First of all if that were true, Zelensky wouldn’t be increasing penalties for draft dodging and desertion. Second, the question for Americans isn’t whether Ukrainians should keep fighting or not; that’s not up to us. What is up to us is whether we keep arming them. And if you think that’s not the business of American citizens then we just have different perspectives on democracy.
last night in a Notes Q and A, I asked Adam Kinzinger whether he thought that the war in Ukraine was worth starting a nuclear conflict over. he replied:
"It’s worth ever bit of it. And it will end with the collapse of Russia..."
it's still up in his Notes thread.
this is the end game now guys. we managed to avoid nuclear war for 45 years during the Cold War...these psychopaths are completely deranged.
Hollis: FWIW, unlike the Cold War period, the Russian troops in Ukraine are not equipped with the protective equipment needed to fight on a radioactive battlefield.
Respectfully, Hollis, I heard an interview with retired General Jack Keene, the man Trump twice asked to be his Secretary of Defense. When asked about the possibility that Putin might escalate to use nuclear weapons, Keene noted that the Russian army currently wasn't equipped to fight in a nuclear environment and that it would take more than one nuclear weapon to have a significant military influence on the war. I thought it was an important question and that you deserved to hear Keene's answer.
It's not an unreasonable question and don't be performatively obtuse. You know what he was asking. Tell us what your foreign policy would be, especially vis-a-vis a Russian attack on a NATO state or Chinese attack on Taiwan.
I'll also add that your comment above about Zelensky increasing penalties for avoiding the draft is nonsensical, unless you also believe that the US shouldn't have enforced laws against draft dodging and desertion in the 20th century.
Either that comment has been edited or I accidentally responded to the wrong one. Because that wasn't the comment I was confused by. There was another reply that was incoherent.
If Russia attacked NATO it would be an act of war on the United States, obviously. China/Taiwan is too complicated to answer in a comment thread, I'd have to research and write another 5,000 word piece on it.
And no, the comment about Zelensky increasing penalties is not "nonsensical," it's clear evidence that there's a long-term problem with replenishing troops. Your comparison to the US draft is a complete non sequitur. I think you're the one being performatively obtuse.
Without America's abundant surplus arms, the Ukrainians can't keep resisting the illegal invasion. That's pretty obvious. So either you're being intentionally obtuse or actually believe an "America first" isolationist concept of democracy that the Ukrainians' existence as a nation and a people is "not up to us." It is up to us and the Free World.
BTW FDR couldn't allow draft dodging either, including guys who went to remove Hitler from Europe, which some thought was "none of America's business."
So then your position then is that since without us the Ukrainians cannot fight, we're morally obligated to arm them with whatever they need, however long they need it, until Russia packs up and goes home?
Good comprehension skills! We absolutely have a moral obligation to oppose and end genocide, war crimes, theft of land and resources, and enslavement of a people. Moreover, we made security guarantees to Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum, which was conveniently ignored, encouraging Putin. A significant fraction of our $800 billion a year to defend democracies around the world has yet to be supplied. And after the barbarians have left or been killed, we have a moral obligation to pursue a Marshall Plan. Making excuses to look away from evil is not my position and I hope it's not yours.
Yes, until the genocide ends, but preferably sooner than later. In fact, the United States has a moral obligation to end the suffering of the Ukrainians as soon as possible with a much more significant number, not the current token amounts, of Bradley fighting vehicles, Abrams tanks which still haven't arrived, F-16s also not yet there, ATACMS long-range missiles, and any number of fearsome weapons American taxpayers already bought to counter Russian aggression. Otherwise, we were just buying weapons to put into storage rather than defend self-determination, protect democracies, and stop true barbarity and evil. Do you think we should protect NATO members, South Korea, and Japan or should we allow dictators to have their way? Because we could have saved a lot of money.
I haven't followed that story, but tens of billions is peanuts when it comes to killing members of ISIS, some of the most evil people to stride the Earth. I don't think that the U.S. should have spent trillions invading Iraq to seek out nonexistent WMDs and then engaging in "democracy building." I do think that the U.S. was right to evict Saddam from Kuwait after his illegal invasion of a peaceful neighbor. I'm excited that you are curious about an ethical approach to the deployment of American's might and treasure. I don't fear a tactical purpose. Mine is the strength of ten because my heart is pure.
I followed the Syrian Revolution and civil war very closely when it was happening and was so morally outraged that I was actually quite pro-U.S. intervention, though I was always conflicted over the unknown, cascading consequences of action vs. the known costs of inaction. People who are of my view on Ukraine today in those days accused me of being some kind of warmonger. So it's not as if I don't understand the moral argument for humanitarian intervention. I'm not a pacifist. But in this case I think my views on what should be done now fundamentally flow from the fact that I'm convinced the counteroffensive has all but failed and a military victory for Ukraine is no longer possible. If I were shown evidence to the contrary, much of what I wrote in this article would still stand, but I would definitely need to sit down and rethink my conclusions about what the U.S. should do. I would reconsider my conviction that we should stop arming Ukraine. But I have not seen that evidence anywhere.
Former commander of US army Europe Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Ben Hodges is an informed source. His view is that the return of Crimea is vital to Ukraine's future.
When something like adequate combined arms are supplied to Ukraine, an actual counteroffensive can begin. A handful of British and French long-range missiles have already had devastating effects. Of course, with insufficient arms the Ukrainians will fail.
New contracts for arms, e.g., Abrams with nerfed armor and glide bomb kits (awarded to SAAB and Boeing, still not delivered) have been awarded while stockpiles haven't been drawn down. Biden reversed his decision on our secret armor and agreed to send a lousy 31 Abrams, still not there. F-16s were finally approved for donation by other countries, still not there. Biden is teasing a supply of some number of ATACMS missiles through press leaks. And that will allow Germany to supply its Taurus missiles, which they have withheld until ATACMS are supplied.
Biden's actions are not a commitment to victory and de-occupation. They're the usual military/industrial/political complex rewarding friends, making jobs, and playing politics. And, being a cynic, and knowing how Nixon got re-elected by holding out Kissinger's half-baked peace plan, Biden's Operation Half Fast is politically calculated to keep his merry band of puppeteers in control.
1. that Ukraine acheives total victory and all territory is regained, including Crimea and Putin packs up and goes home with his tail between his legs.
2. some sort of negotiated peace with comprimises to both parties.
3. WW3 and nuclear war.
since 1 is extremely unlikely and would take years and billions of dollars and well over a million lives, this is a pipe dream.
option 3 is unacceptable and unthinkable.
that leaves option 2 as the most humane solution and the least amount of destruction and human suffering.
forget for a moment the decades of NATO expansion and Neo-Con saber rattling and think what road we are going down...for it is the road to Hell...
I disagree on outcome 1. In fact, with appropriate weapons, already manufactured, it is inevitable. I encourage listening to general Ben Hodges on the YouTube link and others. With proper weapons, Ukraine could have recaptured Crimea over the summer. "Millions of lives"? That would not be consistent with current statistics for retaking territory. Neo-con saber rattling is what Putin is engaged in and his bluff is being called as we speak.
does that imply that the US hasn't given enough or that other countries should send much more? also, I said over a million not millions of lives (God I hope not). I expect Putin to saber rattle, what I don't expect is the Neo-con war cheerleaders to continue to push for endless conflict or worse.
at no point am I suggesting we abandon Ukraine. it's quite clear that at this point "we broke it, we buy it".
Absolutely achievable, in fact, critical to prevent future nuclear blackmail, naked aggression, and brutal war crimes. Putin would benefit from an endless conflict, especially a freeze of his current territorial loot, like he enjoyed in 2014. And Ukraine can't sustain an endless conflict. The U.S. has supplied a tiny fraction of what's available for draw-down and other countries have donated significant amounts based on their stores and GDP. NATO countries have not matched our insane arms production over the years. If the U.S. continues a policy of "too little, too late" it threatens to become a stalemate, and that's actually a loss for Ukraine. And it could exceed a million lives. The Russians have already lost 277,000 men, presumed significantly higher than Ukraine because they've been using "meat wave" attacks.
I am absolutely with you on avoiding a neo-con dream of another "long war," to quote Dick Cheney. It won't work in ending the Ukrainian genocide.
gotcha, so do you think it would be possible or even advisable to have an eventual negotiation where if Putin would agree to pull out of the Donbas region for a guarantee of no Nato expansion to the east, including Ukraine? or is that a pipe dream? it sounds like we agree on several key points...
I'm afraid that Putin has demonstrated that he can't be trusted to honor agreements such as the Budapest Memorandum that granted Ukraine security guarantees for giving up their nuclear weapons. We signed it, too. Putin has pretty much stepped off the humanity bus. Ukraine has been so battered by Putin's treachery and cruelty, I don't see them signing anything that. Russia will be forced out of Ukraine. It's not just territory. Ukrainians in the occupied territories are being raped, tortured, and murdered.
Speaking of NATO, Putin's aggression has already resulted in two of his neighbors joining NATO. NATO countries have missiles and submarines and don't need to be next door. So the entire premise that moving closer constitutes a threat is a bogus Russian excuse to strike first to "de-Nazify" Ukraine. Putin obviously wouldn't have attacked had Ukraine been a NATO member but that wasn't even being pursued, with all those security guarantees. Ukraine can't join NATO with an ongoing conflict by NATO rules. When Ukraine secures its land, I would advocate for a DMZ between Ukraine and Russia.
Mr Deplume correctly raises the issue of the security guarantees given to Ukraine by the U.S. and Russia in return for their surrender of nuclear weapons. Mr. Woodhouse, could you give us your perspective on that?
Zelenskyy didn't ask for the new law. The law isn't new; it was passed in January of 2023 at the request of the military. Those who deserted or broke other rules were being tried in court under judges who imposed non-uniform and somethings negligible penalties. The new law applied uniform penalties for all infractions. making the average penalty somewhat tougher. Zelenskyy received a petition with 25,000 signatures asking for more opportunities for leniency and fairness. A committee may be looking for a compromise.
Then why did the USA donate a $100B in advanced weapons to the Taliban instead of sending them to Ukraine?
Why, when the CIA knew 100% Russia was going to invade, they didn't blow the bridges leading into Ukraine, didn't let a rain of fire come down on all armor at the entrance points to Ukraine and mine all routes into Ukraine? There is ZERO question that they WANTED to trap Russia into a long quagmire war inside of Ukraine, that only caused death & destruction to Ukrainians.
And why didn't they offer up front the obvious deal Russia wanted, Ukraine will never join NATO, give up on Crimea, and stick to the Minsk accords on some protections & rights for Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East? Pretty simple-minded.
Why when they had a peace deal initialed in April 2022 did the West send Boris Johnson to fly to Ukraine demanding the deal be kiboshed?
Inescapable conclusion: The West wanted to trap Russia in another Afghanistan and try to bleed them to death as they did over there. Ukrainians were just useful idiots, cannon fodder in the US/Nato/Davos lust for a One World Dictatorship.
If the $100+ billion spent on Ukraine was really about a proxy war with Russia wouldn't there be interest in minimizing the amount of dollars being ciphoned off to corruption? But there is no interest in minimizing corruption. The war in Ukraine has the same purpose as climate change hysteria, fleecing the US taxpayer, laundering billions through DC power centers. The mainstream media provides the PR for the con.
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of that going round, on all sides, even Russia. The corrupt war money machine has ALWAYS been a big component of war cheerleading likely for a thousand years or more. The Biden regime has no interest in minimizing it because it is funneling cash to their donors, patrons, clients, lobbyists and politicians. The Ukraine War Grift has many tentacles.
If Trump is elected, there will be a lot of pressure on him to keep the gravy train rolling by RINOs and Neocons in the Republican party. A lot of cash flowing their way also.
Whether or not weapons are supplied to defend Ukraine, the U.S. defense budget continues to exceed $800 billion a year. Allowing Ukraine to be crushed by Putin's imperialist fantasy won't change by one iota the fleecing, political payoffs, cost overruns, or waste. Military spending is so entrenched that its budget is voted separately. The destabilization of letting Putin have his way with Ukraine will encourage copycat dictators and more military spending. "We need to nip it. Nip it in the bud." - Barney Fife
Unfortunately for your theory the US was counting on Ukraine folding in 3 days as expressed by the now famous offer to get Zelensky out of his home country.
As for fleecing the taxpayer: the majority of the money is old Cold War stuff (it's not even money but the supposed book value of the equipment which will never become dollars again to begin with). Take a Stinger: costs 10k to decommission it. Ship it to Ukraine.
This is the opportunity of a generation to create a much better world.
If you are so concerned about the taxpayer then you should support this war right now: kill the cancer while it is still small. Putin gets his way we will see many more expensive wars, wars which it only won't be Ukrainian boys dying but Americans.
It really is as if the Obama/Biden admin was looking for a way to draw Putin into a debilitating war, they would do nothing differently than what they did. Syria didn't quite do it, so, next stop --> Ukraine.
So Biden in conservative circles is this senile fool that can barely keep awake....but now he is playing 3D chess with Putin and winning. Which one is it? Can't have both.
Ukrainian patriotism is not in question here. The events leading to the need for Ukrainians to be defending their territory as patriots are. The history here is long and complex. The black and white simplistic narrative fed to the masses to garner support for a bottomless pit of money are what is actually being litigated.
Are you suggesting every Ukrainian citizen wants this war? Perhaps there are Ukrainian citizens that dislike Putin and his actions but recognize the toll this war will take on their country isn’t worth it.
The atrocities committed in the occupied zones of Ukraine suggest that the toll of not repelling the truly barbaric invaders is higher. There indeed were Ukrainians in Donbas who favored Russian rule. Their men have since been conscripted off the streets and sent as suicidal meat waves by Russians and Chechens who don't value their lives because . . . they are Ukrainians. Resisting what would happen is indeed worth it.
Wow, it’s like you think the Ukrainians are children who have no mind of their own. The Ukrainians WANT to defend themselves.
First of all if that were true, Zelensky wouldn’t be increasing penalties for draft dodging and desertion. Second, the question for Americans isn’t whether Ukrainians should keep fighting or not; that’s not up to us. What is up to us is whether we keep arming them. And if you think that’s not the business of American citizens then we just have different perspectives on democracy.
last night in a Notes Q and A, I asked Adam Kinzinger whether he thought that the war in Ukraine was worth starting a nuclear conflict over. he replied:
"It’s worth ever bit of it. And it will end with the collapse of Russia..."
it's still up in his Notes thread.
this is the end game now guys. we managed to avoid nuclear war for 45 years during the Cold War...these psychopaths are completely deranged.
God help us...
https://x.com/lwoodhouse/status/1706099766625710575?s=20
Wow.
Hollis: FWIW, unlike the Cold War period, the Russian troops in Ukraine are not equipped with the protective equipment needed to fight on a radioactive battlefield.
go home Frank, yer drunk again...
Respectfully, Hollis, I heard an interview with retired General Jack Keene, the man Trump twice asked to be his Secretary of Defense. When asked about the possibility that Putin might escalate to use nuclear weapons, Keene noted that the Russian army currently wasn't equipped to fight in a nuclear environment and that it would take more than one nuclear weapon to have a significant military influence on the war. I thought it was an important question and that you deserved to hear Keene's answer.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Woodhouse is point on!
So, Leighton, why are we NATO? Why are we in Japan, South Korea, Australia etc? Exactly what is YOUR foreign policy?
What?
It's not an unreasonable question and don't be performatively obtuse. You know what he was asking. Tell us what your foreign policy would be, especially vis-a-vis a Russian attack on a NATO state or Chinese attack on Taiwan.
I'll also add that your comment above about Zelensky increasing penalties for avoiding the draft is nonsensical, unless you also believe that the US shouldn't have enforced laws against draft dodging and desertion in the 20th century.
Either that comment has been edited or I accidentally responded to the wrong one. Because that wasn't the comment I was confused by. There was another reply that was incoherent.
If Russia attacked NATO it would be an act of war on the United States, obviously. China/Taiwan is too complicated to answer in a comment thread, I'd have to research and write another 5,000 word piece on it.
And no, the comment about Zelensky increasing penalties is not "nonsensical," it's clear evidence that there's a long-term problem with replenishing troops. Your comparison to the US draft is a complete non sequitur. I think you're the one being performatively obtuse.
Without America's abundant surplus arms, the Ukrainians can't keep resisting the illegal invasion. That's pretty obvious. So either you're being intentionally obtuse or actually believe an "America first" isolationist concept of democracy that the Ukrainians' existence as a nation and a people is "not up to us." It is up to us and the Free World.
BTW FDR couldn't allow draft dodging either, including guys who went to remove Hitler from Europe, which some thought was "none of America's business."
So then your position then is that since without us the Ukrainians cannot fight, we're morally obligated to arm them with whatever they need, however long they need it, until Russia packs up and goes home?
Good comprehension skills! We absolutely have a moral obligation to oppose and end genocide, war crimes, theft of land and resources, and enslavement of a people. Moreover, we made security guarantees to Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum, which was conveniently ignored, encouraging Putin. A significant fraction of our $800 billion a year to defend democracies around the world has yet to be supplied. And after the barbarians have left or been killed, we have a moral obligation to pursue a Marshall Plan. Making excuses to look away from evil is not my position and I hope it's not yours.
I'm asking you if you think the United States has a moral obligation to continue arming Ukraine indefinitely.
Yes, until the genocide ends, but preferably sooner than later. In fact, the United States has a moral obligation to end the suffering of the Ukrainians as soon as possible with a much more significant number, not the current token amounts, of Bradley fighting vehicles, Abrams tanks which still haven't arrived, F-16s also not yet there, ATACMS long-range missiles, and any number of fearsome weapons American taxpayers already bought to counter Russian aggression. Otherwise, we were just buying weapons to put into storage rather than defend self-determination, protect democracies, and stop true barbarity and evil. Do you think we should protect NATO members, South Korea, and Japan or should we allow dictators to have their way? Because we could have saved a lot of money.
Genuinely curious, not asking for some kind of tactical purpose:
Do you think the US should have spent tens of billions arming the Free Syrian Army?
I haven't followed that story, but tens of billions is peanuts when it comes to killing members of ISIS, some of the most evil people to stride the Earth. I don't think that the U.S. should have spent trillions invading Iraq to seek out nonexistent WMDs and then engaging in "democracy building." I do think that the U.S. was right to evict Saddam from Kuwait after his illegal invasion of a peaceful neighbor. I'm excited that you are curious about an ethical approach to the deployment of American's might and treasure. I don't fear a tactical purpose. Mine is the strength of ten because my heart is pure.
I followed the Syrian Revolution and civil war very closely when it was happening and was so morally outraged that I was actually quite pro-U.S. intervention, though I was always conflicted over the unknown, cascading consequences of action vs. the known costs of inaction. People who are of my view on Ukraine today in those days accused me of being some kind of warmonger. So it's not as if I don't understand the moral argument for humanitarian intervention. I'm not a pacifist. But in this case I think my views on what should be done now fundamentally flow from the fact that I'm convinced the counteroffensive has all but failed and a military victory for Ukraine is no longer possible. If I were shown evidence to the contrary, much of what I wrote in this article would still stand, but I would definitely need to sit down and rethink my conclusions about what the U.S. should do. I would reconsider my conviction that we should stop arming Ukraine. But I have not seen that evidence anywhere.
An argument that boils down to "we should defend our allies only so long as they are winning" seems to be a fairly weak and poorly-thought-out one.
Former commander of US army Europe Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Ben Hodges is an informed source. His view is that the return of Crimea is vital to Ukraine's future.
Just one example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wwu8Ff-SOw
When something like adequate combined arms are supplied to Ukraine, an actual counteroffensive can begin. A handful of British and French long-range missiles have already had devastating effects. Of course, with insufficient arms the Ukrainians will fail.
New contracts for arms, e.g., Abrams with nerfed armor and glide bomb kits (awarded to SAAB and Boeing, still not delivered) have been awarded while stockpiles haven't been drawn down. Biden reversed his decision on our secret armor and agreed to send a lousy 31 Abrams, still not there. F-16s were finally approved for donation by other countries, still not there. Biden is teasing a supply of some number of ATACMS missiles through press leaks. And that will allow Germany to supply its Taurus missiles, which they have withheld until ATACMS are supplied.
Biden's actions are not a commitment to victory and de-occupation. They're the usual military/industrial/political complex rewarding friends, making jobs, and playing politics. And, being a cynic, and knowing how Nixon got re-elected by holding out Kissinger's half-baked peace plan, Biden's Operation Half Fast is politically calculated to keep his merry band of puppeteers in control.
What's your take on France aid in 1776? Bet you think it was of great assistance and saved American lives?
there are 3 outcomes of this conflict.
1. that Ukraine acheives total victory and all territory is regained, including Crimea and Putin packs up and goes home with his tail between his legs.
2. some sort of negotiated peace with comprimises to both parties.
3. WW3 and nuclear war.
since 1 is extremely unlikely and would take years and billions of dollars and well over a million lives, this is a pipe dream.
option 3 is unacceptable and unthinkable.
that leaves option 2 as the most humane solution and the least amount of destruction and human suffering.
forget for a moment the decades of NATO expansion and Neo-Con saber rattling and think what road we are going down...for it is the road to Hell...
I disagree on outcome 1. In fact, with appropriate weapons, already manufactured, it is inevitable. I encourage listening to general Ben Hodges on the YouTube link and others. With proper weapons, Ukraine could have recaptured Crimea over the summer. "Millions of lives"? That would not be consistent with current statistics for retaking territory. Neo-con saber rattling is what Putin is engaged in and his bluff is being called as we speak.
so you think 1 is acheivable with enough weapons?
does that imply that the US hasn't given enough or that other countries should send much more? also, I said over a million not millions of lives (God I hope not). I expect Putin to saber rattle, what I don't expect is the Neo-con war cheerleaders to continue to push for endless conflict or worse.
at no point am I suggesting we abandon Ukraine. it's quite clear that at this point "we broke it, we buy it".
Absolutely achievable, in fact, critical to prevent future nuclear blackmail, naked aggression, and brutal war crimes. Putin would benefit from an endless conflict, especially a freeze of his current territorial loot, like he enjoyed in 2014. And Ukraine can't sustain an endless conflict. The U.S. has supplied a tiny fraction of what's available for draw-down and other countries have donated significant amounts based on their stores and GDP. NATO countries have not matched our insane arms production over the years. If the U.S. continues a policy of "too little, too late" it threatens to become a stalemate, and that's actually a loss for Ukraine. And it could exceed a million lives. The Russians have already lost 277,000 men, presumed significantly higher than Ukraine because they've been using "meat wave" attacks.
I am absolutely with you on avoiding a neo-con dream of another "long war," to quote Dick Cheney. It won't work in ending the Ukrainian genocide.
gotcha, so do you think it would be possible or even advisable to have an eventual negotiation where if Putin would agree to pull out of the Donbas region for a guarantee of no Nato expansion to the east, including Ukraine? or is that a pipe dream? it sounds like we agree on several key points...
I'm afraid that Putin has demonstrated that he can't be trusted to honor agreements such as the Budapest Memorandum that granted Ukraine security guarantees for giving up their nuclear weapons. We signed it, too. Putin has pretty much stepped off the humanity bus. Ukraine has been so battered by Putin's treachery and cruelty, I don't see them signing anything that. Russia will be forced out of Ukraine. It's not just territory. Ukrainians in the occupied territories are being raped, tortured, and murdered.
Speaking of NATO, Putin's aggression has already resulted in two of his neighbors joining NATO. NATO countries have missiles and submarines and don't need to be next door. So the entire premise that moving closer constitutes a threat is a bogus Russian excuse to strike first to "de-Nazify" Ukraine. Putin obviously wouldn't have attacked had Ukraine been a NATO member but that wasn't even being pursued, with all those security guarantees. Ukraine can't join NATO with an ongoing conflict by NATO rules. When Ukraine secures its land, I would advocate for a DMZ between Ukraine and Russia.
Mr Deplume correctly raises the issue of the security guarantees given to Ukraine by the U.S. and Russia in return for their surrender of nuclear weapons. Mr. Woodhouse, could you give us your perspective on that?
Zelenskyy didn't ask for the new law. The law isn't new; it was passed in January of 2023 at the request of the military. Those who deserted or broke other rules were being tried in court under judges who imposed non-uniform and somethings negligible penalties. The new law applied uniform penalties for all infractions. making the average penalty somewhat tougher. Zelenskyy received a petition with 25,000 signatures asking for more opportunities for leniency and fairness. A committee may be looking for a compromise.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-zelenskyy-war-military-law/
Then why did the USA donate a $100B in advanced weapons to the Taliban instead of sending them to Ukraine?
Why, when the CIA knew 100% Russia was going to invade, they didn't blow the bridges leading into Ukraine, didn't let a rain of fire come down on all armor at the entrance points to Ukraine and mine all routes into Ukraine? There is ZERO question that they WANTED to trap Russia into a long quagmire war inside of Ukraine, that only caused death & destruction to Ukrainians.
And why didn't they offer up front the obvious deal Russia wanted, Ukraine will never join NATO, give up on Crimea, and stick to the Minsk accords on some protections & rights for Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East? Pretty simple-minded.
Why when they had a peace deal initialed in April 2022 did the West send Boris Johnson to fly to Ukraine demanding the deal be kiboshed?
Inescapable conclusion: The West wanted to trap Russia in another Afghanistan and try to bleed them to death as they did over there. Ukrainians were just useful idiots, cannon fodder in the US/Nato/Davos lust for a One World Dictatorship.
If the $100+ billion spent on Ukraine was really about a proxy war with Russia wouldn't there be interest in minimizing the amount of dollars being ciphoned off to corruption? But there is no interest in minimizing corruption. The war in Ukraine has the same purpose as climate change hysteria, fleecing the US taxpayer, laundering billions through DC power centers. The mainstream media provides the PR for the con.
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of that going round, on all sides, even Russia. The corrupt war money machine has ALWAYS been a big component of war cheerleading likely for a thousand years or more. The Biden regime has no interest in minimizing it because it is funneling cash to their donors, patrons, clients, lobbyists and politicians. The Ukraine War Grift has many tentacles.
If Trump is elected, there will be a lot of pressure on him to keep the gravy train rolling by RINOs and Neocons in the Republican party. A lot of cash flowing their way also.
Once the Ukraine fleece is forced to wind down, another, like the China/Taiwan fleece will be ramped up.
Undoubtedly, but their Wind, Solar, Net Zero Scam fleece is still their biggest money machine. Ukraine/Taiwan is just to keep the MIC happy.
Whether or not weapons are supplied to defend Ukraine, the U.S. defense budget continues to exceed $800 billion a year. Allowing Ukraine to be crushed by Putin's imperialist fantasy won't change by one iota the fleecing, political payoffs, cost overruns, or waste. Military spending is so entrenched that its budget is voted separately. The destabilization of letting Putin have his way with Ukraine will encourage copycat dictators and more military spending. "We need to nip it. Nip it in the bud." - Barney Fife
Unfortunately for your theory the US was counting on Ukraine folding in 3 days as expressed by the now famous offer to get Zelensky out of his home country.
As for fleecing the taxpayer: the majority of the money is old Cold War stuff (it's not even money but the supposed book value of the equipment which will never become dollars again to begin with). Take a Stinger: costs 10k to decommission it. Ship it to Ukraine.
This is the opportunity of a generation to create a much better world.
If you are so concerned about the taxpayer then you should support this war right now: kill the cancer while it is still small. Putin gets his way we will see many more expensive wars, wars which it only won't be Ukrainian boys dying but Americans.
Cutting aid is penny wise pound fool.
Regarding Putin and cancer watch the Secretary General of NATO detail the cause of this war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCfcy9etbyo
It really is as if the Obama/Biden admin was looking for a way to draw Putin into a debilitating war, they would do nothing differently than what they did. Syria didn't quite do it, so, next stop --> Ukraine.
So Biden in conservative circles is this senile fool that can barely keep awake....but now he is playing 3D chess with Putin and winning. Which one is it? Can't have both.
Winning? No. Both men are losers.
🛎️🔨
Ukrainian patriotism is not in question here. The events leading to the need for Ukrainians to be defending their territory as patriots are. The history here is long and complex. The black and white simplistic narrative fed to the masses to garner support for a bottomless pit of money are what is actually being litigated.
Are you suggesting every Ukrainian citizen wants this war? Perhaps there are Ukrainian citizens that dislike Putin and his actions but recognize the toll this war will take on their country isn’t worth it.
Excellent point.
The atrocities committed in the occupied zones of Ukraine suggest that the toll of not repelling the truly barbaric invaders is higher. There indeed were Ukrainians in Donbas who favored Russian rule. Their men have since been conscripted off the streets and sent as suicidal meat waves by Russians and Chechens who don't value their lives because . . . they are Ukrainians. Resisting what would happen is indeed worth it.