Ukraine war | How it ends | Prof. John Mearsheimer

June 29, 2022 | 7 Comments »

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  1. @Adam
    The goal of NATO’s undertakings in Ukraine has never been to establish an independent state, nor a stable state, nor a economically viable state, as these were all more present prior to the Nuland-McCain sponsored coup in 2014. The consequence of this violation of the Bucharest Memorandum has rendered the state to be ever more corrupt, militarily active and forever financially destitute. None of this has changed with the Russian invasion this past February. In fact, the goal at hand has always been to draw Russia in and cripple her economically and force the Russians back into the status of an American vassal as in the 90’s. Everything you have cited exposes this reality.

    They are not trying to save Ukraine, despite the vast weapon systems that have been sent to them, and there have been many. The Russians track the larger systems and many never see the battlefield, but some still do. Among the smaller systems, there is a joke that Russia now has more of these due to being captured than the West has in their reserves, as the Ukrainians are left to google how to employ them before abandoning their positions and the weapons that they never mastered. This is, of course, not a case for any humor, as the slaughterhouse that has become Ukraine is a too certain tragedy. It is unfortunate that someone can not do the simple reality math necessary to foresee that Ukraine is of no import to anyone in this geopolitical gamble gone wrong.

    The war is not about saving Ukraine, it never was, and this will not change, if for no other reason than due to the fact that it can’t change. Russia has an immense land army and the best land army to face it was actually that of Ukraine. With most of Azov and now Aidar lost to Russian capture, along with thousands of Marines and others, the new recruits have no chance of facing Russia with any competence or skill of halting the Russian advance leaving the corpses and the surrenderees to only add to the Russian burden and cost of the war. It is a savage task, and quite reminiscent of past wars of attrition, but in this war of attrition, there is no cavalry coming to preserve what remains of Ukraine and the Ukrainians, only a settlement can achieve this goal.

  2. @Adam Dalgliesh

    Well, maybe this will make you feel better – another step to a REAL war in Eastern Europe:

    29 Jun, 2022 15:10

    Biden announces new troop deployments in Europe
    The US Army will set up a permanent headquarters in Poland

    29 Jun, 2022 21:46

    NATO admits it’s been preparing for conflict with Russia since 2014
    Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that increases in deployments and military spending were done with Russia in mind

  3. If the U.S. and other NATO allies were to cut off all aid to Ukraine, Russia would have no incentative whatsoever to agree to a negotiated settlement. Instead, it would quickly occupy all of Ukraine and annex it. This may well happen, since the very modest military assistance that the NATO countries have grudgingly given Ukraine, with many delays and much foot-dragging, will not be enough to prevent a Russian victory by this coming winter at the latest.

    Germany originally promised a great deal of military aid to Ukraine. They soon began to backtrack, however, saying that they could not send Ukraine any significant amount of arms until October or December at the earliest. Finally, pro-Ukraine German parliamentarians, after Zelensky appealed to them once again, shamed the government into sending Ukraine some howitzers and and medium-range artillery pieces. But that was all.

    Most of Ukraine’s well-trained crack troops have been killed in action, and Zelensky admits that Ukraine can’t replace them. Many draftees and poorly-trained local militiamen are said to be deserting in droves. This has been partially. “balanced” by some desertions from Russian units as well.

    Unless the West gets serious about sending meaningful amounts of military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, it will be finished as an independent nation by December. Then there will be a lot of finger-pointing iin the NATO countries as every politician and general seeks to blame someone else for the defeat.

    But that will be all.

  4. I sent this comment to a YouTube blogger. But I think it is relavant to Mearsheimer’s talk as well.

    t should be taken into account that NATO support for Ukraine has been largely rhetorical and factitious, not genuine. A reliable source (I forget who, but it might have Joe Blogs) has pointed out that of the 40 billion dollars billion dollars that Congress, in reponse to the president message that UKraine was in urgent need of weapons to defend itself from Russia, not one cent of it has actually been used to purchase weapons for Ukraine, and few advanced weapons have actually reached Ukraine from the United States and other NATO countries. instead, most the money was used to purchase weapons for u.S. forces in the Pacific region, and for U.S. allies in the area such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, and to “compensate” America’s NATO allies for the money they had spent on arms for Ukraine.

    While President Biden had urged Congress to send the arms legislation to his desk immediately after the law was passed, when it arrived, he was thousands of miles away from his desk in East Asia. Two days later, the bill reached Biden in Korea, and he signed it into law. However, it was delivered to him by a low-ranking member of the White House staff who flew to Korea on an ordinary civilian airline. The military did not offer to fly him to Korea on a much faster and safer military vehicle. I think he may have had to purchase his ticket with his own money, although the White House eventually reimpursed him from its contingency fund.

    The reason why Biden had suddenly lost interest in sending weapons to Ukraine was explainied by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who had accompanied Biden on his trip to the Far East.( Because of Biden’s cognitive difficulties, Blinken is our de facto chief executive). Biden told the reporters who accompanied the presidential plane that Russia was only a short-term “tactical” threat to the U.S. and its allies, while China was the long-term “strategic” threat. Obviously, Blinken and Biden had decided to put U.S. support for Ukraine on a back burner.

    Since Biden took the office as President on January 20 of this year, the U.S. has actually spent well under 1 billion dollars on military aid to Ukraine. Approximately 700 million dollars, I believe. Since the U.S.’s annual spending on all government programs is about 3 trillion dollars, the amount spent to arm the Ukrainians is by government standards chickens__t.

    My guess is that the UK’s and Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is equally negligible in practice. I think the reason for all the anti-Russian rhetoric in the NATO countries is an attempt to change the political conversation away from these counties critical domestic problems–such as America’s collapsing economy, and Britain’s failed Brexit experiment, the threat to secede by Scotland and Northern Ireland, etc.

    Still, I admit that belligerent rhetoric, whatever the motives behind it, can lead to war. So you are right to be concerned.

  5. Mearshiemer is not only an anti-semite, but an opponent of democracy, which he refors to as the “liberal world order.” He thinks that Russia and China have better systems of government than the Western democracies, and has proposed that the U.S. should “reform” their own government systems along the lines of Russia and China, and become “authoritarian” societies .

    I think it is outrageous that this fascist s___t. holds a prestigious position at one of America’s leading universities.

    I don’t think Israpundit should publish his ant-Semitic and Anti-western rants. But I realize that is not for to decide, and I always respect Ted’s decisions even when I disagree with them.