Not sure if this belongs here, but can any American shipmate explain how a US Republican can bear to be remembered as a person who betrayed his country's honour? Or does the fear of backing a loser Trump all else (pun intentional)? Thank God Roosevelt didn't take the same line in 1940.
Not sure if this belongs here, but can any American shipmate explain how a US Republican can bear to be remembered as a person who betrayed his country's honour? Or does the fear of backing a loser Trump all else (pun intentional)? Thank God Roosevelt didn't take the same line in 1940.
Up until 1964 the Republican and Democratic parties were pretty equal politically. The parties were able to cooperate and find a compromises that worked for America.
1964 was when sweeping civil rights laws were enacted by Democrats and the Nixon camp developed a Southern Strategy that caused many shall we say, racist conservatives to move to the Republican party.
Over the years the Republicans became more and more conservative. Along the time of Ronald Reagan the party took up the pro life banner.
Trump took advantage of both trends. The racist camp and the pro life camp are so blind to his numerous faults as long as they could get what they wanted accomplished.
I should also add the Republican party has long been a party of capitalists, almost from its beginnings. The money people are were willing to bet on a horse that promises lower taxes for their ilk.
It is a mix of the unholy trinity that got him elected.
I think it would be a very bad experience to be Latvian in such a world even if Trump did honour NATO obligations. After all Warsaw had a much worse time in WWII than Prague did even though (or rather, because) we stood by Poland and sold Czechoslovakia down the river.
If we allow Russia to sieze Ukraine, Putin is not going to stop there. NATO and Russia will likely be in armed conflict within the next five years at the most.
If it kicked off and stayed conventional, then yes Latvia could suffer badly. If there's a limited nuclear exchange to get to the conference table, standard Russian doctrine, too. But Russia has nothing to kick off with, and won't for five years at least. At last Putin has realised only attack the power infrastructure, why he didn't do that six months ago I don't understand. After the failed invasion from the north and losing Kherson north of the Dnipr. Then what? He still can't take an even demoralized Ukraine. He should just carry on taking out power stations, not advance beyond his formidable defences. Britain's 70% Dragonfire won't be in theatre. NATO is stronger than ever, and even just Euro-NATO can hold him off. But they won't, will . not, save Ukraine humiliation. It wouldn't surprise me if Putin was stupid enough to weaken his position with a breakout for the Dnipro-Kharkiv line, but it wouldn't succeed, even against demoralized Ukraine. But he still wins. Enough. But not toooo much for Europe to feel too humiliated. And scared.
Not sure if this belongs here, but can any American shipmate explain how a US Republican can bear to be remembered as a person who betrayed his country's honour? Or does the fear of backing a loser Trump all else (pun intentional)?
The Republican party has become a cult of personality centered on Donald Trump. The thing about being in a cult (of personality or otherwise) is that it doesn't include an à la carte option. If you're in, you're all in, and if you're not all in, you're out. You don't get the option of saying "I agree with Dear Leader about this, but disagree with him about that". Donald Trump has hated Ukraine for a while now. Part of this seems to be his cringing servility towards Vladimir Putin and Trump's willingness parrot whatever Putin says about Ukraine. Some of it is probably Trump's lingering resentment that Zelenskyy wouldn't start a sham investigation of Joe Biden. Trump's request for this was the basis of his first impeachment and Trump is notorious for holding grudges. At any rate Republican opposition to Ukraine doesn't flow from some principled objection to foreign entanglements or military spending (HA!), it's purely a desire to follow the whims of their God-Emperor.
How can a US Republican bear to be remembered as a person who betrayed his country's honour? Because betraying their orange God would be even more unbearable to them.
Sorry to pursue this tangent but I have to get this off my chest somehow:
For Trump, it seems, every relationship, personal, political, or internatonal, is a business deal: strictly transactional. Emotion or loyalty don't enter the equation. This being the case, it is high time for British politicians to recognise that our country has nothing to offer him that he values, beyond, perhaps, sites for golf courses, and to stop blethering on about a 'Special Relationship' that exists solely in the minds of the True Believers.
At least one of his three UK golf courses is a con. The SR is in nuclear weapons, Five Eyes intel and military operations like protecting Israel last night.
Ukraine already has an effective air defence system, not as sophisticated as Iron Dome (which Israel has been developing for decades) but it is taking out the majority of Russian drones and missiles. But, there's a numbers game (both number of missiles and the cost). Last night, Iron Dome (supported by other nations aircraft) destroyed the vast majority of 300+ missiles and drones - but that was an attack which was broadcast (when your enemy tells you they're going to launch an attack it's much easier to get aircraft to intercept - especially if you can intercept over neutral territory, such as Iraq or Jordan, between launch site and target) and was much more symbolic than a genuine attempt to cause significant damage. The cost of the missiles used in the attack was relatively small, the cost of intercepting them would be adding two zeroes to that number. Without significant financial support (or supply of munitions) Ukraine would lose out on the war of attrition, Russia could continue to fire relatively inexpensive munitions while Ukraine has run out of interceptors with no money to buy more.
Additionally, Ukraine is a very large nation. Systems like Iron Dome are most effective when concentrated and work very well in Israel where it's deployed around a relatively small number of military targets and covering the borders with Gaza and Lebanon. In Ukraine defence of military targets is a similar size task. But, the borders with Russia and Belarus, and occupied Ukraine in Crimea and Donbas, across which missiles can be launched are very long meaning there will be gaps. And, when Russia is willing to attack civil infrastructure (cities, power stations etc) as well as military targets it's just not that easy to defend all of them without a vastly larger number of systems.
If we allow Russia to sieze Ukraine, Putin is not going to stop there. NATO and Russia will likely be in armed conflict within the next five years at the most.
And how can we stop them? Up to the comma? Why, where and how would NATO, or its European successor, and Russia be in - direct - armed conflict in less than 5 years?
I think there are several factors which might increase or decrease concerns.
1. How many relatively inexpensive drones and missiles can Russia produce or purchase from other nations? Despite sanctions, Russia is still wealthy enough to buy a lot of these.
2. If Russia goes for quantity over quality, accepting that a lot of them will be shot down, then how does that affect accuracy? Russia could produce an awful lot of very simple missiles of the quality of, say, Scuds which don't include the expensive and difficult to obtain precision guidance systems - firing these at power stations and distribution nodes will result in a lot of them missing, and these targets are generally going to be closer to civilian housing than military targets. This will result in more civilian deaths, Putin probably doesn't care but the rest of the world should.
3. How solid is the supply of air defence systems to Ukraine? Can they afford to try and shoot down everything, or will they need to ration supplies to protect priority areas and installations? That's going to come down in part to how rapidly US Congress approves significant further funding, and also the availability of systems (given that some of the same systems are in use in Israel, protecting shipping near Yemen etc).
Ultimately, as I said, it's a question of attrition, can Ukraine afford to continue to spend far more shooting down Russian missiles than Russia spends firing them. At the moment, without significant international assistance, I suspect Russia will win that attritional battle - and, it waits to be seen how that then impacts other areas of the conflict.
The game changer would be the development of anti-missile systems that are cheaper than the missiles they're shooting down and equally effective as current systems. But, those are probably years away from deployment or just not good enough. And, even if they might be available this year would the US (or any other nation that's developed them) immediately give them to Ukraine, or hold onto them to give themselves an edge in defending their own assets?
Yes, I've seen that figure too. I'm trying to find an estimate of how many drones and missiles Russia is using, on average, every day at the moment. But, assuming the interception costs simply scale with the number of drones/missiles to be intercepted, it wouldn't surprise me if the same level of response in Ukraine would get through that $1bn every week or so. Which would be a massive chunk of the $60bn that Congress is wrangling over if needed for a year to exhaust Russian munitions to the point where they can no longer sustain the current level.
PBS interviewed Zelenskyy today. To say the least, he seemed pretty incensed at the support Israel got from the NATO nations in the shootdown of the Iranian missiles and drones. He wondered when Israel became a NATO country. Interview here.
So where could NATO - which wasn't operating against Iranian missiles and drones of course - shoot down Russian missiles and drones from? Poland? Romania? ... Moldova? ... The Black Sea? ... Ukrainian air space from NATO country bases? ...
PBS interviewed Zelenskyy today. To say the least, he seemed pretty incensed at the support Israel got from the NATO nations in the shootdown of the Iranian missiles and drones. He wondered when Israel became a NATO country. Interview here.
I think it is important to emphasise that Zelenskyy is incensed not about the support for Israel - which he welcomes - but rather at what he sees as the lack of adequate support for Ukraine.
So where could NATO - which wasn't operating against Iranian missiles and drones of course - shoot down Russian missiles and drones from? Poland? Romania? ... Moldova? ... The Black Sea? ... Ukrainian air space from NATO country bases? ...
Zelenskyy is not asking for that, but rather for a sufficient and reliable stream of money, arms and ammunition from Europe and the US.
The West acted in immediate self interest by defending Israel. There's no comparison. If it hadn't, Israel would have escalated further (than attacking Iranian sovereign territory in Damascus) and sooner (than it's itching to anyway) to total war with Iran, which shuts the Gulf and a quarter of the world's oil. Meanwhile the Ummah sees the West facilitating the massacre of Gazans. Yet Sunni-side does absolutely nothing.
And what stops Biden lending Zelenskyy - as he wants - the money (credit) to buy US weapons? Is that a House matter? It must be surely? And no, he doesn't expect NATO to fight one step closer for him, but I pre-empted the suggestion by anyone here.
Up until January it should do what it says it would.
Speaking of honoring one’s commitments, I’d like to know how many European countries are up-to-date on paying their dues?
2023
Poland: Allocating 3.9% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $29,105 million
United States: Spending 3.49% of its GDP, with a whopping defense budget of $860,000 million
Greece: Devoting 3.01% of its GDP, with a defense expenditure of $7,125 million
Estonia: Allocating 2.73% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $1,170 million
Lithuania: Spending 2.54% of its GDP, with a defense budget of $1,990 million
Finland: Devoting 2.45% of its GDP, with a defense expenditure of $7,325 million
Romania: Allocating 2.44% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $8,481 million
Hungary: Spending 2.43% of its GDP, with a defense budget of $5,036 million
Latvia: Devoting 2.27% of its GDP, with a defense expenditure of $1,028 million
United Kingdom: Allocating 2.07% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $65,763 million
The rest, 2/3rds, including Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Canada, Spain, Turkey, weren't.
Well the good news is the House of Representatives passed the foreign aid bill which will cover the cost of rearming Ukraine, as well as Israel (that part I am not in favor of, subject to another thread) and supporting Tiawan. There is also humanitarian funds for other conflict zones.
Now the Senate has to reaffirm the changes the Representatives made to the package. They should do it in the next couple of days.
I would have to say Mike Johnson has really evolved since he became speaker. Originally he was not in favor of giving any aid to Ukraine without funding the border wall. After talking to Intelligence, Military Leaders, and the presidents of both Ukraine and the United States--maybe other world leaders too, he came a long way. He violated the old rule that he would not bring anything up for a vote without the agreement of his party. He had to reach across the aisle to pass the vote. This is how congress was expected to work since the writing of the constitution.
Hang on Ukraine. I am sure once Biden signs the bill, pre postitioned material will cross the border.
Speaking of honoring one’s commitments, I’d like to know how many European countries are up-to-date on paying their dues?
"Dues" makes it sound like NATO has a membership fee, which it does not.
This is a favorite talking point of Donald Trump, who seems to regard NATO as some kind of protection racket where other countries pay a tribute to the U.S. to have American mercenaries fight for them.
Are you getting religious in your old age, @Martin54?
Actually, I think Speaker Johnson will survive a dismissal vote. He has learned to work with Democrats and I think the Dems will keep him in, creating a coalition government which the framers of the constitution actually envisioned.
I am not worried.
We need to get through the rest of the year to see what happens in the plebiscite. I am even optimistic about that.
So apparently the U.S. quietly sent Ukraine long-range ATACMS in February as part of the tail end of the last aid appropriation. These are "for use inside Ukrainian sovereign territory" according to the U.S. State Department. There was no clarification about whether "Ukrainian sovereign territory" includes Crimea and, if it does, whether that also includes the Kerch Strait Bridge.
From Ukraine, the West's and the UN's POV, Crimea is part of Ukraine. Khrushchev's meaningless 'gift' from Russia in the year of my birth. Although for most of history it was part of Ukraine, and Ukraine, Kyiv, is the mother of Russia. The Kerch Strait Bridge is as Russian as the Spratly Islands are Chinese.
And as the Kerch Strait Bridge is 80% in Ukrainian territorial waters and actual land territory on Tuzla Island, they can do whatever they want with it there. Why haven't they? I'd have used all my secret stash of ATACMS on it.
Yeah. Those rumours hey? A moment's Google Mapping would have shown the utter absurdity. It's hundreds of klicks by sea behind enemy lines. The only source of that rumour is here.
Ukraine can't even build defences. Against ten thousand dollar, one ton glide bombs. Having million dollar missiles can't help.
Russia, like Trump, can't lose. Human progress is despite these horrors.
I hope the rumours are true about Ukraine capturing the port of Portove in Crimea. This could be the start of a bridgehead. Go Ukraine.
A bridgehead would imply an invasion force to exploit it. Where's that coming from?
Ukraine hasn't got one.
They are battling to defend Kharkiv. Anything they can do in Crimea would be purely diversionary. They aren't in a position to retake Crimea and never have been.
They've done well to hold on to as much territory as they have. They are not in a position to take Crimea, only to defend those areas Russia hasn't taken.
We regularly go down to Hamble and sit on the Quay and look at the river. Not that long ago a few flagstaffs would be flying a Ukraine flag and also one or two moored sailing boats would have one on the forestay. Not any more.
Are people getting weary of the whole thing? People we know have been putting up a Ukrainian mother and kids for 2 years and are getting weary of that too.
Is this a significant risk for Ukraine?
Sorry folks, but there's never been any likelihood whatsoever of Ukraine retaking The Crimea unless they were backed by NATO boots on the ground. We all know how that could escalate and where it could lead.
This war will grind on and on until some kind of agreement is reached which is likely to be unpalatable to Kyiv, Moscow, Washington and its allies alike.
We're talking some kind of North/South Korea stand-off for decades to come.
And yes, I think you are right @Merry Vole I think the initial concern has waned to some extent.
This war is going to grind on and on with mounting destruction and more casualties on both sides until they both wear themselves out.
Ukraine can't recover The Crimea. The Russians may take Kharkiv.
I read somewhere recently that Israel is going to get an updated Patriot defence system and their current aged system is going to go to Ukraine.
Thoughts?
I read somewhere recently that Israel is going to get an updated Patriot defence system and their current aged system is going to go to Ukraine.
Thoughts?
Given that Israel largely faces tin cans full of petrol I'm inclined to say Ukraine needs the updated system more.
According to Boris Johnson, this is the peace plan for Crimea
Allow Ukraine to use its longer-range missiles to bomb Russian airfields
Russia to pull back to 2022 borders
Allow Russia to declare its Special Military Operations successful in the denazification of Ukraine.
Fast track Ukraine entry into NATO and the EU,
Have Ukraine backfill the 70,000 Americans servicepeople in Europe.
This was from an op-ed in Daily Mail, but I could not find the link to it. I lifted this from MSNBC
Of course, the Russians are saying let's be realistic. And Ukraine is saying no one can force them to give up land for peace
I think Johnson's idea is that Russia loudly proclaims that the aim of the invasion was to de-Nazify Ukraine, that Ukraine has now been de-Nazified, and that therefore the war was a complete success and Russia can go home head held high.
Actual facts on the ground, this being Johnson (and Putin for that matter), are irrelevant.
I think Johnson's idea is that Russia loudly proclaims that the aim of the invasion was to de-Nazify Ukraine, that Ukraine has now been de-Nazified, and that therefore the war was a complete success and Russia can go home head held high.
Actual facts on the ground, this being Johnson (and Putin for that matter), are irrelevant.
I mean, if it gets Russia back behind its own borders and Ukraine into NATO to prevent it happening again I think it might be worth it. Big IF.
How can 'deNazification', whether real or imagined, be quantified?
There are still far-right, neo-Nazi groups in Germany.
Does that mean that Germany hasn't been adequately 'de-Nazified'?
Johnson's suggestions look like Cloud Cuckoo Land to me and not only because the source is the 'Daily Mail.'
You may as well suggest that Russia join NATO.
"Denazification" was one of Russia's ostensible goals for its invasion of special military operation in Ukraine. It was a euphemism for replacing the current Ukrainian government with Russian stooges. Since this was never stated in non-euphemistic terms my take on Johnson's suggestion is that he's saying Russia should simply declare victory and go home.
The big sticking point with this proposal is Johnson's suggestion that Russia withdraw to its borders as they existed on February 24, 2022. The Ukrainians will object to this because that would presumably mean giving up Crimea. The Russians would likely object because it would mean giving up Donetsk and Luhansk, which it claims to have formally annexed. In other words the "big ask" here is that both sides are being asked to surrender territory they consider to be theirs.
Comments
Up until 1964 the Republican and Democratic parties were pretty equal politically. The parties were able to cooperate and find a compromises that worked for America.
1964 was when sweeping civil rights laws were enacted by Democrats and the Nixon camp developed a Southern Strategy that caused many shall we say, racist conservatives to move to the Republican party.
Over the years the Republicans became more and more conservative. Along the time of Ronald Reagan the party took up the pro life banner.
Trump took advantage of both trends. The racist camp and the pro life camp are so blind to his numerous faults as long as they could get what they wanted accomplished.
I should also add the Republican party has long been a party of capitalists, almost from its beginnings. The money people are were willing to bet on a horse that promises lower taxes for their ilk.
It is a mix of the unholy trinity that got him elected.
The Republican party has become a cult of personality centered on Donald Trump. The thing about being in a cult (of personality or otherwise) is that it doesn't include an à la carte option. If you're in, you're all in, and if you're not all in, you're out. You don't get the option of saying "I agree with Dear Leader about this, but disagree with him about that". Donald Trump has hated Ukraine for a while now. Part of this seems to be his cringing servility towards Vladimir Putin and Trump's willingness parrot whatever Putin says about Ukraine. Some of it is probably Trump's lingering resentment that Zelenskyy wouldn't start a sham investigation of Joe Biden. Trump's request for this was the basis of his first impeachment and Trump is notorious for holding grudges. At any rate Republican opposition to Ukraine doesn't flow from some principled objection to foreign entanglements or military spending (HA!), it's purely a desire to follow the whims of their God-Emperor.
How can a US Republican bear to be remembered as a person who betrayed his country's honour? Because betraying their orange God would be even more unbearable to them.
For Trump, it seems, every relationship, personal, political, or internatonal, is a business deal: strictly transactional. Emotion or loyalty don't enter the equation. This being the case, it is high time for British politicians to recognise that our country has nothing to offer him that he values, beyond, perhaps, sites for golf courses, and to stop blethering on about a 'Special Relationship' that exists solely in the minds of the True Believers.
Additionally, Ukraine is a very large nation. Systems like Iron Dome are most effective when concentrated and work very well in Israel where it's deployed around a relatively small number of military targets and covering the borders with Gaza and Lebanon. In Ukraine defence of military targets is a similar size task. But, the borders with Russia and Belarus, and occupied Ukraine in Crimea and Donbas, across which missiles can be launched are very long meaning there will be gaps. And, when Russia is willing to attack civil infrastructure (cities, power stations etc) as well as military targets it's just not that easy to defend all of them without a vastly larger number of systems.
And how can we stop them? Up to the comma? Why, where and how would NATO, or its European successor, and Russia be in - direct - armed conflict in less than 5 years?
1. How many relatively inexpensive drones and missiles can Russia produce or purchase from other nations? Despite sanctions, Russia is still wealthy enough to buy a lot of these.
2. If Russia goes for quantity over quality, accepting that a lot of them will be shot down, then how does that affect accuracy? Russia could produce an awful lot of very simple missiles of the quality of, say, Scuds which don't include the expensive and difficult to obtain precision guidance systems - firing these at power stations and distribution nodes will result in a lot of them missing, and these targets are generally going to be closer to civilian housing than military targets. This will result in more civilian deaths, Putin probably doesn't care but the rest of the world should.
3. How solid is the supply of air defence systems to Ukraine? Can they afford to try and shoot down everything, or will they need to ration supplies to protect priority areas and installations? That's going to come down in part to how rapidly US Congress approves significant further funding, and also the availability of systems (given that some of the same systems are in use in Israel, protecting shipping near Yemen etc).
Ultimately, as I said, it's a question of attrition, can Ukraine afford to continue to spend far more shooting down Russian missiles than Russia spends firing them. At the moment, without significant international assistance, I suspect Russia will win that attritional battle - and, it waits to be seen how that then impacts other areas of the conflict.
The game changer would be the development of anti-missile systems that are cheaper than the missiles they're shooting down and equally effective as current systems. But, those are probably years away from deployment or just not good enough. And, even if they might be available this year would the US (or any other nation that's developed them) immediately give them to Ukraine, or hold onto them to give themselves an edge in defending their own assets?
The figure for the interception cost was widely stated as being around $1bn.
I think it is important to emphasise that Zelenskyy is incensed not about the support for Israel - which he welcomes - but rather at what he sees as the lack of adequate support for Ukraine.
Zelenskyy is not asking for that, but rather for a sufficient and reliable stream of money, arms and ammunition from Europe and the US.
Speaking of honoring one’s commitments, I’d like to know how many European countries are up-to-date on paying their dues?
And what stops Biden lending Zelenskyy - as he wants - the money (credit) to buy US weapons? Is that a House matter? It must be surely? And no, he doesn't expect NATO to fight one step closer for him, but I pre-empted the suggestion by anyone here.
2023
Poland: Allocating 3.9% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $29,105 million
United States: Spending 3.49% of its GDP, with a whopping defense budget of $860,000 million
Greece: Devoting 3.01% of its GDP, with a defense expenditure of $7,125 million
Estonia: Allocating 2.73% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $1,170 million
Lithuania: Spending 2.54% of its GDP, with a defense budget of $1,990 million
Finland: Devoting 2.45% of its GDP, with a defense expenditure of $7,325 million
Romania: Allocating 2.44% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $8,481 million
Hungary: Spending 2.43% of its GDP, with a defense budget of $5,036 million
Latvia: Devoting 2.27% of its GDP, with a defense expenditure of $1,028 million
United Kingdom: Allocating 2.07% of its GDP, with a defense spending of $65,763 million
The rest, 2/3rds, including Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Canada, Spain, Turkey, weren't.
"Dues" makes it sound like NATO has a membership fee, which it does not.
Now the Senate has to reaffirm the changes the Representatives made to the package. They should do it in the next couple of days.
I would have to say Mike Johnson has really evolved since he became speaker. Originally he was not in favor of giving any aid to Ukraine without funding the border wall. After talking to Intelligence, Military Leaders, and the presidents of both Ukraine and the United States--maybe other world leaders too, he came a long way. He violated the old rule that he would not bring anything up for a vote without the agreement of his party. He had to reach across the aisle to pass the vote. This is how congress was expected to work since the writing of the constitution.
Hang on Ukraine. I am sure once Biden signs the bill, pre postitioned material will cross the border.
This is a favorite talking point of Donald Trump, who seems to regard NATO as some kind of protection racket where other countries pay a tribute to the U.S. to have American mercenaries fight for them.
Actually, I think Speaker Johnson will survive a dismissal vote. He has learned to work with Democrats and I think the Dems will keep him in, creating a coalition government which the framers of the constitution actually envisioned.
I am not worried.
We need to get through the rest of the year to see what happens in the plebiscite. I am even optimistic about that.
Welcome back Quizmaster !
[/tangent]
Have yet to see any reports about Portove on this side of the pond.
Ukraine can't even build defences. Against ten thousand dollar, one ton glide bombs. Having million dollar missiles can't help.
Russia, like Trump, can't lose. Human progress is despite these horrors.
A bridgehead would imply an invasion force to exploit it. Where's that coming from?
Ukraine hasn't got one.
They are battling to defend Kharkiv. Anything they can do in Crimea would be purely diversionary. They aren't in a position to retake Crimea and never have been.
They've done well to hold on to as much territory as they have. They are not in a position to take Crimea, only to defend those areas Russia hasn't taken.
Are people getting weary of the whole thing? People we know have been putting up a Ukrainian mother and kids for 2 years and are getting weary of that too.
Is this a significant risk for Ukraine?
This war will grind on and on until some kind of agreement is reached which is likely to be unpalatable to Kyiv, Moscow, Washington and its allies alike.
We're talking some kind of North/South Korea stand-off for decades to come.
And yes, I think you are right @Merry Vole I think the initial concern has waned to some extent.
This war is going to grind on and on with mounting destruction and more casualties on both sides until they both wear themselves out.
Ukraine can't recover The Crimea. The Russians may take Kharkiv.
That's the reality.
Thoughts?
Given that Israel largely faces tin cans full of petrol I'm inclined to say Ukraine needs the updated system more.
Allow Ukraine to use its longer-range missiles to bomb Russian airfields
Russia to pull back to 2022 borders
Allow Russia to declare its Special Military Operations successful in the denazification of Ukraine.
Fast track Ukraine entry into NATO and the EU,
Have Ukraine backfill the 70,000 Americans servicepeople in Europe.
This was from an op-ed in Daily Mail, but I could not find the link to it. I lifted this from MSNBC
Of course, the Russians are saying let's be realistic. And Ukraine is saying no one can force them to give up land for peace
That seems another very difficult course of action.
There are still far-right, neo-Nazi groups in Germany.
Does that mean that Germany hasn't been adequately 'de-Nazified'?
Johnson's suggestions look like Cloud Cuckoo Land to me and not only because the source is the 'Daily Mail.'
You may as well suggest that Russia join NATO.
Actual facts on the ground, this being Johnson (and Putin for that matter), are irrelevant.
I mean, if it gets Russia back behind its own borders and Ukraine into NATO to prevent it happening again I think it might be worth it. Big IF.
"Denazification" was one of Russia's ostensible goals for its invasion of special military operation in Ukraine. It was a euphemism for replacing the current Ukrainian government with Russian stooges. Since this was never stated in non-euphemistic terms my take on Johnson's suggestion is that he's saying Russia should simply declare victory and go home.
The big sticking point with this proposal is Johnson's suggestion that Russia withdraw to its borders as they existed on February 24, 2022. The Ukrainians will object to this because that would presumably mean giving up Crimea. The Russians would likely object because it would mean giving up Donetsk and Luhansk, which it claims to have formally annexed. In other words the "big ask" here is that both sides are being asked to surrender territory they consider to be theirs.