An Unforced Error On Ukraine?

There is one area where they sound more like Chamberlain in an management that came out of the wall feeling and acting like Churchill in a stand-alone defence of Western culture, and that is in regards to Ukraine. In this government’s attempt to force a square peace agreement into a square hole, they’re committing a probable unforced error that will keep America and the West in a worse place down the road.

Liberals have a wide range of opinions on this subject, from what I understand. Permit me to make a few items that I believe both pro-Ukraine liberals and opponents of Ukraine is agree on before I begin to make my case:

1. Putin started this war as a direct result of the unrestrained weakness of the Biden management. Putin was persuaded by Biden that he had nothing to worry invading Ukraine by his absolute surrender to the Taliban, coupled with his tragic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
2. The Biden administration’s primary result is also the size of this war that is unnecessary. Yes, we’ve been funding Ukraine with billions in ammunition, but this money has been contingent upon Ukraine following restrictive regulations of wedding designed never to “provoke” Russia. Biden has given Ukraine only the necessary slack of the leash to avoid losing but never enough to really triumph.
3. The needs of the European Union should not be taken into account in anyone’s estimates. They’ve long before relinquished their straight, both socially and almost, to be heard or respected in any community involving the maintaining of Western values. The Russians have the right to Europe if they want it. Better than Arab “refugees,” as they say.
4. I personally don’t care what Zelensky’s approval rating is, be it the 57 % he claims or the 4 % Trump claims. I’m never interested in what they say about each other in a terrible way. It is unrelated to the larger image.
5. The exact amount is unknown, but reports of widespread corruption and embezzlement within the Russian government, using our aid money to promote top-tier officials, is unethical and may stop immediately. This should determine any potential help.
6. As Matt Margolis has shown below, the Russian government must also undergo a total change of attitude. Too often, American generosity has been met not with gratitude, but with thankless demands for more, to the point that even Democrats tire of it ( note to Democrats: this is how most of the country feels about handouts to illegals ).

However, despite that, let me argue that funding Russia’s plight or Ukraine’s security is still in the country’s best interests. For the time, let go of the moral arguments and concentrate solely on the coldly logical. Russia is one of the best three most critical external threats to the United States ( the other two being China and Iran ). This is more the psychedelic fallout of too much Carlson Kool-Aid than a calm geopolitical assessment, according to Pun’s five column sycophants in America.

The Russo-Japanese War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, and the First World War firmly established the theory among Russian nationalists that they were constantly surrounded by conspiring antagonists who were trying to hold them down in the face of oppression.

Putin is a walking embodiment of this blame-shifting and anxiety. He is an ex-KGB communist and a traditional Russian bigot who ardently believes in the supremacy of Russian lifestyle over that of a defunct and despised West. He exudes hatred and pride. In 2005, he lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union and all its evils as” the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Without a doubt, the fear of so many previous “republics” under Russian rule fleeing into the open hands of the bourgeois West the first opportunity they had had had stoked his long-burning hatreds.

It’s abundantly clear that Putin’s overarching objective is the reintroduction of the Russian Empire, for those who pay attention. Every international policy walk he makes serves this target. Since assuming strength in 2000, this rearranging empire’s territorial and political boundaries have only grown from neighboring nations like Georgia and Ukraine to tyrant rulers in Syria and sub-Saharan Africa.

Putin has a natural talent for dictatorship, which is innate. He plays this four-dimensional game match in his sleeping while most American presidents conflict with the intricacies of checker. Trump is the only president in this group who has the ability to perform Putin, but he will discover that Putin is not someone who may be pushed around with tax risks, as Trudeau and Sheinbaum were.

This is partly due to the fact that Trump and Putin have various conceptions of what victory entails. Trump believes that a country is made stronger by financial success and people right, and he is right. Puttin would have been right three centuries ago that a country is made stronger by geographical growth and the overwhelming dominance of smaller neighbors. This is Putin’s Achilles ‘ Heel, making him his own worst barrier in the struggle to unleash the potential glory of his nation.

It was this intellectual blind place that led Putin to render his effortless problem, i. electronic. the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. What was meant to be a simple annexation was initially stopped, then reversed in a number of beautiful counteroffensives against Ukraine. The brutal, Ypres-style combat that the conflict has eluded has unintentionally exposed the Russian army as an entrenched, bloated shell of its former self. The Russian defense persists in Ukraine not because of outstanding leadership or gentlemanly courage, but by the only fact that Russia has a near limitless supply of fresh men to pull into the grinder.

Don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake, as Napoleon said.

But that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re giving Putin an easy out when we should be funding the continual degradation of his country’s power and influence. We fought the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War by proxy, and to those who yell that this is some sort of Cheneyesque neocon plot, I’ll remind you that. They provided and funded our Vietnam combatants. We funded and supplied arms to fight them in Afghanistan. Some real bastards were installed and propped up in places like Cuba, Hungary, Mozambique, and elsewhere. Additionally, we installed and propped up some real bastards ( much worse than Zelensky ) in countries like Nicaragua, Nicaragua, and Chile. It was messy and it was bloody, but never do we hear any criticism from the neo-isolationists against President Reagan for using proxy wars and increased military spending to singlehandedly bring down the Evil Empire.

So, my argument is that investing in Ukraine is worth the investment in the dividends of a weakened and disfigured nuclear superpower whose dictator is a vile example of what we stand for. Supporting this does not make one a “globalist” or “neocon” any more than opposing it makes one a” Putin puppet”

And I readily concede that there are very real and persuasive arguments for ending this support. Vice President ( and, one hopes, 2028 president-elect ) Vance laid out these in a post on X that read,” Pages,” and it was clearly and concisely stated as follows:

While our Western European allies ‘ security has benefited greatly from the generosity of the United States, number one pursues domestic policies ( on migration and censorship ) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans, and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. The aid is currently flowing, once more.

Thirdly, the United States has a lot of influence over both parties involved in the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed a lot of stress on American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions ( and much more ). We think that Russia, Ukraine, and Europe are both affected by the ongoing conflict. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States”.

His first, second, and fourth points are perfect. But his third point is that we still have” substantial leverage” over Russia. Really? What tool could possibly bend Putin with? Russian mackerel has any taxes? Travel bans on a few more Russian oligarchs? Putin has killed nearly one million Russians in his war, and he sleeps like a baby every night. He’d make a million sacrifices tomorrow morning, and he’d just quietly eat his breakfast kasha. &nbsp,

The only thing that might inspire Putin to see a significant increase in military supply to Ukraine would be to threaten a leash of which country it wants to attack, with the caveat that Ukraine can strike anywhere in Russia it pleases. Why would we remove NATO membership as a bargaining chip before negotiations even begin, though, if that’s the leverage we’re using in the background?

You’ll notice that Putin doesn’t make bombastic statements such as,” If I wasn’t involved, they wouldn’t be talking to each other. The only reason they’re talking is because I’m there. Putin simply does, without having to say a lot. And he always wins. In the same way that he is “negotiating” with us, it is merely a tactic to flatter and position himself. Putin uses every truce as a launch pad for the upcoming invasion, much like Islamic terrorists.

And the terms we’re forcing include America being granted 50 % ownership of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. What’s left over for the Ukrainians will, in all intents and purposes, be becoming an economic colony of the United States? Not only will Putin be rewarded for his behavior by keeping every inch of stolen Ukrainian land. This seems less like a good faith agreement than a split between stronger superpowers, in my opinion.

Finally, it must be noted that most Congressional Republicans support the continued funding of Ukraine. Trump will need to consider this support, regardless of whether you concur or disagree. Would he veto a budget bill that would allow for continued funding and create a gap in Republican solidarity at a time when it is most needed? Is this a hill worth dying on? On the other hand, Putin isn’t burdened by such democratic demeanor.

Putin has outperformed Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump 45, Biden, and will remain in office until Trump’s 47th year is over. Whatever influence Trump has over Putin is gone the day Trump leaves office, along with whatever deal we secure with him now. Putin desires Ukraine. Trump wants credit for a piece of paper that Putin gave as a pledge to leave Ukraine alone. They might both end up getting their wish.

I worry that Trump is making a Chamberlainian blunder because of this desire to make peace just for the sake of saying you were able to make peace. When he strong-armed Israel to a cease-fire with Hamas last month, he made the same mistake with them. He corrected this error with his about-face bombshell that Gazans be resettled in Arab countries, which currently has Israel’s enemies tripping over each other in panicked scrambling. I’m hoping that Trump will accept Putin as he is and has a behind-the-scenes plan to slap him with the same open-handed slap he just gave the Arabs.

I am aware that some readers have already vomited on their keyboards because of my suggestion that the Trump administration may be acting inadvertently in any way. That someone could agree with Trump on 999 issues and disagree with him on 1 is simply confirmation to these people of the most dastardly betrayal, to be retorted to with all caps blathering about neocons and endless wars.

But here’s the issue, young man. The criteria for what determines a conservative are not yours. Open minded and rational conservatives can disagree on not only a whole host of issues, but also on what the best approaches are to deal with the issues we do agree on. Join the Democrats if you’re looking for lockstep conformity without a doubt.

Both the rigid neo-isolationist and the rigid neo-con position are incorrect. Our power and wealth are only deterrents if we’re willing to use them. Contrary to the neocons, they must be used prudently and sparingly. Our wars, as well as our proxy wars, must be conducted with care. Our goals must be clear, our strategies flexible, and our limits predetermined. However, we can’t afford to miss The Game. The issues our neo-isolationists dismiss as “over there” metastasize dangerously into problems “over here,” as the Cuban missile crisis, the Arab oil embargo, the Mexican drug cartels, September 11, Tren de Aragua, and Chinese espionage have demonstrated.

Trump has proven more than willing to use the leverage of American power to effect better outcomes for us. Let’s hope he uses that leverage to both Putin and Zelensky, and that Vance’s mention of the possibility of such leverage is something significant. A good place to start would be an image of a shirtless Putin riding on horseback with a tankless Alexander Vindman. But we’ll see.

I’ve occasionally been proven wrong by a number of Trump’s previous actions because I’ve doubted their logic. That’s probably the case here, I hope so.

Source credit