I have been critical of the US and the West because I do not see any effort to find a solution to the conflict other than sanctions (which do not seem to be working they way they were intended)….sorry but I do not see massive amounts of money spent on weapons is an accurate solution.
The media is not helping either….their daily reports on the suffering just sets the resolve to ‘kick Russia’s ass’……there is little objective reporting in the MSM…..and that will go a long way to a prolonged war.
Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin openly acknowledged something that analysts and critics of American foreign policy have suspected since Russia attacked Ukraine in February: That one of the Biden administration’s primary objectives in arming Ukrainian forces to the teeth is to severely degrade Russia’s military capacity.
“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin told reporters Monday following a visit to Kyiv, where he and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken pledged an additional $713 million in military aid to Ukraine, which has received billions of dollars worth of heavy weaponry from the Biden administration.
“We want to see the international community more united,” Austin continued, “especially NATO.”
Ask yourself this…..if Russia is weaken to stop this sort of conflict ever happening again….what will be used to justify excessive Pentagon budget if Russia is no longer a threat?
Ukraine needs a solution to this situation…..
Personally I believe there can be a solution but few look beyond the armed response for a solution.
As the war in Ukraine heads for its third month amid a rising toll of death and destruction, Washington and its European allies are scrambling, so far unsuccessfully, to end that devastating, globally disruptive conflict. Spurred by troubling images of executed Ukrainian civilians scattered in the streets of Bucha and ruined cities like Mariupol, they are already trying to use many tools in their diplomatic pouches to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to desist. These range from economic sanctions and trade embargoes to the confiscation of the assets of some of his oligarch cronies and the increasingly massive shipment of arms to Ukraine. Yet none of it seems to be working.
Even after Ukraine’s surprisingly strong defense forced a Russian retreat from the northern suburbs of the capital, Kyiv, Putin only appears to be doubling down with plans for new offensives in Ukraine’s south and east. Instead of engaging in serious negotiations, he’s been redeploying his battered troops for a second round of massive attacks led by General Alexander Dvonikov, “the butcher of Syria,” whose merciless air campaigns in that country flattened cities like Aleppo and Homs.
So while the world waits for the other combat boot to drop hard, it’s already worth considering where the West went wrong in its efforts to end this war, while exploring whether anything potentially effective is still available to slow the carnage.
There may be some work behind the scenes that us mere mortals are not privy to but so far I do not see anything that would lead me to believe that there is anything on the table other than throwing taxpayer cash at the situation.
When a war is going on, though, it is absolutely the time to talk about peace. How else can we prevent even further loss of life or yet more millions forced into refuge somewhere else in the world? It is welcome that at last the United Nations has taken an initiative with the welcome request by Secretary-General António Guterres for face-to-face meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
All wars end in a negotiation of some sort—so why not now?
Ukraine needs for this conflict to come to an end….there ends to be an end to the death and destruction…..
But will it ever end?
One analysis has some thoughts….
If you’ve been feeling pretty optimistic about Ukraine’s chance of vanquishing Russia, Michael O’Hanlon is here to burst your bubble. O’Hanlon, the Philip H. Knight Chair in Defense and Strategy at the Brookings Institution, allows that Ukraine has “performed amazingly well so far” in a piece for the Hill, but he doesn’t think it’s sustainable for the long term. To illustrate his point, he likens this war to another: the Civil War. O’Hanlon lays out the parallels, starting with the population ratio of the North to the South (taking into account just white settlers) of about 3.5 to 1; that’s in line with the Russia-to-Ukraine population ratio.
The military strength ratios are similar as well. The early battles of the Civil War—he calls out Manassas, Seven Pines, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville—were won by the “underdog,” too. The tide began to turn in September 1862 with the Battle of Antietam, writes O’Hanlon, and he shares Ulysses S. Grant’s assessment of the situation: “The enemy have not army enough.” O’Hanlon writes “the Confederacy probably still won more of the battles than it lost—though not all—but not by margin enough to compensate for its disadvantage in size or resources.” Yes, it’s possible that Ukraine could be the underdog exception, but in O’Hanlon’s view, it’s unlikely. He sees the best, if “unpalatable,” outcome as one in which Ukraine likely agrees to give up some of its territory.
(Read the full column, which compares the current situation to two other past invasions.)
Maybe it is time for other NATO nations to step up and do something other than wait for the US to decide for them…..someone needs to take the lead on finding a solution…..the US is not the answer as long as the profits keep rolling in.
Watch This Blog!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”