[nathanbedford]

I was reading this polemic in The Guardian about Iran with increasing concern over my rising blood pressure, then I came across this paragraph:

A similar critique applies to Trump’s unhelpful interventions in the Ukraine-Russia war. He never concerned himself with root causes or Vladimir Putin’s dishonourable motives. He favoured what he perceived to be the stronger party and tried to bully Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, into quasi-capitulation. When that failed, he petulantly turned his back on Kyiv – although he’s still trying, for reasons only he can explain, to appease the intransigent Putin. Now this pattern of presidential stupidity, impatience and irresponsibility repeats again in Iran.

The thought occurred while reading this: here is a perfectly good and accurate indictment of the Trump administration's malevolent,, or at best, inept intermeddling into the Ukraine war.

While the rule, "false in one, false in all" might be applied to the Guardian's indictment of all facets of the administration's foreign and domestic policy, the inverse might not be true:" right about one, right about all."

Trump clearly got it wrong when he told Zelinski that "he had no cards" to play. Equally, the Guardian might well have it wrong when it says that Trump cannot win.

Just because the Guardian got it right about Ukraine does not mean that it has got it right about Iran. Why? Because the game in Iran is not over. The article proffers as given beyond question that Trump cannot prevail in Iran, that American armed forces are inadequate to bring Iran to heel, that Iran will retain the bomb, control the Strait of Hormuz, dominate its neighbors, and diminish American prestige.

Because the Guardian says it is so does not mean it really is so. Let the bombs fall, let the Iranian people rise up, let us arm them, and let's wait a very short time before we declare failure and go home. A few more weeks of bombing is not war without end, but it might put an end to relying on left-wing speculations as the basis to decide our nuclear fate, better to react to facts on the ground.

[x]

Trump clearly got it wrong when he told Zelinski that "he had no cards" to play. Equally, the Guardian might well have it wrong when it says that Trump cannot win.

Zelinsky isn't going to be able to conquer Russia and depose Putin. Trump isn't going to be able to crush Iran and install a new government. Trump wasn't wrong in trying for peace in Europe rather than dragging out the conflict. Was he right about Iran?

[Paul R.]

We still sell weapons to the Ukies (mainly through the Euros), we still assist with intel...

No, we are not sending so many Patriot missiles / systems, but, demand is rather high elsewhere, right now, and our defense industries are pathetically weak at such ramp-ups, which the Trump Administration is trying to address, some would accuse “only because thar’s gold in them there hills!”. Unfortunately and regardless, the institutional problems and roadblocks are truly severe.

The truth of it though, is that the main problem Ukraine has is the weakness of the Euros, most of whom who demonstrate superbly the socialist pattern of spending more money and getting worse results...

[Paul R.]

One other thing: While I do not think our stocks of weapons across the board are so low as the Russian and Iranian agit-prop types would try to assert, it IS true that the Middle East being a big drain was surely seen by the Trump Administration early on as a factor in almost certainly needing to deal with Iran. With limited resources, plus pushback from Trump’s base on the costs, choices had and have to be made. I hardly call this “turning our back” on Ukraine, tho’ I do agree Trump’s style was, shall we say, unproductive, and overall the approach to Ukraine somewhat unimaginative.

On the good side of it, Iran has clearly been whacked back as a supplier to and ally of Russia.

I also agree it is ridiculous to say the US has already failed in regard to Iran.

[Red6]

No, Trump doesn’t have it wrong.

And mere polemics isn’t good analysis.

For something to be an analytic product, you have to have arguments with some degree of correlation and causality that support a logical conclusion.

That’s not the case in that article - if you want to call mere opinions as story.

Russia is in a limited war, no different than us in Iran today, or in Iraq 2003 - present (we’re still there).

Just inventing new goal posts in order to define success and failure is not how it works.

—Russia has already achieved their political goal: Ukraine is NOT in NATO.

—Russia has already achieved their military objectives (I would claim about 80%): seize the Eastern and more ethnic Russian areas of Ukraine.

NEVER was it Russia’s goal to take Western Ukraine, or invade Poland, the Baltic states... stupid ideas floated in our media. That is our propaganda to get the people all stirred up and behind the cause. Russia invaded with a force of about 190,000 men, vastly inadequate for much more than what they took. Ukraine is >1/3 more area than Iraq, >1/3 more populated and we went into Iraq with about 350,000 men 2003. Ukraine is a far more formidable adversary than Iraq (literacy rate, military training, size of their military, advanced military hardware, intel capabilities).

Russia went into Ukraine with a limited scope no different than 2014 taking the Crimea. We’re just in the business of “inventing” new benchmarks/goal posts for success and failure which serve our fantasy of how we would like things to be.

Given that Russia has achieved their goals, they are not really advancing. They aren’t even pushing that hard anymore, not because Russia is failing, but because Ukraine can’t muster the manpower. Ukraine has serious military manpower issues.

For about two years, Russia was doing a “slow creep.” They were seizing about 600 square Km a month. The goal is to force Ukraine to commit their forces and not be able to build up a reserve with which they can mount a counter offensive. But that has become a moot point.

We are today defining Ukraine that is not in NATO (political cause of the war), and lost its Eastern areas (military objectives) to include a major industrial area, their entire steel industry and a major port city as success. LOL

When Mr. Z came to DC on his shopping trip after Trump took office, he had to be put in his place. Our little olive drab action hero (who never served in the military), was going to push and make demands, rather he left the White House being told what to wear the next time he comes back (got slapped on the ass): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlcIfe7jg7Y (I don’t think most people really understood what that was about)

The real issue is that you have too many hands in the cookie jar and when the US attempted to move towards peace in Ukraine (which will require concessions from BOTH sides) the Euro’s chimed in and basically undermined our efforts.

They want to be important, they want to have a say: France and UK.

Here’s the sad thing, in Ukraine you have two parties that are somewhat pragmatic/rational. Peace is definitely achievable, while with Iran you’re dealing with an ideologically driven adversary. Negotiating a peace with Iran will be far more challenging.

If the Euro’s want the say, Trump rightfully so, let them have all the say they want, and they can pay for it hereon out: https://www.gzeromedia.com/media-library/image.png?id=62213405&width=1200&height=1035

I would suggest, and I cannot prove this (pure speculation), that Venezuela is far more important to us than Ukraine, and Russia which had technical personnel, mercenaries, and their navy doing port calls in Venezuela (a fact) wasn’t present when we went in. If the Euro’s don’t want to follow our lead on Ukraine and do their own thing, offer Russia our departure from Ukraine, if they leave Venezuela.