Why America (and New Zealand) Should Be on Ukraine's Side and Not Putin's Side, explained in 8 minutes.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
there is no way for Ukraine to win without the US establishing direct air dominance or some equal direct intervention. The west does not want to directly intervene therefore Ukraine has no path to victory... no?
The Pentagon informed the Executive that the US Military is not capable of establishing air dominance over the Ukraine, let alone over the Russian Federation. An attempt to do this would fail and that failure would lead to escalation. That brings WW3.
Project Ukraine is lost. It was not winnable right from inception. It is imperative to stop the needless slaughter. That demands diplomacy and negotiation.
Cleary HJ is not listening, to me or anyone else. He's like a bot repeating the same fucking narrative, regardless of what anyone else says, and regardless of how irrelevant it is to the argument being made.
Let's assume everything he says above is correct in a military sense. I suspect his position is too pessimistic, because authoritarian states are rarely as strong as they seem when met with principled opposition. Consider also the instance the history of guerilla wars gradually wearing down much more stronger powers (eg: the Russians in Afghanistan). But let's disregard that, and assume the war is unwinnable for Ukraine.
The question is then, do Trump's recent action increase the changes of an acceptable deal and peaceful outcome for Ukraine, or do they decrease them?
If you know anything about negotiation on contentious matters, you'll know that gaining concessions from the other side doesn't come from a position of weakness, it comes from a position of strength. You state your position as strongly as you can at the start, then perhaps you compromise and do a deal. You don't give something away until you've got some concession in return.
If you give it all away at the start without gaining any concession, the other side has no reason to concede anything at all, and their demands of you will only become greater.
That's exactly what Trump has done by coddling Putin and berating Zelensky.
To a dealmaker, this only makes sense if you regard Zelensky as the enemy - the one you care more about combating, and the bigger threat to your values, more so than Putin. Therein lies the appalling reality of this man.
Now we’re getting somewhere. You’re not primarily trying to defend Trump, you want to convince us that Ukraine is defeated and we might as well give up. Noted. It’s consistent with a hypotheses I have about who you are and what you’re doing here.
The main problem with Trump is not just that he’s doing a bad job in achieving a good aim (ending the war). It’s what he wants to achieve. It’s not negotiating with Putin to get Ukraine the best deal he can. That wouldn’t be so appalling, even if he was doing a bad job of it.
It’s negotiating with Zelensky for Ukraine’s surrender. He respects Putin, and wants Zelensky to surrender to him (as you do). Watch the Trump-Vance-Zelensky exchange with that proposition in mind, and everything you see, including Trump’s genuine anger at Zelensky’s resistance makes sense.
5 comments:
there is no way for Ukraine to win without the US establishing direct air dominance or some equal direct intervention. The west does not want to directly intervene therefore Ukraine has no path to victory... no?
That is correct.
The Pentagon informed the Executive that the US Military is not capable of establishing air dominance over the Ukraine, let alone over the Russian Federation. An attempt to do this would fail and that failure would lead to escalation. That brings WW3.
Project Ukraine is lost. It was not winnable right from inception. It is imperative to stop the needless slaughter. That demands diplomacy and negotiation.
HJ
Cleary HJ is not listening, to me or anyone else. He's like a bot repeating the same fucking narrative, regardless of what anyone else says, and regardless of how irrelevant it is to the argument being made.
Let's assume everything he says above is correct in a military sense. I suspect his position is too pessimistic, because authoritarian states are rarely as strong as they seem when met with principled opposition. Consider also the instance the history of guerilla wars gradually wearing down much more stronger powers (eg: the Russians in Afghanistan). But let's disregard that, and assume the war is unwinnable for Ukraine.
The question is then, do Trump's recent action increase the changes of an acceptable deal and peaceful outcome for Ukraine, or do they decrease them?
If you know anything about negotiation on contentious matters, you'll know that gaining concessions from the other side doesn't come from a position of weakness, it comes from a position of strength. You state your position as strongly as you can at the start, then perhaps you compromise and do a deal. You don't give something away until you've got some concession in return.
If you give it all away at the start without gaining any concession, the other side has no reason to concede anything at all, and their demands of you will only become greater.
That's exactly what Trump has done by coddling Putin and berating Zelensky.
To a dealmaker, this only makes sense if you regard Zelensky as the enemy - the one you care more about combating, and the bigger threat to your values, more so than Putin. Therein lies the appalling reality of this man.
MarkT
If you assume that HJ is correct in a military sense then Ukraine just cant win, end of discussion. No point extending the war
>regardless of how irrelevant it is to the argument being made
the video posted claims that America should support Ukraine to win the war. Whether this is possible or not seems to be directly relevant to that.
Whether Trump is doing a good job negotiating the end of the war is a separate discussion
Incidentally, this is not a guerilla war
Now we’re getting somewhere. You’re not primarily trying to defend Trump, you want to convince us that Ukraine is defeated and we might as well give up. Noted. It’s consistent with a hypotheses I have about who you are and what you’re doing here.
The main problem with Trump is not just that he’s doing a bad job in achieving a good aim (ending the war). It’s what he wants to achieve. It’s not negotiating with Putin to get Ukraine the best deal he can. That wouldn’t be so appalling, even if he was doing a bad job of it.
It’s negotiating with Zelensky for Ukraine’s surrender. He respects Putin, and wants Zelensky to surrender to him (as you do). Watch the Trump-Vance-Zelensky exchange with that proposition in mind, and everything you see, including Trump’s genuine anger at Zelensky’s resistance makes sense.
Post a Comment