Most likely, yes. Jake Sullivan seems to control the foreign policy of this country, and there’s no way in hell he would have supported a Ukrainian invasion of Russia. If any of our generals advised it, then they would have had to do it very, very quietly without the National Security Advisor learning of it.
Actually, my friend, look closer. That operation was not on Russian soil. It was a successful counterattack into a heavily fortified area in vicinity of Kharkiv.
yeah, my reading comprehension wasn't very good there. totally missed the "controlled" part. does that read like they went in and went out
It says advanced. It never says withdrew. I’ll infer that they moved the lines a bit. But, again, for those trying to keep a score in this war, the significant data in that article is not the kilometers taken, it’s the 300 Russians killed or captured.
The other thing that needs to be remembered about totalitarian states is that most government workers did not get to where they are in government by their abilities, but because they kissed ass of the person who seized power. The most important qualities of a communist government worker are loyalty and obedience, not capability or intelligence. Problem solving is not their strength. They want to be successful and tell positive stories to the boss. During a crisis, they will play down the problem if there is any possibility they will be blamed for it. It's very telling that Putin put his unqualified niece in charge of the military situation in Kursk when the news started to get worse. China does things a little differently, in that government finance jobs (the people that get to decide how money is spent on projects) are awarded to top finance students from the top universities. Once they get their job, then they realize that loyalty and obedience are the top qualities needed to advance in their jobs. That's how horrible mistakes such as investing in factories that are already making a multiple (like 2-3X) of the country's demand for a particular product happen.
Yes, it is. But you have to be prepared to do it for when the loathsome people come for what’s yours. If we have learned nothing in the past three years, I hope we have learned that.
Well it’s clear after RFK’s speech yesterday that if Trump wins the election, he is going to negotiate a quick end to this conflict. Realistically and without any bias, I wonder what that looks like. The analytics still have Trump ahead by a thread, so it’s a real possibility we must consider and it probably begins taking shape before he takes the oath of office.
LOL at the hubris of Trump, imagining that he’s going to fly to Ukraine, bring Putin and Zelensky to the table and knocking their heads together.
Which party is going to give ground on its essential demands out of awe of Trump’s negotiating skills? Is Russia going to abandon its historical claim to Ukraine and allow it to conduct its own foreign and economic affairs, or is Ukraine going to surrender its sovereignty?
My theory is Trump will tell Putin that if he doesn't make some real concession, he'll triple the military aid to Kyiv and he will tell Zelenskyy if he doesn't concede some of Ukraine's former land is now Russian, he'll cut off aid to Kyiv. I don't think either will call his bluff, because they both want out of the war. And you have to remember, up to this point, what Ukraine has done has largely been at the behest of Washington. Though I won't say it was completely ill-advised, as they did retake Kharkiv and Kherson, but it's clear their reach has found its limitations. Most likely scenario is the current front line becomes the new border. Ukraine must withdraw from Kursk (if they are still there) and maintain a neutral stance with regard to NATO. Ukraine probably has to agree to something which doesn't completely outlaw the Russian language in the east. This is not a bad deal at all for Kyiv, because: war ends; U.S. will inevitably pledge to rebuild Ukraine at a fraction of the actual cost vis a vis American contractors doing 90% of that work (ie Ukraine ends up looking more like a Western European nation than a former Soviet state); Ukraine gets security assurance from the West in the agreement meaning that if Russia breaches the deal, the West will triple down on aid and possibly boots on the ground. This way Putin or whomever is leading Russia cannot claim later that they weren't warned.
And all of Ukraine’s other allies who provide material assistance. Are they going to go along with Trump’s threats to cut aid? Is Congress? And let’s just say when it comes down to a decision point where Trump actually has to cut the congressionally-mandated aid, what happens when Trump’s national security team (who understands the way the world works better than Trump or Jake Sullivan), quietly says to the President: “Sir, are you certain you want to alienate Congress and our allies just because Ukraine rebuffed your terms?” “Yes! The Lion does not concern himself with the opinions of sheep!” “Ah. Sir, what is more important to you, Ukraine or Taiwan?” “Taiwan, of course! What a stupid question! Taiwan is actually an inextricable part of our defensive perimeter against CHI-nuh!” “Precisely, sir. How wise you are. And you understand that our plan to defend Taiwan requires the support of many of the allies you would alienate by pulling the rug out from under Ukraine, right?” “Of course, I understand that! Why would you even ask me that?! We must needs support our Ukrainian allies at all costs! Why are we even discussing removing aid from Ukraine, you idiots!” Though, I agree, in all seriousness, that the leverage we have against Russia to back out of this war with as much face as it can save is precisely what you said: overtly threaten to escalate and become more involved. That is something this Administration should have been slowly doing over the last two years.
All of Ukraine's other "allies" will be more than happy to stop providing military assistance if the U.S. does. When has Europe ever ponied up despite us? Congress won't have the votes to override a veto. I'm assuming the vast majority of said aid that has Congressional approval will have already been expended by the time Trump takes office, so I am not concerned about a scenario where Trump has to cut anything per se. Alienating a Congress that was already reluctant on the most recent aid package? That's a stretch. There are very few (if any) in Congress who are calling for never-ending, unmitigated military aid to Ukraine. We wouldn't be alienating any allies if there is a very clear clause in the ceasefire agreement which states all bets are off if Russia does anything materially to violate said ceasefire. Bingo. After all, we have made Russia bleed in this war... a lot. The thought of re-engaging down the road with the promise of more escalation from the West isn't something the Russians are pining to do, unless they have a suicide calling.
Well, if a family therapist named Gabe said it, it has to be true. Against my better judgement, I went to his twitter and he had a tweet about how putin's defends christianity so we should support him. I tried finding out more about gabe but all I found was his name on a list of "russian trolls and useful idiots". I am guessing that is why you use him as a source.
