Colors of Blue and Gold

[Richard Smith]

Russia Is Losing the War. Give Ukraine the Weapons to End It

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-losing-the-war-give-ukraine-the-weapons-to-end-it/ar-AA14RI2G?cvid=1af6960512f240a8aa9c119c21b8a795

This article makes a great point:

What has our 5.6 % investment (of our annual defense budget) in Ukraine gotten us? The through trashing of the Russian army. How is this not a good investment of our money?

The trashing of the Russian army is a great accomplishment. It greatly lessens the threat of Russia overrunning Europe. If Ukraine prevails, Russia will be greatly discouraged from going on similar adventures in the future. Their population may, to a certain extent, become pacifists, like the populations of Germany and Japan after World War II.

With the threat of the Russian army greatly reduced, I don't see why our defense budget could not be cut by 10 % each year., as we only concentrate the threat of China attacking Taiwan.

The threat of China is much less than that of Russia, simply because I don't think China's ambition extends beyond Taiwan. I think they just want to take everything that the old China used to control. At least, I hope that's true. In any event, reducing the threat of the Russian army should save us a great deal of money in defense spending over the coming decades.

It's funny. The same people who complain about the spending for Ukraine, are the same people who had no problem with our large defense budget over the years. I always thought we overspend on defense. I now think I was wrong. Other countries are tempted to use conventional war to get what they want. The Nuclear age has not made it impossible for an aggressor to wage conventional war to take over other countries.

Question:

Why is it the same people who are upset about our spending for Ukraine, were never bothered by the trillions we have spent on U. S. Defense?

This doesn't make sense, because our spending on Ukraine is clearly a good bet. A relatively small investment, with the possibility of huge savings in the coming years. Even if supporting Ukraine only has a 10% of success, that is, defeating Russia and reducing our defense budget by 10 % for the next 20 years, it's a great bet. Do the math.

I think the real reason, is that some people like to see the expansion of Authoritarianism, the expansion of Dictatorships. If Russia is successful, it may mean that Authoritarianism is inevitable, that Authoritarianism will eventually succeed in other places, like the United States. An appealing notion for those who support Trump.

And it is mostly people who have supported Trump who don't like our support of Ukraine, correct?

The same people who told us things were going well in Vietnam and Afghanistan for decades and we just needed to keep at it for a while longer and spend more billions are the same folks telling us this fairy tale about Ukraine.  The war has destroyed the country.  US bombs are being used on Ukranian cities, bridges, and roads.  They are killing Ukranian citizens and extending the war.  There is no effort being made to find a way to end it.  The money is being stolen by Ukranian oligarchs.   The weapons are unaccounted for and risk ending up in the hands of terrorists on the black market.  But some folks who stand to benefit are claiming it is all good.  So that's that.

[Jon Banks]

Biden can help Zelensky, and Ukraine, by pushing for peace

If an enduring peace can be had through negotiation — and we won’t know if it can until we explore that prospect — then negotiations would be in America’s interest. That alone might be enough reason for Biden to steer Ukraine toward the table. But as it happens, such a peace would be in Ukraine’s interests — and most of the world’s — as well.

To start with some of the more mundane virtues of near-term peace: The war is costing America lots of money. And this spending is inflationary at a time when inflation is a big global problem. The war also fuels inflation in other ways, notably by constricting the supply of energy to European allies. And, as those allies buy American natural gas as a substitute, some European officials are accusing the United States of profiteering, revealing tensions within the West that could grow as the winter proceeds.

Meanwhile, every day the war continues, more Ukrainians die, and more of Ukraine gets wrecked. And every day there is some risk of a fluke turning this into a wider war, featuring direct NATO involvement. Even if such a war didn’t go nuclear, the devastation could be vast. “World War III” might be an overstatement — but it might not (especially in light of a recent report that China and Russia have a secret mutual defense agreement).

So, what are the arguments against a peace that leaves Russia in control of some Ukrainian territory? The most common one involves a goal shared by the United States and Ukraine and many other countries: giving Russia a big dose of negative reinforcement for invading its neighbor. This punishment could deter Russia from repeating such aggression and deter other countries from aggression by reinforcing the norm against attacking sovereign nations (even if, awkwardly, the United States has violated that norm — which is also an international law — more than once in recent decades).

Obviously, pushing Russian troops back to pre-2014 lines (Zelensky’s stated goal) or even pre-February lines, would be a powerful form of negative reinforcement — and the more powerful the better. But it’s important to see that, even without that, this war has been extremely costly for Russia and for Vladimir Putin.

Samuel Charap, an expert on Ukraine at the Rand Corp., recently said, “Russia has already lost no matter where the line is. Russia’s strategic defeat … is already a thing. That’s done.” The reason, he said, is the “astonishing damage to (a) their military capabilities, (b) their international reputation, (c) their economy, their capacity to rearm. I mean, Russia has weakened itself in the last nine months more than any U.S. policy … could have done.”

In other words: Even if Russia held onto all or most of the territory it now has, its February invasion would be seen — by it and by other countries — as a very cautionary tale, in stark contrast to its casual seizure of Crimea in 2014.

Of course, there is one argument against a peace deal that, especially from Ukraine’s point of view, is potent: Justice demands that Russia give back all the land it took. But that’s a compelling argument for more war only if Ukraine has a good chance of getting the land back through continued fighting — and getting it back at acceptable human cost. The current state of play on the battlefield casts doubt on that premise...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/02/how-biden-help-ukraine-zelensky/

[Joe Elliott]

Biden can help Zelensky, and Ukraine, by pushing for peace

Ukraine has already taken back 50 % of the land taken by Russia in the first month of invasion of 2022. Let's say they take back another 25 %, regaining a total of 75 %. And then make a peace deal.

This would be a good deal for Ukraine? Russia would have learned this lesson? No. Putin would control the narrative. We would spin it as a hard won victory. And while gaining only a small slice of Ukraine in 2022-2023(?) war may seem minor, it still puts Russia closer to taking back all of Ukraine. They would be free to try again once they rebuild their military.

Remember, Russia has a history of launching an aggressive war, suffering major defeats, and coming back for more. They tried to overrun Poland in 1920. And suffered a major defeat. Learned their lesson? No, they just came back in 1939.

Do I think Ukraine can take back all of the gains Russia made in 2014 and 2022? I think this may be tough. As the Russians get pushed back to their own border, they get closer and closer to their own source of supplies. Russia logistics are not very strong. They can't support a deep advance into Ukraine. They don't have enough quality trucks. They could really use some Lend Lease Dodge trucks like the thousands they had in 1943-1945. But at some point, within a few miles of the border, they should be able to hold. Still, if the army morale suffers enough, who knows?

The two things Ukraine can and should take back are:
1. The Crimea Land Bridge.
2. Crimea.

The Crimean Land Bridge should be relatively easy. It's a logistical nightmare. A long narrow corridor leading a relatively long way back into Russia. Might even be possible to trap a good portion of the Russia army with their backs to the very shallow Sea of Azov, with a low to zero chance of evacuating.
Crimea seems tough. But once they take the Crimea Land Bridge and destroy the Russia build bridge (not to be confused with the 'Crimean Land Bridge') it will be isolated and they should be able to take it back.

Losing Crimea, Losing the Naval Base at Sevastopol, that the Russians took in 2014 would be a big psychological blow. It might be enough to convince Russians that war is not the answer.

Who knows. Maybe Russian morale will collapse enough for the Ukrainians to take back all their territories. But they better not make peace without taking the Crimean Land and Crimea. Otherwise, the Russians are sure to come back once they have rebuild their army and rigorously rid it of excessive corruption. They will be too encouraged by whatever gains they end up with from 2022 not to press on a few years down the road.

Is their risk in doing this? Yes. Russia may use Neclear weapons. But if we don't stand up to them at some point they can overrun Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, Germany and beyond. If we are ever going to stand up to them, it had better be now. Or not at all.

If we back down now, but make a strong stand later, for let's say Poland, Russia is bound to think that the threat of Nuclear War was enough in 2023. Surely a few real Nuclear Strikes will work in 2030.

We must make a strong stand now. Or rigorously resolve not to make a strong stand in the future against any Russian advance. Making a strong stand now, or resolving not to make a strong stand ever, are our two best options. Backing down now, but making a strong stand later, is our worst option.

Question for both Jon and Richard, or anyone else?

Which option do you believe we should make?

1. Make a strong stand now.
2. Not make a strong stand now, but do so if Russia tries again, as it did in 2014 and 2022.
3. Not to ever make a strong stand in Europe, anywhere, no matter what Russia invades. The risks of Nuclear War are just too great.

And, as always, it's important not to dodge tough questions. Facing questions is the key to coming to better understanding. Otherwise, one is stuck in always maintaining one's current beliefs.

Can either of you answer one simple, tough question?

[Richard Smith]

Ukraine has already taken back 50 % of the land taken by Russia in the first month of invasion of 2022. Let's say they take back another 25 %, regaining a total of 75 %. And then make a peace deal.

This would be a good deal for Ukraine? Russia would have learned this lesson? No. Putin would control the narrative. We would spin it as a hard won victory. And while gaining only a small slice of Ukraine in 2022-2023(?) war may seem minor, it still puts Russia closer to taking back all of Ukraine. They would be free to try again once they rebuild their military.

Remember, Russia has a history of launching an aggressive war, suffering major defeats, and coming back for more. They tried to overrun Poland in 1920. And suffered a major defeat. Learned their lesson? No, they just came back in 1939.

Do I think Ukraine can take back all of the gains Russia made in 2014 and 2022? I think this may be tough. As the Russians get pushed back to their own border, they get closer and closer to their own source of supplies. Russia logistics are not very strong. They can't support a deep advance into Ukraine. They don't have enough quality trucks. They could really use some Lend Lease Dodge trucks like the thousands they had in 1943-1945. But at some point, within a few miles of the border, they should be able to hold. Still, if the army morale suffers enough, who knows?

The two things Ukraine can and should take back are:
1. The Crimea Land Bridge.
2. Crimea.

The Crimean Land Bridge should be relatively easy. It's a logistical nightmare. A long narrow corridor leading a relatively long way back into Russia. Might even be possible to trap a good portion of the Russia army with their backs to the very shallow Sea of Azov, with a low to zero chance of evacuating.
Crimea seems tough. But once they take the Crimea Land Bridge and destroy the Russia build bridge (not to be confused with the 'Crimean Land Bridge') it will be isolated and they should be able to take it back.

Losing Crimea, Losing the Naval Base at Sevastopol, that the Russians took in 2014 would be a big psychological blow. It might be enough to convince Russians that war is not the answer.

Who knows. Maybe Russian morale will collapse enough for the Ukrainians to take back all their territories. But they better not make peace without taking the Crimean Land and Crimea. Otherwise, the Russians are sure to come back once they have rebuild their army and rigorously rid it of excessive corruption. They will be too encouraged by whatever gains they end up with from 2022 not to press on a few years down the road.

Is their risk in doing this? Yes. Russia may use Neclear weapons. But if we don't stand up to them at some point they can overrun Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, Germany and beyond. If we are ever going to stand up to them, it had better be now. Or not at all.

If we back down now, but make a strong stand later, for let's say Poland, Russia is bound to think that the threat of Nuclear War was enough in 2023. Surely a few real Nuclear Strikes will work in 2030.

We must make a strong stand now. Or rigorously resolve not to make a strong stand in the future against any Russian advance. Making a strong stand now, or resolving not to make a strong stand ever, are our two best options. Backing down now, but making a strong stand later, is our worst option.

Question for both Jon and Richard, or anyone else?

Which option do you believe we should make?

1. Make a strong stand now.
2. Not make a strong stand now, but do so if Russia tries again, as it did in 2014 and 2022.
3. Not to ever make a strong stand in Europe, anywhere, no matter what Russia invades. The risks of Nuclear War are just too great.

And, as always, it's important not to dodge tough questions. Facing questions is the key to coming to better understanding. Otherwise, one is stuck in always maintaining one's current beliefs.

Can either of you answer one simple, tough question?

It's up to the Ukrainians and Russians how this war ends.  The US and NATO should be facilitating that settlement, however, instead of funding endless war.  Despite the expenditure of billions of US taxpayer dollars to extend the war, there has been to my knowledge been no effort by the US to figure out how it should be ended.  None.  Just an open checkbook for more war.  It is not even clear what the US objective is here except send billions to the companies that benefit from war (who then fund the election campaigns of the establishment politicians who fund the war in a vicious circle). 

How many years will the US fund this war before deciding enough is enough?   It took decades to get out of Afghanistan and Vietnam and the war mongers complained when it did eventually happen.  All the lies that things were going well and just holding out a bit longer and spending more money would eventually achieve success are being repeated.  Ironically by exactly the same people who made that argument about Afghanistan and were never held accountable.  It is unreal that the intelligence, military, and contractors who conducted the war in Afghanistan were not tried for perjury and treason for the lies they told to fund that war and cause the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and countless civilians based on their lies to Congress.   All for no purpose.  Twenty years of war for nothing.  Who can even believe the information being provided by Ukraine and the US about how things are going with a long track record of absolute lies and the media operating as a state sponsored arm of the government?  There is no independent confirmation. 

[Jon Banks]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win

During the early years of America's Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln sought a limited conflict against people he still regarded as fellow countrymen and with whom he sought reconciliation. Only after three years of stalemate did he turn to "Unconditional Surrender Grant," who in turn unleashed General William Tecumseh Sherman to "make Georgia howl" and help bring the war to its decisively violent conclusion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin waited only six months before switching from a special military operation to full scale war against Ukraine. Putin's initial assault was limited to barely 150,000 troops. He expected a quick victory followed by negotiations on his principal concerns: Russian control of Crimea, Ukrainian neutrality, and autonomy for the Russian population in the Donbas, but he was wrong. Putin had not counted on Ukraine's stiff resistance or the West's massive military and economic intervention. Faced with a new situation, Putin changed his strategy. Now he is about to unleash his own General Sherman and make Ukraine howl.

Last month Putin gave General Sergey Surovikin overall command of Russia's war in the Ukraine. Surovikin comes from the technologically sophisticated Aerospace Forces, but has fought on the ground in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Syria where he is credited with saving the Assad regime. Surovikin has stated publicly that there will be no half measures in Ukraine. Instead, he has begun to methodically destroy Ukraine's infrastructure with precision missile attacks. Armies need railroads and while Sherman systematically tore up the tracks leading to Atlanta, Surovikin is destroying the electricity grid which powers Ukrainian railroads. This has left Ukrainian cities cold and dark, but Surovikin seems to agree with Sherman that "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."

Some have presented this conflict as a morality play, between good and evil, but the reality is more complex. Ukraine is no flourishing democracy. It is an impoverished, corrupt, one-party state with extensive censorship, where opposition newspapers and political parties have been shut down. Before the war, far right Ukrainian nationalist groups like the Azov Brigade were soundly condemned by the U.S. Congress. Kiev's determined campaign against the Russian language is analogous to the Canadian government trying to ban French in Quebec. Ukrainian shells have killed hundreds of civilians in the Donbas and there are emerging reports of Ukrainian war crimes. The truly moral course of action would be to end this war with negotiations rather than prolong the suffering the Ukrainian people in a conflict they are unlikely to win without risking American lives.

https://www.newsweek.com/lessons-us-civil-war-show-why-ukraine-cant-win-opinion-1764992

The authors are retired US diplomats.

The best case scenario for Ukraine seems to be a Stalemate. I don't view Russia's unconditional surrender as a likely outcome of this war.

[Joe Elliott]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Winhttps://www.newsweek.com/lessons-us-civil-war-show-why-ukraine-cant-win-opinion-1764992

The authors are retired US diplomats.

The best case scenario for Ukraine seems to be a Stalemate. I don't view Russia's unconditional surrender as a likely outcome of this war.

The main point of this article seems to be that Ukraine can't win. Sherman helped win the Civil War by "Making Georgia Howl" and destroying the rail network. This is, supposedly similar to destroying the Power grid of Ukraine. Sherman didn't win by making Georgia Howl. He won by putting boots on the ground. Using Long Range bombardment to destroy the Power Grid is more equivalent to using Long Range bombardment to bombard Fort Sumter and bombardment. It made South Carolina howl, but it did not cause Fort Sumter to fall. Nor Charleston to fall. Nor the Confederacy to fall. And while the Confederacy could not repair destroyed rail lines after the Union Army passed through, it appears that Ukraine can repair the Power Grid over time. And we have reinforced their missile defense which makes it much harder successfully attack the Power Grid. Even with the best conventional weapon system they still have in reserve, the Iranian Drones And with the coming of the Patriot Missile Systems we are finally sending, this ability will be further weakened.

But neither Jon Banks nor Richard Smith have answered my previous question. If we reduce our support for Ukraine, the Russians will conclude that it is the threat of Nuclear War that caused us to back off. So, when is the best time to stand up to the Russians? Now? If Russian later assaults Ukraine by land again in ten years? Or with Nuclear Weapons in one year? Or attacks the Baltic States, or Finland, or Poland, or Germany? Or is it best not to stand up to them at all and allow Russia to overrun all of Central Europe right up to the French border? What is our best option and why?

[Joe Elliott]

President Zelensky is scheduled to address the U. S. Congress this week. I was hoping this could be done after the war was won. When President Biden could, for the second time, offer Zelensky a ride. On Air Force One. With all the honors accorded to him as it would be to a U. S. President. Including referring to this plane as "Air Force One" as long as Zelensky was on board, both coming and going. Biden could await him in Washington D. C. And there Zelensky could address a Joint Session of Congress.

President Trump used to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. But he supported and praised Putin, the enemy of the 21st Century Churchill. I prefer a President who does not keep a bust of Churchill, but who does support Zelensky and who stands against Putin.

Well, I guess this won't happen quite the way I envisioned it. But I do hope that President Zelensky will reflect, that if his parents were American and not Ukrainian, he might have had his own American T. V. show.

[Richard Smith]

President Zelensky is scheduled to address the U. S. Congress this week. I was hoping this could be done after the war was won. When President Biden could, for the second time, offer Zelensky a ride. On Air Force One. With all the honors accorded to him as it would be to a U. S. President. Including referring to this plane as "Air Force One" as long as Zelensky was on board, both coming and going. Biden could await him in Washington D. C. And there Zelensky could address a Joint Session of Congress.

President Trump used to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. But he supported and praised Putin, the enemy of the 21st Century Churchill. I prefer a President who does not keep a bust of Churchill, but who does support Zelensky and who stands against Putin.

Well, I guess this won't happen quite the way I envisioned it. But I do hope that President Zelensky will reflect, that if his parents were American and not Ukrainian, he might have had his own American T. V. show.

The military complex is loving it.  The pending bill will significantly increase the Pentagon budget to levels never seen in history.  There are billions allocated for Ukraine with no end to that war in sight.  Nor is any desired by the military officials and politicians who are benefitting from this war.  They want it to continue forever.  Like Afghanistan and Vietnam.  Zelensky is just a propaganda tool for that purpose.  They have sold a fake narrative about this war being about "democracy".   The same people are telling us it is going well (just like in Afghanistan and Vietnam!).  What they won't say is how long it's going to last or the objective or how to bring about an end.  It's another endless war.   Imagine if a fraction of those billions were spent on homeless Americans or other domestic causes instead of endless war?  How long will it last and how much will it cost?  They won't say.