An interesting perspective, very different from my own, as I've tended to see the dollar reserve status primarily as a means of looting the production of other countries. Here, though, I only dispute the claim that Trump has capitulated, in any way, to Russia. The war is lost, and it has been lost almost from the very start. As they say: when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. All Trump has done so far is suggest we stop digging. His challenge is to find a way out without admitting we've lost, that's all.
I don't think the war is lost at all - Russia still only occupies 20% of Ukraine's territory, and Ukraine recently seized large swaths of the Kursk region. I would say it's a stalemate, and had the Dems won they would have undoubtedly extended the policy of bogging Russia down as much as possible. I'm kind of agnostic as to which course is preferable though; I'm receptive to aspects of both perspectives.
You’re listening to the wrong news. Ukraine currently holds about 450 square km of Kursk (down from about 1,000), while the real front line in the Donbas races westward. “Races” not as in blitzkrieg, but in relentless progress through some of the most fortified positions in world history.
Meanwhile Zelensky jails all political opposition and begs the US and “Europe” for, let’s see, is it 100,000, 125,000, or 1.5 million troops, nuclear weapons, and amounts of money varying from 100 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars and contemplates drafting women and children. The war is lost, and it has been lost from the start. Not even the deluded are claiming anymore that it’s a stalemate - you just missed that memo. That’s why the puppet keeps claiming that if Ukraine falls Europe is next - is that what you’d say if there were a stalemate?
But we can check back on this in a year or two. I don’t think Trump is going to be able to end the war, and if I’m right there won’t be much of Ukraine left by the end of next year if they don’t outright surrender first. And even if you’re right there probably won’t be much of Ukraine left, either.
Russia is making progress but come on, look at a map. The pace of the war has been glacial for a long time. If by "the war is over" you mean Ukraine won't reclaim its lost territory, I'd be inclined to agree. But Russia has lost like 800,000 soldiers, and the Western objective was always to bleed them white and make them sacrifice for every mile of territory they take. By "the war is not over", I mean that the proxy war in which NATO aims to bog Russia down as long as possible could go on much longer. I'm conflicted about the whole situation because I have Russian friends who virulently oppose the war and would love to see Russia lose, and while I must defer to their perspective as actual Russian citizens, I worry that the sacrifice involved in defeating Russia would be too great.
If you happened to want a somewhat lengthy, but very interesting and thorough, recap of the war, I'd suggest: https://bigserge.substack.com/p/total-kievan-debellation. In my opinion, Big Serge underestimates some of the Ukrainian disadvantages, notably Zelensky's refusal to allow his soldiers to retreat, which has repeatedly resulted in mass surrenders and a sort of late-game sneaking away, with horrifying costs.
He says the US "dragged its feet" on giving Ukraine ATACMs or the permission to aim them into Russia, but as Russia repeatedly noted, only American fingers could press the buttons on ATACMs, and a strike into Russia would be an American act of war. We did it, and it brought us extremely close to nuclear exchange. In addition, I'd say he's unduly optimistic on Ukraine's behalf (but note that he says they're on the verge of losing by debellation (total exhaustion of military force). Admittedly, being one of those watching the mappers daily may have restricted my view by contrast to Big Serge's. I guess time will tell.
I don't doubt that there will be some settlement broadly reflecting the current status quo on the ground, but my point in the article was that a better negotiator wouldn't come out and say publicly that Russia has earned its territory, and the US will in any event cease supporting Ukraine. It makes no sense to not publicly hold out for maximum concessions, regardless of what Trump had planned. That is, unless this gesture of respect is intended to woo Russia as part of a broader strategic realignment.
There might be some wooing, but in my opinion it would just be foolish. We’ve shown what we’ve shown, and both Russia and China are too sophisticated to realign.
You might be missing the importance of timing, though. First, Russia said it would not negotiate unless several conditions were met, and these are only two of them. Ukraine is losing territory quickly now, and it is losing the territory that has almost all of its minerals and farmland. If they can’t make a deal within a month or two, well… consider this: their second largest export (behind agriculture based on the farms they’ve already lost a lot of) is steel, and they are on the verge of losing their only source of coking coal, the loss of which is expected to cut their steel production into a third of what it was. They’ve lost their lithium deposits, etc. And they will lose another 20% of their territory, in all likelihood, if the war lasts into the summer. If they play around and lose Odessa, well, that would be even much worse.
So Trump could play around and waste time trying to negotiate with things he doesn’t have, but I think he knows that might scotch the deal completely. Of course if you’re right and things are stalemated, timing isn’t such a big deal, but consider that Ukraine’s head of military intelligence said that if negotiating didn’t start soon they might not survive as a country at all. I think that was a very accurate assessment. I’ve done a lot of negotiating in my time, and when the other side knows what you’ve got, you don’t get much in trade for what you don’t have.
The same people saying Ukraine has lost 45,000 people claim Russia has lost 800,000. It's a fantasy. Every day Ukrainian soldiers and generals are claiming that Russia has a five, ten or even 15 to one ratio of artillery; they have more drones, and vastly more and better missiles as well as the guided bombs (FABS). The only serious attempt at numbering Russian losses places it around 100,000 (plenty bad, of course), and the last exchange of dead bodies had Russia sending over 800 Ukrainian bodies to 40-something from Ukraine (43 I think). Your friends are getting their info from USAID. Zelensky has just warned Europe that Russia plans to put 150,000 more (new) troops in Belarus; does that sound like a country being bled white?
What's really crazy about this war (other than the fact that the collective west is lost in fantasy) is that Russia's military is much, much stronger now than it was at the beginning, and it's moving into more threatening positions. Listen to what the European "leaders" are saying - they are admitting this when they don't think the common people are listening, and they're panicked. Nothing of what I've said is actually controversial. I'll suggest one source - I could suggest many - but Brian Berletic at New Atlas always cites his sources in western media and position papers. https://www.youtube.com/@TheNewAtlas
I'll say one other thing here. I do look at the map, every day. Do you? If you do, you'll note that the eastern portion of the Donbas was extremely heavily fortified. Additionally, at the start of the war Ukraine had perhaps close to a million men at arms. Russia's declared goal has always been, and remains, to neutralize that army, with territorial gains not much of an object. Most of Ukraine's army is now gone, though it remains very substantial, and many of those fortified positions have been lost. If you look at year over year territorial acquisition, you'll know that Russia is now gaining territory at about 10x as fast as last year (as recorded by Deepstate Maps, a Ukrainian owned and controlled mapper), which is why military people are no longer mentioning the word "stalemate." I'm sure you've heard some of the news about all the defections and people going AWOL from the army, about them moving people from the air force into the infantry, and similar stories. Who knows how long they can last as a fighting force? I'll be surprised if they last out the summer, but with a large Banderite group in control, it's very dangerous for them to quit. It would also probably be fatal for Zelensky to negotiate with the Russians at all - that's what Kuleba said just last week.
As I've said, though, I don't see how the war can end diplomatically. It's hard to predict Trump, though. He'll never admit to losing, but I think he may find an excuse to get the US out of it. I hope he does for our sake (I'm American) and the sake of the Ukrainians who have been dying in such huge numbers for a war we really caused.
An interesting perspective, very different from my own, as I've tended to see the dollar reserve status primarily as a means of looting the production of other countries. Here, though, I only dispute the claim that Trump has capitulated, in any way, to Russia. The war is lost, and it has been lost almost from the very start. As they say: when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. All Trump has done so far is suggest we stop digging. His challenge is to find a way out without admitting we've lost, that's all.
I don't think the war is lost at all - Russia still only occupies 20% of Ukraine's territory, and Ukraine recently seized large swaths of the Kursk region. I would say it's a stalemate, and had the Dems won they would have undoubtedly extended the policy of bogging Russia down as much as possible. I'm kind of agnostic as to which course is preferable though; I'm receptive to aspects of both perspectives.
You’re listening to the wrong news. Ukraine currently holds about 450 square km of Kursk (down from about 1,000), while the real front line in the Donbas races westward. “Races” not as in blitzkrieg, but in relentless progress through some of the most fortified positions in world history.
Meanwhile Zelensky jails all political opposition and begs the US and “Europe” for, let’s see, is it 100,000, 125,000, or 1.5 million troops, nuclear weapons, and amounts of money varying from 100 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars and contemplates drafting women and children. The war is lost, and it has been lost from the start. Not even the deluded are claiming anymore that it’s a stalemate - you just missed that memo. That’s why the puppet keeps claiming that if Ukraine falls Europe is next - is that what you’d say if there were a stalemate?
But we can check back on this in a year or two. I don’t think Trump is going to be able to end the war, and if I’m right there won’t be much of Ukraine left by the end of next year if they don’t outright surrender first. And even if you’re right there probably won’t be much of Ukraine left, either.
Russia is making progress but come on, look at a map. The pace of the war has been glacial for a long time. If by "the war is over" you mean Ukraine won't reclaim its lost territory, I'd be inclined to agree. But Russia has lost like 800,000 soldiers, and the Western objective was always to bleed them white and make them sacrifice for every mile of territory they take. By "the war is not over", I mean that the proxy war in which NATO aims to bog Russia down as long as possible could go on much longer. I'm conflicted about the whole situation because I have Russian friends who virulently oppose the war and would love to see Russia lose, and while I must defer to their perspective as actual Russian citizens, I worry that the sacrifice involved in defeating Russia would be too great.
If you happened to want a somewhat lengthy, but very interesting and thorough, recap of the war, I'd suggest: https://bigserge.substack.com/p/total-kievan-debellation. In my opinion, Big Serge underestimates some of the Ukrainian disadvantages, notably Zelensky's refusal to allow his soldiers to retreat, which has repeatedly resulted in mass surrenders and a sort of late-game sneaking away, with horrifying costs.
He says the US "dragged its feet" on giving Ukraine ATACMs or the permission to aim them into Russia, but as Russia repeatedly noted, only American fingers could press the buttons on ATACMs, and a strike into Russia would be an American act of war. We did it, and it brought us extremely close to nuclear exchange. In addition, I'd say he's unduly optimistic on Ukraine's behalf (but note that he says they're on the verge of losing by debellation (total exhaustion of military force). Admittedly, being one of those watching the mappers daily may have restricted my view by contrast to Big Serge's. I guess time will tell.
I don't doubt that there will be some settlement broadly reflecting the current status quo on the ground, but my point in the article was that a better negotiator wouldn't come out and say publicly that Russia has earned its territory, and the US will in any event cease supporting Ukraine. It makes no sense to not publicly hold out for maximum concessions, regardless of what Trump had planned. That is, unless this gesture of respect is intended to woo Russia as part of a broader strategic realignment.
There might be some wooing, but in my opinion it would just be foolish. We’ve shown what we’ve shown, and both Russia and China are too sophisticated to realign.
You might be missing the importance of timing, though. First, Russia said it would not negotiate unless several conditions were met, and these are only two of them. Ukraine is losing territory quickly now, and it is losing the territory that has almost all of its minerals and farmland. If they can’t make a deal within a month or two, well… consider this: their second largest export (behind agriculture based on the farms they’ve already lost a lot of) is steel, and they are on the verge of losing their only source of coking coal, the loss of which is expected to cut their steel production into a third of what it was. They’ve lost their lithium deposits, etc. And they will lose another 20% of their territory, in all likelihood, if the war lasts into the summer. If they play around and lose Odessa, well, that would be even much worse.
So Trump could play around and waste time trying to negotiate with things he doesn’t have, but I think he knows that might scotch the deal completely. Of course if you’re right and things are stalemated, timing isn’t such a big deal, but consider that Ukraine’s head of military intelligence said that if negotiating didn’t start soon they might not survive as a country at all. I think that was a very accurate assessment. I’ve done a lot of negotiating in my time, and when the other side knows what you’ve got, you don’t get much in trade for what you don’t have.
The same people saying Ukraine has lost 45,000 people claim Russia has lost 800,000. It's a fantasy. Every day Ukrainian soldiers and generals are claiming that Russia has a five, ten or even 15 to one ratio of artillery; they have more drones, and vastly more and better missiles as well as the guided bombs (FABS). The only serious attempt at numbering Russian losses places it around 100,000 (plenty bad, of course), and the last exchange of dead bodies had Russia sending over 800 Ukrainian bodies to 40-something from Ukraine (43 I think). Your friends are getting their info from USAID. Zelensky has just warned Europe that Russia plans to put 150,000 more (new) troops in Belarus; does that sound like a country being bled white?
What's really crazy about this war (other than the fact that the collective west is lost in fantasy) is that Russia's military is much, much stronger now than it was at the beginning, and it's moving into more threatening positions. Listen to what the European "leaders" are saying - they are admitting this when they don't think the common people are listening, and they're panicked. Nothing of what I've said is actually controversial. I'll suggest one source - I could suggest many - but Brian Berletic at New Atlas always cites his sources in western media and position papers. https://www.youtube.com/@TheNewAtlas
I'll say one other thing here. I do look at the map, every day. Do you? If you do, you'll note that the eastern portion of the Donbas was extremely heavily fortified. Additionally, at the start of the war Ukraine had perhaps close to a million men at arms. Russia's declared goal has always been, and remains, to neutralize that army, with territorial gains not much of an object. Most of Ukraine's army is now gone, though it remains very substantial, and many of those fortified positions have been lost. If you look at year over year territorial acquisition, you'll know that Russia is now gaining territory at about 10x as fast as last year (as recorded by Deepstate Maps, a Ukrainian owned and controlled mapper), which is why military people are no longer mentioning the word "stalemate." I'm sure you've heard some of the news about all the defections and people going AWOL from the army, about them moving people from the air force into the infantry, and similar stories. Who knows how long they can last as a fighting force? I'll be surprised if they last out the summer, but with a large Banderite group in control, it's very dangerous for them to quit. It would also probably be fatal for Zelensky to negotiate with the Russians at all - that's what Kuleba said just last week.
As I've said, though, I don't see how the war can end diplomatically. It's hard to predict Trump, though. He'll never admit to losing, but I think he may find an excuse to get the US out of it. I hope he does for our sake (I'm American) and the sake of the Ukrainians who have been dying in such huge numbers for a war we really caused.