All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

[Typical Lax Dad]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

[Typical Lax Dad]

That's a dck move, MDLax and you know it.

How so?
or, did you mean the question about being part of the Grenada invasion?
That was a serious question...did it come across otherwise?

Otherwise. B/c it was followed by OS' comment of 'Easy to make such jokes when you've never put yourself at risk.'

That was his comment, not mine.
I was responding to his and TLD's example of Grenada.
TLD said, "Ukraine ain't Grenada" and indeed, it "ain't"...

Ok, there's an implication, you think, that Salty was saying that he did take part?
And, thus, his life was in danger in that operation?

That would certainly make his comment more compelling, but it wasn't why I asked.
It just sounded like perhaps he might have been. I hadn't recalled him saying so before, but I might have missed it.

I don't know his actual service record (you may); I've just picked up tidbits. I hadn't heard (at least as I recall) that he'd ever been in hot warfare, but I could be mistaken...but lots military folks are definitely at risk when operating military equipment, even if only in training or general non-warfare operations. I've assumed he's borne those sorts of risks.

But then again, so are lots of people in their professions, so puffing a chest about such risk in the military has always seemed to me to be unseemly, not to mention disrespectful of others who sacrifice in all sorts of ways as well....but that wasn't why I asked, it was merely curiosity.

Obviously, the casualties in the Grenada operation deserve consideration and I doubt very much that TLD was making light of them.

But there's a big difference in scope and scale.

I happen to know a lot of people that were on the ground then and are still there now. I was pointing out that military strength depends on the opposition….we see it in sports all the time. If Russia picked on Grenada, I am sure it would have been over a long time ago….a powerful military complex doesn’t need widows and orphans to provide blankets and socks…..

[old salt]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

You don't recall the reporting that Kyiv would fall within days of the invasion & that we were urging Z to evac Kyiv, even offering to help him escape ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

You don't recall the reporting that Kyiv would fall within days of the invasion & that we were urging Z to evac Kyiv, even offering to help him escape ?

Yes.

[MDlaxfan76]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

You don't recall the reporting that Kyiv would fall within days of the invasion & that we were urging Z to evac Kyiv, even offering to help him escape ?

I do, but the reporting on Zelensky calling for ammo not a ride came by 1pm our time on Feb 26; your post was after that signal.

Again, I thought your prediction was rational, though it's clear now that Zelensky knew the situation better and he also knew how essential it would be to Ukrainian resistance for him to not flee.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

You don't recall the reporting that Kyiv would fall within days of the invasion & that we were urging Z to evac Kyiv, even offering to help him escape ?

I do, but the reporting on Zelensky calling for ammo not a ride came by 1pm our time on Feb 26; your post was after that signal.

Again, I thought your prediction was rational, though it's clear now that Zelensky knew the situation better and he also knew how essential it would be to Ukrainian resistance for him to not flee.

Obviously Zelensky made a mistake. By not escaping he has caused this conflict to just drag on…..it’s his fault.

[old salt]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

You don't recall the reporting that Kyiv would fall within days of the invasion & that we were urging Z to evac Kyiv, even offering to help him escape ?

I do, but the reporting on Zelensky calling for ammo not a ride came by 1pm our time on Feb 26; your post was after that signal.

Again, I thought your prediction was rational, though it's clear now that Zelensky knew the situation better and he also knew how essential it would be to Ukrainian resistance for him to not flee.

There were several reports of US recommendations to move the govt to Lviv at the same time thousands were going west or leaving the country. There was not high confidence in Z's survival if he remained in Kyiv.

21 Feb, same day as my Andrea Mitchell post : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna17094
that story posted just after the conclusion of the Andrea Mitchell show which prompted my post that evening.

[MDlaxfan76]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

You don't recall the reporting that Kyiv would fall within days of the invasion & that we were urging Z to evac Kyiv, even offering to help him escape ?

I do, but the reporting on Zelensky calling for ammo not a ride came by 1pm our time on Feb 26; your post was after that signal.

Again, I thought your prediction was rational, though it's clear now that Zelensky knew the situation better and he also knew how essential it would be to Ukrainian resistance for him to not flee.

There were several reports of US recommendations to move the govt to Lviv at the same time thousands were going west or leaving the country. There was not high confidence in Z's survival if he remained in Kyiv.

21 Feb, same day as my Andrea Mitchell post : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna17094
that story posted just after the conclusion of the Andrea Mitchell show which prompted my post that evening.

yes, I believe she interviewed John Brennan that day who said he was concerned that Russia had a list of people who opposed Russa...and they'd be taken out if Russia succeeded. I did NOT find anything remotely akin to your characterization of the people around Zelensky.

Again, on the 26th, the reporting was of Zelensky's refusal to leave Kyiv and the request for ammo...your post was well after that reporting. He was rallying his country...and the world....yes, at great personal risk.

But your concern, shall we say, was certainly not off base.
Fortunately, your prediction proved to be wrong.
You were not alone...Putin was undoubtedly surprised too...

[old salt]

You thought the Russian army wouldn't even break a sweat on the way to Kiev. You were wrong. It's not that big of a deal.

That's BS. I made no predictions on how the war would progress. I did not anticipate an attempt to take Kyiv.

...

Do you really think, at this stage, that the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from taking Kyiv & then force the Russians to retreat or hold in place ? Do you know what will happen to Kiev if Zellinsky & his govt & military forces don't relocate to the west of the country & declare Kyiv an open city? Kyiv will become Tripoli & Zelinsky will end up like Gaddafi. Ukraine needs a leader not a martyr.

That's not a prediction. It's a what-if question when the Russians were already in the suburbs of Kyiv & the US govt was begging Zelensky & his family & govt to evacuate to the west of the country. I did not expect the Russians to make a thrust to take Kyiv because it would over-extend their supply lines, which it did & forced them to eventually retreat. Nonetheless, it was a near thing & a very tenuous time for the Ukrainians.

The Russians are again massing their new troops in Belarus in another apparent attempt to threaten Kyiv. I wonder if it's not a way to continue training their green conscript troops & a way to force the Ukrainians to divert forces from their planned counter offensives in the south.

mmm, it does look remarkably similar to "a prediction"...not an irrational one, but a prediction nonetheless.

It was 2 days into the war. The Russians had already reached the suburbs of Kyiv. It was a howgozit & a question, based on the reality on the ground as to whether Zelensky should stay or go. It was about Zelensky's immediate safety. It was not a prediction on how the war would progress.

...& we were seeing news reports like this.

Andrea Mitchell, just back from Munich, reports that Kyiv can be taken in 2 days, that Zelensky is surrounded by Quislings & will decamp to Lviv.

mmm, note how you reframed the reporting...

Old Serpent.

You don't recall the reporting that Kyiv would fall within days of the invasion & that we were urging Z to evac Kyiv, even offering to help him escape ?

I do, but the reporting on Zelensky calling for ammo not a ride came by 1pm our time on Feb 26; your post was after that signal.

Again, I thought your prediction was rational, though it's clear now that Zelensky knew the situation better and he also knew how essential it would be to Ukrainian resistance for him to not flee.

There were several reports of US recommendations to move the govt to Lviv at the same time thousands were going west or leaving the country. There was not high confidence in Z's survival if he remained in Kyiv.

21 Feb, same day as my Andrea Mitchell post : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna17094
that story posted just after the conclusion of the Andrea Mitchell show which prompted my post that evening.

yes, I believe she interviewed John Brennan that day who said he was concerned that Russia had a list of people who opposed Russa...and they'd be taken out if Russia succeeded. I did NOT find anything remotely akin to your characterization of the people around Zelensky.

Again, on the 26th, the reporting was of Zelensky's refusal to leave Kyiv and the request for ammo...your post was well after that reporting. He was rallying his country...and the world....yes, at great personal risk.

But your concern, shall we say, was certainly not off base.
Fortunately, your prediction proved to be wrong.
You were not alone...Putin was undoubtedly surprised too...

My post was on the 21st. The offer you reference was on the 26th. The NBC article I linked reported that US officials were recommending to Ukrainian officials that Z relocate to Lviv, thus my "decamp" reference :

U.S. officials discussed Ukrainian president leaving capital if Russia attacks
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would relocate to Lviv in western Ukraine, about 50 miles from the Polish border.
Feb. 21, 2022, 2:56 PM EST / Updated Feb. 21, 2022, 3:24 PM EST

WASHINGTON — Biden administration officials have discussed plans with the Ukrainian government for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to leave Kyiv in the event of a Russian invasion, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

Under a plan that’s been discussed, Zelenskyy would relocate to Lviv in western Ukraine, about 50 miles from the Polish border, the people familiar with the discussions said.

U.S. officials are now warning of an imminent invasion that could reach Kyiv.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council declined to comment when asked about discussions between U.S. and Ukrainian officials about plans for Zelenskyy if Russia invades.

A spokesperson for Zelenskyy said the Ukrainian leader and Biden have not discussed his possible departure from Kyiv and relocation to Lviv. The spokesperson was unaware if those discussions have been had among lower-level officials in the U.S. and Ukrainian governments.

John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said Kyiv has taken steps to ensure the government will be able to operate without disruption if there is an attack, though he did not specify where the Cabinet would relocate in Ukraine.

“My understanding is they’ve made contingency plans for a continuance of government,” Hersbt said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna16856

U.S. concerned about Zelenskyy's trip to Munich
The Ukrainian president hasn’t made a final decision on the visit as Washington worries Russian President Vladimir Putin could exploit his absence.

Feb. 18, 2022, 2:01 PM EST / Updated Feb. 18, 2022, 7:00 PM EST
By Andrea Mitchell, Kristen Welker, Josh Lederman and Erin McLaughlin

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is concerned about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plans to leave his country this weekend to attend the Munich Security Conference, where he’s scheduled to meet in person with Vice President Kamala Harris, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Administration officials are worried that it’s too risky right now for Zelenskyy to leave the country given the potential for conflict, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin could somehow exploit his absence, they said.

Asked if anyone in President Joe Biden's administration had conveyed to Zelenskyy's government that U.S. officials don’t believe it’s a good idea for him to leave the country at this time, State Department spokesman Ned Price declined to answer directly. “We have indicated this is a decision for him to make,” Price said on MSNBC’s "Andrea Mitchell Reports."

Biden himself told reporters Friday that Zelenskyy's trip might not be "the wise choice" but that it was "a judgment for him to make" and "his decision."
______________________________________________________________
On the 18th, we were advising Z not to leave Kyiv for the Munich conf.
By the 21st, we were encouraging him to decamp to Lviv.

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... interests/

Too Much Zelensky Talk, Not Enough about American Interests

By MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY, December 22, 2022

I find it relatively easy to separate my appraisal of Volodymyr Zelensky from my view of America’s interests in Ukraine. I don’t know why so many others can’t.

A lot of rhetorical bomb-throwers decided to spend yesterday focusing their fire on how Zelensky dresses and brands himself. This is a pitiful distraction from the conversation that needs to happen.

Zelensky has never been above criticism. In Ukraine he is criticized much more freely by the people than he is in American media. His campaign against Ukrainian political corruption was selective, for instance. In fact, I think he suffered from too much criticism at first. Go back into the New York Times archives and look at the snickering tone of the coverage before the war. America’s foreign-policy blob and its mouthpieces tended to view him as too amateurish and too soft to deal with Vladimir Putin. He received criticism like this mostly because he was elected to settle the ongoing dispute in the east, and he was initially open to Putin’s diplomatic offensive. The blob tended to side with Zelensky’s right-wing ultra-nationalist critics.

Zelensky’s Fashion Choices Are Not the Issue Here

Zelensky has done, what looks like to me, a very difficult job of holding a government together under tremendous stress and pressure. While the Western media have made something of a cult around him, he has done good work in maintaining the link between his personal popularity and his nation’s cause.

Focusing on his dress sense, or speculating about his home in Italy, is beside the point.

It’s a distraction from such hard questions as: What are the limits to U.S. support in Ukraine? What kind of responsibilities for re-building Ukraine will the United States have? Given the paucity of European support during the war, it sure looks like rebuilding Ukraine will be left to the U.S. taxpayer. Does that give us an incentive to see the war end sooner rather than later, when more of the country’s productive capacity is destroyed and more of its people are killed or have established long-term plans outside of Ukraine? What kind of economy can Ukraine really build for itself post-war? Eastern Europe, even the part that has been in the EU for over a decade, still relies on infrastructure that ties its economic fate to Russia’s to some degree. And joining the EU has been a mixed bag for those countries, as it encouraged a brain drain — where the best and brightest migrated to Germany and London. Such pressures would be even more severe on a post-war Ukraine.

Lately, it seems that the only person talking any sense on these matters is Joe Biden himself, who did more than I expected him to do in delineating and distinguishing America’s interest from Ukraine’s. Zelensky talked of “total victory,” but Biden warned that giving Ukraine certain weapons would “have the prospect of breaking up NATO” and that other NATO members “are not looking for a war with Russia.”

Critics of the war want to be taken seriously. They should offer serious criticism.

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/ ... s-support/

Ukraine Deserves U.S. Support

By THE EDITORS, December 22, 2022

Flying from his embattled country to Washington cannot have been a decision that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky took lightly. That he went ahead and made the visit, meeting with President Biden and addressing a joint session of Congress, must have reflected unease in Kyiv about its allies’ willingness to stick with Ukraine in a war that shows no signs of ending.

Zelensky’s speech, complete with references to the Battles of the Bulge and Saratoga, was carefully crafted. He expressed his gratitude for the assistance that Ukraine has received, while making the case that this was not just Ukraine’s fight, but the Western world’s too, even if only indirectly: “I assure you that Ukrainian soldiers can perfectly operate American tanks and planes themselves.”

Aid for Ukraine was not, Zelensky maintained, “charity.” It was “an investment in . . . global security and democracy.” Helping Ukraine is, we believe, the correct thing to do, but it can be justified based on calculations colder than the defense of a principle (“democracy”). Helping Ukraine is yielding real returns too. Approved U.S. spending to date on Ukraine has been some $68 billion. An additional $45 billion is now on the table. These sums, even today, are a great deal of money. That said, looking at them against a 2022 defense budget of some $740 billion and, probably, the mid-800 billions of dollars in 2023 makes them look less daunting, even more so when factoring in the massive Russian losses of men and matériel that aid has helped buy.

Those losses, in time, will be replaced (just as we will replace the American equipment destroyed in Ukraine), but the reduction for now in the threat posed by Russia’s conventional forces in Europe represents a good return on “investment.” Moreover, should Ukraine fall, Putin’s words and deeds give every reason to expect that Russia will, one way or another, start probing further west. When Zelensky warned that “it is just a matter of time [before Russia] will strike against your other allies if we do not stop them now,” he was right. The form that that “strike” might take is a matter of conjecture, but, unless the U.S. decides to wash its hands of Europe, dealing with such a strike will cost far more than our support for Kyiv.

Most of Putin’s vulnerable neighbors are much smaller than Ukraine and would therefore require more direct outside assistance in order to defend themselves against Russia. We should be thankful that Zelensky asks us only for money; he can supply the warriors and the will.

Nevertheless, we cannot indefinitely dodge the question of what we should do if the war drags on, or how we intend to pay for this. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, our current rate of spending on Ukraine is running at just under $7 billion a month. That means that, if the war continues (and it probably will), another aid package will have to be agreed to in the course of next year. That will be entirely deficit spending if no effort is made to sacrifice other spending priorities. The U.S. also needs to have formed a clearer view of its strategy before then. Waiting for Putin to die or be overthrown is not a strategy. And neither is waiting for a Russian economic or military collapse. However unlikely, the last of these possibilities, in particular, comes fraught with nuclear peril.

If our strategy is to continue on our current path, that needs to be acknowledged, as does the importance of ensuring that our European allies do their part, something that cannot be taken for granted. We must also face the reality that the longer this conflict persists, the greater the danger of a more widespread and, possibly, nuclear war. To reduce that possibility, we should still avoid supplying weapons that Ukraine could use to strike deep into Russia.

If we are unwilling to maintain our current level of support for Ukraine indefinitely, we should be working behind the scenes to push Kyiv toward a deal. One reason to do so now is the stronger bargaining power that Ukraine should enjoy as a result of its battlefield success.

In his speech, President Zelensky maintained that “this battle cannot be frozen or postponed. It cannot be ignored, hoping that the ocean or something else will provide a protection.” The use of the word “frozen” was, in all probability, aimed at those arguing that “freezing” the conflict, perhaps by aiming for a Korean-style armistice, is the best that can be hoped for under current circumstances. This would mean that Russia would keep some of its ill-gotten gains. Should the U.S. decide to go down this route, it should do so by beginning the discussions with Kyiv, not Moscow. And it should do so in the full awareness that any such armistice would be fragile. The best chance that the peace would hold would be a rearmed Ukraine on a clear path to closer integration with, and eventual membership in, the EU. Anything less, and the risk of renewed Russian aggression would, in time, become a certainty.

[a fan]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... interests/

Too Much Zelensky Talk, Not Enough about American Interests

By MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY, December 22, 2022

I find it relatively easy to separate my appraisal of Volodymyr Zelensky from my view of America’s interests in Ukraine. I don’t know why so many others can’t.

A lot of rhetorical bomb-throwers decided to spend yesterday focusing their fire on how Zelensky dresses and brands himself. This is a pitiful distraction from the conversation that needs to happen.

Zelensky has never been above criticism. In Ukraine he is criticized much more freely by the people than he is in American media. His campaign against Ukrainian political corruption was selective, for instance. In fact, I think he suffered from too much criticism at first. Go back into the New York Times archives and look at the snickering tone of the coverage before the war. America’s foreign-policy blob and its mouthpieces tended to view him as too amateurish and too soft to deal with Vladimir Putin. He received criticism like this mostly because he was elected to settle the ongoing dispute in the east, and he was initially open to Putin’s diplomatic offensive. The blob tended to side with Zelensky’s right-wing ultra-nationalist critics.

Zelensky’s Fashion Choices Are Not the Issue Here

Zelensky has done, what looks like to me, a very difficult job of holding a government together under tremendous stress and pressure. While the Western media have made something of a cult around him, he has done good work in maintaining the link between his personal popularity and his nation’s cause.

Focusing on his dress sense, or speculating about his home in Italy, is beside the point.

It’s a distraction from such hard questions as: What are the limits to U.S. support in Ukraine? What kind of responsibilities for re-building Ukraine will the United States have? Given the paucity of European support during the war, it sure looks like rebuilding Ukraine will be left to the U.S. taxpayer. Does that give us an incentive to see the war end sooner rather than later, when more of the country’s productive capacity is destroyed and more of its people are killed or have established long-term plans outside of Ukraine? What kind of economy can Ukraine really build for itself post-war? Eastern Europe, even the part that has been in the EU for over a decade, still relies on infrastructure that ties its economic fate to Russia’s to some degree. And joining the EU has been a mixed bag for those countries, as it encouraged a brain drain — where the best and brightest migrated to Germany and London. Such pressures would be even more severe on a post-war Ukraine.

Lately, it seems that the only person talking any sense on these matters is Joe Biden himself, who did more than I expected him to do in delineating and distinguishing America’s interest from Ukraine’s. Zelensky talked of “total victory,” but Biden warned that giving Ukraine certain weapons would “have the prospect of breaking up NATO” and that other NATO members “are not looking for a war with Russia.”

Critics of the war want to be taken seriously. They should offer serious criticism.

This is SPECTACULAR coming from the crew that thought blowing $50 Billion per year in Afghanistan in the last few years...and that's just for our military, not the money paying off leaders and building infrastructure......was a sooper cool idea, so hey, why should we ever leave?

And that's just one country we're blowing money in. There's quite a few more.

But i think it's SPECTACULAR that the team that never saw a war they didn't want to fund has now seen Financial Jeezus, and talking about money.
Pretending that you found your calculators, are we?

Here's Bush's answer to these questions: "go shopping". Oh, and we should cut taxes to pay for the money we're giving to Ukraine.....that was the "plan" from both Trump and Bush.

But please, you and the National Review need to tell us more about just how serious you are about spending now that a little D is in the White House.

Want my answer? Vote DeSantis in 2024....it'll be a Xmas miracle when he's elected, and you can go right back to ignoring US deficit spending, my good man! Oh, and he'll cut your taxes for good measure. Hooray!

[NattyBohChamps04]

It's funny that most these critics were silent about the tens to hundreds of billions spent in Afghanistan annually for nearly two decades. Are they asking about the billions we send to Israel each year too?

There are valid questions regarding money we give domestically to the American military industrail complex to send arms and support to Ukraine, sure... it's just weird what they pick and choose to get upset about. Seems more one-sided politically driven than actually economically / fiscally driven or even political policy-driven.

They're also completely ignoring the other side of the American Interests discussion in Ukraine. There are a lot of things we are benefitting from with our support.

Plus, you know, doing the right thing still counts in this world, or no?

[old salt]

I give up. Biden sent a USAF jet to fetch Zelensky. His speech was a Hallmark tv Xmas infomercial staged to drag a pork laden earmarked omnibus bill across the finish line.

If we're going to fund a proxy war where Ukrainian soldiers kill Russian soldiers on our behalf, & consume US munitions & weapons systems to destroy Russia's munitions & weapons systems, we need a business plan & we're gonna have to crunch the numbers.
They're all just dead slavs, right ? We need new stuff anyway.

Can we trust DoD or Rand Corp to do it, or should we bring in McKinsey to tally the butchers bill ?

[DocBarrister]

I give up. Biden sent a USAF jet to fetch Zelensky. His speech was a Hallmark tv Xmas infomercial staged to drag a pork laden earmarked omnibus bill across the finish line.

If we're going to fund a proxy war where Ukrainian soldiers kill Russian soldiers on our behalf, & consume US munitions & weapons systems to destroy Russia's munitions & weapons systems, we need a business plan & we're gonna have to crunch the numbers.
They're all just dead slavs, right ? We need new stuff anyway.

Can we trust DoD or Rand Corp to do it, or should we bring in McKinsey to tally the butchers bill ?

No matter how this war ends … with Zelensky as a living hero or a martyr … he will be remembered as one of the greatest wartime leaders in all of history.

And your man Putin? He will be remembered as a murderous war criminal and one of the most incompetent tyrants in the annals of fascist thugs.

There is only one monster responsible for the slaughter of Russian soldiers … and he resides in the Kremlin.

The United States needs to see this through until Russia throws in the towel and Ukraine emerges victorious.

DocBarrister

[NattyBohChamps04]

Plus, you know, doing the right thing still counts in this world, or no?

[a fan]

I give up. Biden sent a USAF jet to fetch Zelensky. His speech was a Hallmark tv Xmas infomercial staged to drag a pork laden earmarked omnibus bill across the finish line.

If we're going to fund a proxy war where Ukrainian soldiers kill Russian soldiers on our behalf, & consume US munitions & weapons systems to destroy Russia's munitions & weapons systems, we need a business plan & we're gonna have to crunch the numbers.
They're all just dead slavs, right ? We need new stuff anyway.

Can we trust DoD or Rand Corp to do it, or should we bring in McKinsey to tally the butchers bill ?

Again: where the F has this been the last decade plus on the forum?

"Suddenly" you care about casualties, and not just American casualties....all casualties?

"Suddenly" you care about money and spending after NEVER complaining about spending or cut taxes the ENTIRE time you've been here?

Give it up: you have NO STANDING here. None. Zippo. You've NEVER complained about this stuff before. That's what yours truly did!!!

Your "plan" to get out of Afghanistan was to stay. Forever. To the tune of $50 billion per year. And you NEVER mentioned all the Afghani civilians we've killed. Not once. Or in Iraq. Or in Syria. Or, or, or......suddenly, you're selling peace and wise spending?

So please.....move on. Your fake complaints mean NOTHING here. You're whining about Biden. You're not fooling anyone with your nonsense.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I give up. Biden sent a USAF jet to fetch Zelensky. His speech was a Hallmark tv Xmas infomercial staged to drag a pork laden earmarked omnibus bill across the finish line.

If we're going to fund a proxy war where Ukrainian soldiers kill Russian soldiers on our behalf, & consume US munitions & weapons systems to destroy Russia's munitions & weapons systems, we need a business plan & we're gonna have to crunch the numbers.
They're all just dead slavs, right ? We need new stuff anyway.

Can we trust DoD or Rand Corp to do it, or should we bring in McKinsey to tally the butchers bill ?

Again: where the F has this been the last decade plus on the forum?

"Suddenly" you care about casualties, and not just American casualties....all casualties?

"Suddenly" you care about money and spending after NEVER complaining about spending or cut taxes the ENTIRE time you've been here?

Give it up: you have NO STANDING here. None. Zippo. You've NEVER complained about this stuff before. That's what yours truly did!!!

Your "plan" to get out of Afghanistan was to stay. Forever. To the tune of $50 billion per year. And you NEVER mentioned all the Afghani civilians we've killed. Not once. Or in Iraq. Or in Syria. Or, or, or......suddenly, you're selling peace and wise spending?

So please.....move on. Your fake complaints mean NOTHING here. You're whining about Biden. You're not fooling anyone with your nonsense.

What did I tell you!!!

[a fan]

It's funny that most these critics were silent about the tens to hundreds of billions spent in Afghanistan annually for nearly two decades. Are they asking about the billions we send to Israel each year too?

There are valid questions regarding money we give domestically to the American military industrail complex to send arms and support to Ukraine, sure... it's just weird what they pick and choose to get upset about. Seems more one-sided politically driven than actually economically / fiscally driven or even political policy-driven.

They're also completely ignoring the other side of the American Interests discussion in Ukraine. There are a lot of things we are benefitting from with our support.

Plus, you know, doing the right thing still counts in this world, or no?

$1000 says that American Generals are THRILLED with the bang for the buck we're getting in Ukraine. We have DESTROYED the Russian military completely in, oh, around 9 months. And OS is here complaining, acting like he doesn't understand this.

Oh yeah, Biden came up with this strategy all on his own, and American Generals are clutching pearls, demanding Biden stop, and think about the children.

Old Salt isn't fooling anyone with this act.