The West is indebted to Ukraine.
That’s not a metaphor. Ukraine has done more for the West than the West managed to do for themselves.
For decades now Putin’s regime presented an existential risk to Europe and the rest of the free world. The West was adamant about ignoring it.
When it comes to Trump, there where no signs he'd act this way.
OK, unless you listened to him for 30 seconds during the last 10 years. But besides that, no signs.
The Soviet Union lost about 15,000 soldiers dead in Afghanistan over 10 years. In the First Chechen war, the number of Russian casualties amounted to 5,000-14,000 in almost two years (estimates differ). In both cases, USSR/Russia acknowledged their defeat and left (with Chechnya, Russia returned three years later).
Russian losses due to their aggression in Ukraine already amount to hundreds of thousands. Yet, Putin shows no intention to stop, and Russians seem to be OK with that.
Both Ukrainian military leadership (this was confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny) and our allies assumed that there is a certain number of losses that Russia will consider unacceptable. Then, either Russian leadership would make the political decision to look for ways to exit the conflict or the Russian population would somehow revolt against such a huge number of pointless deaths (e.g., in both Afghanistan and Chechen wars, committees of soldiers' mothers were eventually an influential power).
As we now know, these assumptions were wrong. The Kremlin regime has mostly mobilized and recruited men from the poorer parts of Russian society where the value of human life is smaller than the chance to receive a free Lada car.
In the same logic, our Western allies also believed that Russian authorities would somehow be more pragmatic and rational. So their idea was to "make the war too costly for Putin" (with sanctions, for example) but at the same time not to threaten Putin and allow him to keep a good face. "Making the war too costly" assumes that there is a "price" after which the war is recognized as "unprofitable" and the regime then would look for a way out.
(In many instances, this position remains strong among our allies).
The logic of the Kremlin regime is completely different. There is no "acceptable" or "unacceptable" price, there is only victory or defeat. The Kremlin has decided that winning the war is the only way for the current regime to retain power, and for the people at the top to stay alive and free. Thus, defeat in the war is a "point of no return" and any price of victory is acceptable.
What to do, then? First - accept the new reality. Then, look for the enemy's weak points that are more valuable and painful to them than loss of cannon fodder.
Undermining and lessening Russia's combat potential still remains a key task. When given the right tools, Ukraine is very effective at that. Therefore, Ukraine needs to receive what we need - in full amounts and on time. Some decisions might need to be reconsidered (like forbidding strikes on Russian territory. Such strikes would undermine Russian logistics significantly and would save a lot of Ukrainian lives).
Sanctions still remain a key area. Closing loopholes that are used to circumvent them is crucial.
While Russia remains in its current state, it will continue being a threat to the security of the region, the whole world and itself. The imperial behemoth is incapable of real change, which plays into the hands of Putin's regime.
Ukrainian victory must mean Russia's defeat, not deterrence. That is a crucial paradigm shift that would allow to end this war sustainably and not just be a ceasefire to restore Russia's military potential.
Source: Yevhen Dykyj, Ukrainian military analyst, and my thoughts and comments
Sony should re-re-release Morbius this December. It aged really well and would make tons of money.
It's finally Morbin' Time!!
(I think we can trick them to do it again, guys. Come on.)
Ukraine-Russia Peace:
- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
- Water supply to Crimea assured.
- Ukraine remains neutral.
@DavidSacks Hope you realize you're making ungrounded statements with, obviously, poor knowledge of the subject?
Of course you do. That's why you're tweeting - to draw attention to yourself. Just a digital war profiteer, nothing more.
@yurgalago PAS MUS ISPANIJOJ MANO VIENAS GERAS DRAUGAS, BEJE GĖJUS, RICARDO, LABAI TEISINGAI PASAKĖ" "PUTPUTPUTPUDAAAAAAAAAAAK." ŠIE ŽODŽIAI MAN ĮSIRĖŽĖ Į ŠIRDĮ IR KASDIEN PABUDISI PAGALVOJU, NU TIKRAI PUTPUDAAK.
Why did Putin think he can attack Ukraine and get away with it?
There is no easy answer. It all goes back to the ancient times of... 2014 when Putin attacked Ukraine and got away with it.
The more you know!
In 1995, my grandfather promised my grandmother to quit booze. "With one exception," he said, sneakily. "I can take a shot every time Russia lies."
Died an alcoholic.
Low morale, corruption and bad leadership. @johnsweeneyroar reports on why the Kremlin’s blitzkrieg on Kyiv has gone to hell in a handbasket for @newlinesmag https://t.co/TRQ74fzuV5