The way this is going to turn out … Far from supporting Ukraine, turning it into a gun platform, to weaken Russia, has ended up destroying Ukraine. Note to other countries: beware the US wanting to use your country as a proxy. See: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria … now Ukraine.
Not a non sequitur to the urtext. Peace! We need to learn about the real Zelensky! We need to learn about the right wing extremists in Ukraine! How dare we defame the progressive reformers Catherine the Great!
If Russia is actually winning, as in tactically, on the battlefield, then why bother with such arguments designed to get Ukraine’s allies to turn off the aid and just “let Russia have it”? Seems to me it’s the side in fear of losing that does that.
That's unfortunately how it works in a stalemate. Thousands of good lives are sent to die for little barren hills for years at a time. That's what happened over and over in Korea, for example, for 2 years after negotiations started. Neither side can win on the battlefield, so they just try to inflict as much damage on the opponent as possible, and hope their political will wears thin.
Top US official makes secret push to win over Ukraine war sceptics So our illustrious National Security [sic] Adviser is going to try convincing India, South Africa et al to stop supporting Russia one year and a half into this war. Oh, I wish I could be a fly on the wall for that. “Hi, I’m Jake Sullivan. You might remember me from strategic blunders such as ‘Unnecessary Surrender of Afghanistan’ and ‘Selling Out Saudi Arabia to Make Iran Happy,’ both of which encouraged Russia to plunge into the current war I’m asking for your help to win.” Seriously, this Administration needs to stop worrying about the optics of having made a terrible selection (way too late in any case), cut bait on this know-nothing political hack, and appoint a serious national security professional whom countries like India won’t mock as a milquetoast poseur.
If Ukraine is actually winning, as in tactically, on the battlefield, then why bother with such arguments designed to get Russia’s allies to turn off the aid? Seems to me it’s the side in fear of losing that does that. Sry, couldn't resist, you ran right into that one!
I'd say Sullivan is a mere extension of the administration's policies and beliefs in all of these areas, so they are probably very happy with the job he's doing. I am not sure how much Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia contributed to the decision to invade Ukraine, though I'm certain those two events weren't helpful. Speaking of Victoria Nuland, it's not like Putin had to guess what he was contending with in Kyiv. I'm pretty sure Putin was ready to go as soon as Biden took the Oath.
No, there’s nothing snarky about that. I agree that it looks weak, but it’s exactly the sort of thing that Sullivan would think might work now, even though it hasn’t worked for the past 18 months. Forget China (their support of Russia is a separate matter), but the time for talking it out with India and South Africa is long past. They have shrugged and said “self-interest.” Our response by now should have been to say, “Well, we can fix that” and introduce economic measures that run deeper against their self-interest than does whatever they gain from giving Russia political and economic relief.
I'm not one to defend the administration, but I think such pressure on India or South Africa would have been counterproductive. In fact, I think it's revealing Sullivan would even ask India and South Africa for help to begin with, regardless of timing. "Please sever the ties you've formed over decades and help us expand our empire eastward. Fallout? Don't worry about that. Russia will be fine after we get rid of Putin." Such a proposition was probably always going to be a hard no, regardless of when it was asked and who was asking it. To double-down and make economic headwinds for India and South Africa because they wouldn't sever diplomatic ties they've had established for decades to help the US expand eastward.... that's the type of thing that would come back to haunt us down the road. If you take a step back and look at how the actions would be viewed from their end, you see how crazy it sounds and illustrates how crazy this entire endeavor probably is. We don't have a great success rate with doing this stuff. We don't need Ukraine strategically and we have no palatable solutions for Russia if Putin is indeed deposed. Even if we could pull off nation building and regime change in a successful way, do you really trust this is the administration that's going to do it?? Not me.
LOL, posters here saying the same things I’ve been saying for months. I know, I know. It was the WAY I was saying them.
I remember how many years the U.S. spent penetrating the German defenses at Normandy, starting with the counter-offensive in June of 1944. We just couldn't get past those defenses, and it nearly cost us the war. If the beach invasion took one more month, I heard we were going to let Germany have Europe, and then flip a coin over who got to keep England.
Umm, because the fight is still a close one? And maybe Ukraine is going to need as many functioning bodies as possible to re-build the country that Russia has been systematically destroying. It is the height of stupidity to supply your enemy with weapons while you're fighting him. The U.S. did that in Afghanistan, by providing ammo to Pakistan to prop up a slightly friendly regime. Radicals within the military and intelligence services immediately turned that ammo over to Taliban warlords. We used to find as much U.S. ammo in Afghan weapons caches as we did Afghan ammo.
Ukraine is starting to dominate on the southern front, capturing settlement after settlement, on a slow and methodical path to victory. Ukraine's counteroffensive against Russia slowly makes progress
The russian strategy is just bonkers right now. They keep counterattacking, making it so Ukraine doesn't actually have to engage their defensive positions. If anyone can tell me how that is a good idea I'm open to learning something new.
Look, you're preaching to the choir about the idiocy of Sullivan, but I think you're missing something with your analysis. IMO, what you're missing is that warfare can be conducted in many ways. I'm sure you're well aware of that, but your analysis is not taking it into account. Information warfare used to advance diplomatic goals is one such example. Saying that it looks weak to do so is like the Taliban saying the US armed forces are weak for using air power and artillery to fight wars. Using everything in your arsenal to win a war is not a sign of weakness, it's just being smart. The way Sullivan goes about it is stupid, but that's another matter. Similarly, economic coercion is another such example. I mean, we've already done plenty on that front against Russia, but the issues with waging an economic war is that like other forms of war, there will be a cost to yourself. Extending that war to other countries have escalating costs. What would be the cost of doing so against India, for example? If you pay attention to Indian nationalists' mindset, and they're the support base for Modi, they're not natural allies with us. They hate us a lot less than they hate China, for sure, but they have long ties with Russia and they have not forgotten about all the money and equipment we've given to the Pakistani military while Russia supplied them Su-30's to counter Pakistani F-16s, for example. They also remember the sanctions we levied on them when they got nuclear weapons, a very proud moment for them, and they're keenly aware of the insult to Modi when we had a Visa ban on him. The question then becomes, do you want India on our side against China, or would you trade that for Indian actions against Russia? They want to move away from dollar dependence, but they're leery about advancing China's goals by advancing Yuan internationalization, do you want to make that choice for them against our own interest?
YearS (plural) doesn't fit between June 6, 1944 (D-day) and May 8, 1945 (VE day). Normandy was concluded in August of '44. Not sure what you're trying to say there, when your premise doesn't hold water.
Excuses? It's a fair assessment--from an outsider. I don't read that as him making any excuse, though his premise I believe, remains dubious (ie has Russia actually resumed offensive, when Ukraine's counter-offensive was proving costly to Ukraine?)
Elaborate please. Who else is saying that Russia is dominating the war, everything going according yo plan, and Putin's popularity is ever increasing?
