From Gen. Christopher Cavoli, commenting on the dire situation in Ukraine:
The side that can’t shoot back loses.
It's disgraceful that we've given up on Ukraine, and it's beyond disgraceful that this is largely because the Republican Party is following the lead of Donald Trump, who has a personal beef with Ukraine because they refused to submit to his demand that they dig up dirt on Joe Biden. Show a little backbone, folks.
Trump’s personal beef with Ukraine for not generating a fake investigation of Biden is a big part of it, but there is also the fact that the Republican Party supports team dictatorial autocracy over team democracy.
I think it's simpler than that. The Democrats mostly support aid to Ukraine; therefore, many Republicans must oppose it. If the Democrats ever formally announced their support for baseball, mom and apple pie, within a week the Republicans would be telling you that baseball, mom and apple pie are socialist plots.
but there is also the fact that the Republican Party supports team dictatorial autocracy over team democracy.
I really don't think that's it. Most Republicans, for instance, are bitter opposed to the CCP regime in China.
It's mainly about placating their God Emperor. If Trump came out against apple pie, motherhood and baseball, Republicans would oppose those things, too.
One of the easiest plays to have your name etched into history and they blow it. At least they're consistent.
I can't believe there is still this much ignorance about this, even from sane, knowledgable folks.
--> Ukraine is the quid pro quo for getting Don elected. <--
The deal is still live. This is ongoing.
Jesus, I can't believe how effectively this issue has been muddied up.
That sounds totally plausible, and totally consistent with what we know of both Trump and Putin. But I'd still like to see a citation.
There is no smoking gun, yet, there is no direct proof.
But if you review the history of Trump Putin contact in context, it is as obvious as any of his other scams.
Agree that it is Trump that stops it, rather than anybody's opinion in the congress (except that Republicans are scared of Trump).
But it is not obvious that it is "quid pro quo". Trump has a grudge against Zelensky and admires Putin, and also thinks that supporting Ukraine may look as a win for Biden, so has enough reasons to object without "quid pro quo" .
"Admires" Putin, yes, that's one way to put it. Donald Trump doesn't "admire" anyone, he is either dominating people or being dominated by them.
I will admit my opinion on supporting Ukraine has migrated, from being fully supportive to being cynical. The current stated goal, is total victory for Ukraine. Yet, no honest Western military analysis thinks the Ukraine's can recapture all the territory (Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts etc) taken by Russia.
So what is the real plan? The US funds more aid, and more aid? Where is the peace processes?
I believe Ukraine needs a strategic settlement/end to the war, rather than more years of fighting....
You mean like the "strategic settlement" ceding the Sudetenland?
This is one of those wars where numbers of soldiers are unimportant, because both sides can recruit/conscript more soldiers than they can support in the field. What counts is materiel, mainly weapons and ammunition but also all the little things from boots to helmets that soldiers need.
The NATO countries have about twenty times the GDP, which means 20 times the military production potential, of Russia. However, since the Cold War ended, the NATO countries have allowed their military production facilities to decay. As an example, the whole of NATO can't produce artillery shells at the rate the UK alone produced them in 1944. New factories are being built. Once sufficient production capacity comes on line, the Western countries will be able to provide Ukraine with the weapons and ammunition to simply bury the Russians.
The real plan, I hope, is to try very hard to keep Ukraine in the war until we can supply them with what they need to win. The peace process is "Russia gives up."
I believe Ukraine needs a strategic settlement/end to the war, rather than more years of fighting....
Wonderful! Now get the Russians to agree to this.
The Ukrainians are not going to drive out the Russians by frontal assault, no. But there are other means. Last year’s plan was to cut the ‘land bridge’ by advancing ground forces to the coast of the Sea of Azov; that failed. The plan going forward seems to be a) render re-supply of Crimea by sea difficult to impossible, by forcing the Black Sea Fleet east — essentially accomplished; b) destroy the Kerch Strait bridge (closed several times but not yet unusable); and c) unclear, but I expect the Ukrainians to be developing precision weapons to attack the rail line being built from Russia to Crimea. It’s within the realm of possibility that Ukraine could make Crimea untenable for Russia, as they previously made Kherson untenable, by disrupting the supply routes. That would greatly strengthen Ukraine’s position. It could possibly topple Putin. It is a long shot, but who would have thought that a nation without warships could decimate the Black Sea Fleet and render it almost useless?
There will be a peace agreement someday. The terms will be determined by the relative strength of each sides position. Making our bottom line public at this point is not a smart negotiating strategy.
So what is the real plan? The US funds more aid, and more aid? Where is the peace processes?
There isn't any real plan at this point , I'd guess, because the US plainly doesn't have the long term will to keep funding our friends in Ukraine, and it's doubtful Europe can go it alone (though I hope I'm wrong about that last part). We may get another package approved, we'll see. But another one after that?
But in world that featured 1987's Republican Party, the plan would be for continued, robust support to the Ukraine until such time as the Russian state needs to sue for peace. I'm open to the possibility (probability?) that Ukraine still isn't made 100% whole (I really doubt they ever get Crimea back, for starters), but if negotiations are to take place, better to have more leverage than less. Ukraine doesn't have any leverage to speak of right now.
"Show a little backbone, folks."
But worms don't have backbones.
"Trump, who has a personal beef with Ukraine because they refused to submit to his demand that they dig up dirt on Joe Biden"
AND Trump does Putin's bidding. In this case, do what it takes so that Russian can conquer Ukraine.
Trump is inhuman in that he'd willingly let thousands of civilians die for the smallest personal benefit, which appears to be the situation with Ukraine. He's totally empty inside. He'd behave better if he had an Id - which at a minimum can be influenced by rational arguments about self-interest, historical legacy, etc.
Rather than shortening the war, by cutting off Ukraine, Republicans are ironically prolonging the war. The more asymmetrical this war becomes, the more ingenuity we see from Ukraine and its rapidly growing military industry.
The same warning applies to Biden, though. The longer he keeps holding back the tools for Ukraine to win decisively, the longer he's prolonging the war, too.
Zelensky refused to smear Joe Biden by announcing an investigation, which is what Trump demanded. Wish people would stop using the "dig up dirt on Joe Biden" formulation, as if it was an honest inquiry. It wasn't. The smear is what he was after - the taint created by an open investigation. This is manufacturing dirt, not searching for it.
"We" haven't given up on Ukraine. Republicans are using their slim majority in the house to prevent aid to Ukraine. They are not we.
As far as I can see, one man is solely responsible for stopping billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine: Speaker Moses MAGA Johnson. It's accepted pretty much universally in the political media that if the bipartisan bill the Senate passed in January got a floor vote in the House, it would pass easily. Johnson has refused to let that happen.
It's a sorry indictment of the dysfunctional nature of US governance.
In another time, this would be a huge national scandal, and the National Review / WSJ/ Fox News types would be launching scorched earth attacks against the "appeasers." It is beyond scandalous that the U.S. it abandoning an ally to Russian aggression because . . . the House Speaker will not put the funding up for . . . a majority vote. I mean, tens of thousands of Ukrainians will likely die because . . . Johnson does not want to risk his speakership. This seems like just about the most scandalous, indefensible, immoral thing a major politician has done in my lifetime, but it gets almost no coverage, and the right-wing media has pretty much nothing to say about it. Instead they are focused on Hunter Biden and how Trump is a victim of selective prosecution for crimes he mostly committed. In what universe is this the bigger offense?
Am I missing something? This is incredibly depressing.