations", is trying to finesse the debacle. He's not more reasonable.
How is the pivot to China the neocon end game? They want Russia’s assets, not friendship and an alliance. The neocons want to destroy Russia, but find themselves in a classic overreach scenario. Besides these same neocons and our politicians (many are one and the same) are so in bed with China much of our industrial base is now in China. The U.S. has shot itself in the foot with this neocon war on Russia. China is nothing more than a distraction from their great mistake. A conflict with China would sever that source of wealth they all depend on.
The Neocons see China as the major threat to US global hegemony--ask any of them and they'll tell you. Therefore they need China to be kept in its place. The very first thing the Neocons did once Zhou was installed was to hold that big pow-wow with China in Alaska and Blinken tried to put them in their place. They've been continually talking up war with China.
If that’s the case, Mark help me understand why they keep allowing China to buy hard U.S. assets, steal our classified secrets (with their help) and our corporate class continue to off shore our production to China? Not only that they go hat in hand bowing and scraping to get them to buy even more bonds? How can we see ourselves as the world’s hegemon when our debt is so high, our turn toward financialization and tech gadgets while producing useless military hardware and reducing our population into poverty through ever more debt fueling inflation. My sense says we are negotiating from a position of weakness while promising to give China control of our country through stealth, propaganda and an elite who do not care just as long as they continue to get richer and buy bigger yachts? Nothing makes sense.
"allowing China to buy hard U.S. assets, steal our classified secrets (with their help)"
If China pays for what they buy and if we help them obtain our "classified secrets", how is that stealing?
Yes, I saw the Mercouris segment. He was almost (!) at a loss for words, but of course he found le mot juste! As you say, and as M reminds us, these people are not realists.
OT: I've been thinking these days that Joe Biden increasingly reminds me of Bernie Madoff. Both complete and utter frauds. Both utterly fake. And Jill Biden reminds me of Ruth Madoff. She's all in with Joe, as Ruth was with Bernie. Until the boom falls and she discovers what the full impact of their 50 year grift will turn out to be. And poor, broken Hunter Biden reminds me of the Madoff's son, Mark, who couldn't escape the web of doom and hung himself. There is nothing good in store for this family.
Biden makes Madoff seem honest
Very astute comparison.
Hannity isn't stupid, he had his narrative marching orders. When he lost control of the situation he knew he messed up. It is reassuring in the extreme that the audience is clearly well informed and took the position of a traditionally far left politician over a right wing commentator in this instance
It's just disappointing that Hannity did not speak appropriately to the circumstance; that, in this forum, called for measured words, calm consideration, and a lifting of the level of discourse. So he came across as a bomb-thrower - or revolutionary, or neocon - take your pick.
No doubt he has marching orders, but nah. He’s stupid. Did you watch those handoffs between Tucker and Hannity? The contrast between the two was stark enough to cause mental whiplash. Hannity never failed to cause me to groan or eyeroll.
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.
That's another one I've had open in a tab since yesterday. Another implicit point in the article is this. Not only did the war we prepared for never come--although the scare talk and propaganda fueled Tom Clancy's bank account--but it never was going to come. The Russians never planned to invade to the Atlantic. They wound up in a certain position after a traumatic Great Patriotic War, determined that they'd never be unprepared again and needed a buffer zone. Inertia set in, fueled by Western threats. Blame all around, but a lot of fantasy, too. The CIA war on the USSR in Ukraine certainly helped feed Russian concerns about America. Gary Powers--how many Russian spy planes overflew the US? Operation Gladio? Russians weren't without blame, but ...
Yes, and very interesting from a strictly military standpoint. Expeditionary warfare has rarely been a success against anything approaching a peer. When successful it has usually involved significant local participation. East India Co. etc.
@Ray
@Mark
Your discussion here and the related articles suggest that present day air defenses (i.e., Russia's air defense capabilities) have reached the point where offensive air power is effectively neutralized...do I have that right? And that offensive wars of aggression will have to be fought the old-fashioned way...inch by inch and trench by trench? (Or drone by drone?)
If this is the case, I'm not sure where the US Armed Woke Forces fits in in Eastern Europe...
I keep getting the feeling, watching, for example, Douglas Macgregor, that he believes it would take a 'real' army, comprised of real 'men' with 'boots on the ground', with real officers, and a real strategy, and real courage to defeat Russia on its doorstep and win a war in Ukraine.
But Anthony Blinken has announced to the world that American boots will never set foot on the ground in Ukraine...
That--paragraph 1--is about the size of it. Or to put it in a slightly different way. I think the idea being put forward is that conventional warfare between at least near peers has become something of a stalemate, a bit like in WW1--a comparison I've seen. Modern militaries, when properly trained and fully equipped, are capable of inflicting massive casualties on any offensive force--even in defeat. Russia's tactics reflect that understanding, and their entire military has been built upon that understanding.
In a case like Ukraine, where one side is lacking in certain capabilities--air defense being the prime factor--resulting in the other side having a distinct advantage, the conflict resolves into one of attrition. One difference today is that few Western countries have the type of manpower reserves that they possessed going into the two world wars. That includes Russia. Further, the training required in a modern military is too intensive that manpower is too valuable to be sacrificed willy nilly. The West assumed that Russia didn't understand that, but they do. Russia will not sacrifice a generation of too scarce young men for the sake of a quick victory.
Re Macgregor, he continues to predict that the Russians will launch the kind of tank offensive that he led against the Iraqi forces. My speculative view is that the Russians will continue to attrit the Ukrainians, simply because the Ukrainians retain enough firepower to inflict more casualties than the Russians are willing to accept in that kind of offensive--at this point. As Scott Ritter has put it, the Ukrainian army was the second best NATO army going into the war. They can't be discounted. It's about casualties at this point, not so much about capabilities.
I never thought about why the U.S. thinks it has the right to fly over other countries.
Rules Based Order explains that, which means that ideology goes back to the 50’s when the U2 was developed. Korean War, Berlin Air Lift, loss of China that heralded the start of the Cold War.
Troubling if true:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/our_government_has_been_covering_up_its_crimes_for_a_very_long_time.html
Supposedly Sibel Edmonds uncovered a lot of dirt and got fired in her 7 months as a translator after 9-11 with the fbi.
More on her, older stuff:
https://sibeledmonds.blogspot.com/?m=1
And more details:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
Actually, I've had that article open in a tab since yesterday and meant to at least link it. Very familiar with it, followed it for years. To me had the ring of truth.
@Mystic
Exactly.
In the course of my totally unsatisfying attempts to discuss the lies and corruption and criminality of the Dems, Deep State, RINOs, MSM, etc over the past seven or so years with various family members and 'friends', I have tried to make the case that...as a highly educated and very thoughtful (to a fault) person...who reads voraciously...whose very survival as a practicing lawyer for 45 years depended on sussing out the truth of a matter by listening carefully to both sides...I have developed a pretty reliable BS meter. As you put it, I have pretty well-honed 'truth' instincts. In other words, my conclusions are pretty well grounded in actual facts.
Yet, as far as my sister or my nephew is concerned, I am simply a gullible consumer of fake Fox News and that master of news infotainment, Tucker Carlson. Its really pretty insulting. :-)
Get that. My brother-in-law doesn't trust my "sources." Dyed-in-the-wool Democrat liberal. The issue though is that we have also been lied to by our "side," not just the liberals by theirs. And they see the lies we once believed (and some still do), just as we see the lies they still believe. Clearing that muck is a mess. Keep trying!!
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.
My divorce was finalized in March 2022 with the head cheerleaders, Levin and Hannity, on camera proclamations of being "ashamed" of the US response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that we will look back with regret and wonder "why didn't we do more" (Levin) and suggestions that Putin be assassinated and that NATO should bomb Russian troops (Hannity).
I had a flashback reading the Hannity quote. My intelligent, educated, professional, liberal, white, suburban "friend" used almost the exact verbiage, ruining a pleasant carb feast of pizza. The catalyst was her using the word "unprovoked", and my impulsive attempt to counter that. I knew better than to feed the beast by responding. I'm blaming the carbs. She isn't a Fox News fan and because she's "educated", not a former house painter turned media mouthpiece, used the word tyrant rather than thug.
You captured this buffoon quite well and gave me a good laugh.
That kind of propaganda is standard fare in war. The opponent is always ultimate evil, so we can feel good about the evil that we do. Now, of course, the Left has extended that type of discourse to cultural differences as war, as well. Words as "violence", conservatives as ignorant and subhuman. Etc.
What is the process for getting a new VP once the current VP becomes a president?
President can nominate. Majority vote in House and Senate.
Yep. We still think we're "the International Community". We aren't. The other 90% of the planet are.
There's some sense in that. Never interrupt an enemy when they are destroying themselves.