Replies

This is laughable. The notion that Europe and the United States will be economically unable to sustain the war Russia launched against the Ukraine doesn’t pass the is-this-a-joke test. Russia has several advantages, but economic strength isn’t one of them. The loss of trade between Western Europe and Russia is hurting both sides, as trade disruptions invariably do. Western Europe, being far stronger economically, is suffering less, but feeling it more. One consequence of Russia’s invasion, is that much of Western Europe is turning away from Russian energy supplies. Adaptation in such cases is slow, but Europe is shifting away from reliance on natural gas from the East.

One advantage Russia has, is the totalitarian’s willingness to inflict suffering on her subjects, in support of imperial conquest. Western Europe is more likely than Russia to back off because of the suffering that the war is inflicting on her people, even though that suffering is less. But the notion that the West will be unable to sustain the economic commitment of the war, cannot be taken seriously. The question of whether we’ll be willing to, is more of a question.

This war seems to be existential for both sides. It is not existential for Russia, but Russia is not a side. President Putin is a side. If Russia is seen to fail, it may well lead to President Putin’s fall. If he fears that it will, then he is unlikely to give up, no matter how much suffering he inflicts on Russia.

Fighting the Russian invasion would seem to be an existential matter for the Ukraine. If Ukraine accepts that Russia can take a slice of Ukrainian territory whenever she wishes, given President Putin’s proclaimed objective of conquering the territories that made up the Soviet Union, Ukraine cannot expect to survive.

The war is not existential for the West, but, without Western support, Ukraine cannot sustain resistance against Russia. This tends to make the West the weak link.

To speak of Ukrainian terrorist attacks on Russians, without mentioning Russian terrorist attacks on Ukrainians, implies that the whole article is a fake. I do remember that when Ukraine (quite legitimately) blew up a bridge that Russia was using to supply her forces, President Putin called that a terrorist act (which was a lie), and retaliated by blowing up civilian dwellings (which was specifically a terrorist attack). Russia has been the terrorist power since almost the beginning of the invasion. Russia, and her sycophants, have always claimed that Ukraine has been employing terrorism. These claims have always turned out to be false, when I’ve been able to get the data to find out.

I, at least, have had trouble getting good information on this war, so I’m largely in the dark. I have to assume that essentially all the things Russia says are lies, most of the things Ukraine says are lies, most the the things the Biden administration says are lies, and most of the things the institutional press says are lies. It’s hard to get anything solid. I tend to believe reports of where fighting is taking place, more than I believe reports on how the fighting is going.

I generally assume that any claims about upcoming operations, are misdirections. In war, it is not business to inform the enemy about what you are planning to do. Both sides have to know that the other reads the papers. Therefore, everyone knows that any press releases about planned upcoming operations, will be known to the enemy. I don’t think either side is foolish enough to announce, in detail, what they are actually planning to do.