Saw Andrew Bolt interviewing former US general Jack Keane in the week. Keane is now chairman of the Institute for the Study of War. Bolt often has him on and they madly agree with each other. Both are firmly on the side of Israel and its need to be given arms and free air to defeat its enemies. Both are on the side of Ukraine and want it armed and unleashed to strike deep into Russia. There is a level of consistency in their approach to the two major conflicts of the day. The question is whether that consistency is appropriate.
Let’s consider. If Israel wins and destroys Hamas and Hezbollah, and Trump returns to power and cripples Iran, there will be peace. The Suez Canal will be fully open for business. Maybe the Abraham accords will get fresh legs and bring Saudi Arabia and other Arab states into the fold.
Now consider what will or might happen if Ukraine rains down US-made long-range missiles deep into Russia, which appears to be what Bolt and Keane support. The truth is no one knows. Certainly Bolt and Keane don’t know or haven’t explained. That seems to me to be seriously remiss.
Russia – 145 million people, the largest landmass of any country, rich in resources, a history of pushing back would-be invaders, armed with nuclear weapons, and with a high quantum of patriotism to boot. You would have to be mad wouldn’t you to start firing missiles into the middle of Russia, without having the least idea where it would all end. Mind you, reportedly Keir Starmer and an assortment of other European leaders are bellicose by proxy when it comes to Russia. Luckily, the US and Germany are more circumspect; or, in other words, err on side of sanity.
The conflict will not end until there is a realisation that Ukraine cannot win. This is not a partisan position; it is realistic one. Russia is not going to withdraw its troops, say sorry, and make reparations, having been soundly defeated on the battlefield and cowed by missiles striking into its heart. That is a Zelensky wet dream. Shared by others obviously, including Bolt and Keane.
Territory will have to be ceded to Russia. The objective should be to minimise the extent of such territory and to extract assurances and concessions on the other side. I’m not Henry Kissinger, so I don’t know what a deal might look like. Need somebody in power in the West who knows about The Art of the Deal. I wonder who that could be? Kamala?!?
Sort of like the ABC for neo-cons then.
Wife put out some bread for the birds. 3hrs later still there. Birds prefer live food in the form of insects, spiders, lizards, frogs, possums and bunnies.
Gen Buck Keane (Retd) of the Henry Kissinger Peace Academy.
When a yousa tinkin’ of inviting meesa? – Jar Jar.
I saw that interview with Keane and marvelled at its lack of insight. I also saw the remarks of Donald after he had a private interview with Zelensky.
Someone received a bit of straight talk – and it wasn’t Trump. Zelensky is trying to cover his arse because he sees a Trump victory as possible/likely. Every chance that a “cover deal” was reached.
Let us hope so because the Keane/Bolt scenario is disastrous.
20 + million have invaded the US through Mexico.
That’s more than 6% of the current US population.
Mexico demonstrated during the Trump years that it could stop that invasion.
Should Trump, if he wins, now invade Mexico in return?
Mexico has demonstrated that once the Democrats are back in control they’ll go right back to it, so how is the US to defend itself from a certain future resumption of this catastrophic change?
Invade or bomb Mexico?
The answer is no.
As much as one might want it to be so.
And the answer to Russia invading her neighbours is also no.
This cannot be tolerated.
Whatever remains of the post WW2 order relies on the US and her allies.
As grotesque as the Iraq war was, there was a reason for it, a genuine casus belli. You may, as I do, think that it didn’t reach the required threshold, but it was there: Iraq invaded her neighbour.
Against Afghanistan the USA also had a casus belli: Afghanistan was a terrorist state under the taliban harbouring al- Qaeda.
Again, in hindsight, these were not the wars we wanted.
But remember, before 9/11 the US military was untested since the defeat in Vietnam: untested and for much of the intervening time demoralised. Post 9/11 the USA again showed the world that it was a power not to be f***ed with. Who knows how history would have turned out otherwise?
We got 20+ years of prosperity and relative peace.
I would have preferred if we had spent that time rebuilding the working class and industry, but the powers that be wanted to build a world order of interdependent blocks, determined that tied together by trade, no one could afford to go to war, but they were oblivious to the resentments and ambitions of their new “friends”, not so deep beneath the surface.
This world is a world of power and domination: you either dominate and impose your will, your laws, your ideals, or you submit to another’s will. The simplistic notion that if the USA were only to stop imposing her will on others stability would ensue is akin to the far left notions of the noble savage or that man is in his natural state good: akin to the libertarian notion that if only we would allow it markets would solve everything. Don’t get me wrong: man can do great good, and markets are powerful engines for prosperity: but nether occurs without the existence of force.
Your naive notion that the vacuum created by an isolationist United States will be filled with some supposed natural order is wrong. Just wrong, and dangerous.
The war in Ukraine will end, the sooner the better. Trump may well end it upon his election.
But the lessons learned from that war will shape the next 50 years. The next 50 years of our lives and our children’s lives.
The lesson better be: don’t f*** with the USA and her allies.
You better go down on your knees and pray it’s so.
Rhodesia is gone. South Africa is gone. Israel stands on the brink. Taiwan waits, waits, waits for the coming storm. Afghanistan: a failed attempt at “nation building”. Europe, suffering under an unrelenting migrant invasion, so too the US. Iraq and Syria: coming under the control of Tehran. Japan in stagnation. Australia and Canada hollowed out.
Here’s the reason: the international left uses migration as a weapon of war.
Cause conflict in a country, direct the flow of refugees at your enemies, changing their populations, putting strain on their resources and causing social unrest. Unleash an information war, widening the conflict within.
These things are entwined. These things are by design.
The enemy within, the enemy outside.
Withdrawing from international conflict won’t solve our internal political turmoil. It won’t make the woke insanity go away: it will make it worse because these problems are part of the same conflict.
China won’t go back to being content as a black box into which you put money and intellectual property and stupidly cheap consumer products magically emerge.
Russia won’t go back to a post- Soviet disorganised non- threat.
There is much work upon us and little sign that people are prepared for the task, or the hardships ahead.
If you think the price of the war so far too much, you’re going to be shocked at what will be required to build the peace, if peace is even possible.
Yeah righto, Neville.
There are plenty of nations around the world which are powerful, nuclear armed and wanting a chunk of neighbouring territories.
Some might even look in this direction with greedy intentions.
Bolt is way off the mark on this one.
The neocons that instigated the catastrophe in Ukraine are predominantly Victoria Newland and her husband Robert Kegan. His sister Amber Kegan is the top exec at the “Institiute for the study of war”.
I wonder about thje reaction if Bolt ever discovers that his old buddy Keane is a warmongering neocon.
Nope, Ukraine can win. They win by not losing. Russia loses by not winning.
It is actually exquisitely balanced since Russia has a three to one balance in manpower but Ukraine has a three to one force multiplication factor by being entrenched and on the defensive.
That’s why movement on the front is measured in metres, not even kilometres.
Meanwhile Russia is expending an entire generation of young Russian men for nothing.
“Nope, Ukraine can win.”
It very likely depends more on how much Putin/Russia feel they need Crimea than anything else – and they likely want it BAD.
Despite assurances from the west otherwise, they have watched NATO move ever east and Ukraine is a bridge too far for them – somewhat like Cuba was a bridge to far for the US.
They cannot, will not and should not be expected to “accept” NATO so close to them, and on the very path that all other invasions of Russia have taken.
If it lasts until November without escalation and DJT wins, then it seems likely it may finally end, although many will not be happy with Russia keeping Crimea and the Donbas.
If not, then Putin/Russia may chose to use a small nuke on Ukraine – 100kt or so. Just to show how serious they are. Hopefully, in such a situation, sane heads would reconsider their untenable positions if such were to happen, or else we could have a nuclear world war – not good.
As much as I agree that Russia shouldn’t have invaded, it is worth remembering the history here – especially, as noted above, “reassurances” given to Russia that NATO would not expand. Yet expand it did. And the fools that suggested Ukraine can/should join NATO are the ones that forced Russia/Putin to invade – period. And then told Ukraine they could win against Russia with help, allowing them to walk away from a peace deal.
The conflict will not end until there is a realisation that Ukraine cannot win. This is not a partisan position; it is realistic one. Russia is not going to withdraw its troops, say sorry, and make reparations, having been soundly defeated on the battlefield and cowed by missiles striking into its heart.
Ukraine cannot win because she simply doesn’t have the manpower or sufficient weapons to do so. Striking targets deeper within Russia may have some disruptive effect but will not alter the overall strategy that Russia is pursuing. Russia is too big and too powerful against Ukraine.
In any event, neither should we presume that the West still has the necessary stockpiles of weapons available to donate. Every report I’ve seen in recent weeks suggests that US, UK and German weapon stockpiles, in particular, are getting low. Not yet desperately so, but producing any missile or tank is not the same as mass manufacturing 155mm artillery shells.
That could be overlooked and Western factories cranked up to full production if Ukraine was making headway or looked like she could do so – but she isn’t and can’t. In fact, she is well on the back foot and that stupid move into Kursk has substantially exasperated the manpower and weaponry supply problems.
Bear in mind that Russia has the capacity to ramp up her response for as long, and as deadly, as required. And what makes you think that Russia’s response will always be confined to Ukraine? It’s all very well to sit in the relative safety of Australia and suggest escalation but it’s an entirely a different concept for those in western Europe. Then there is the issue of covert sabotage of European infrastructure as retaliation for allowing more strikes into Russia.
Then what? We ramp up further because we think the Russians were behind it and the Russians respond. And again? Jesus on a bike – where do you want this to end?
So now you’re thinking that we can’t allow Russian aggression to win. Fair enough but we (read USA) started it. Covertly and overtly since the early 1990s and especially since the mid 2000s, the West (USA) has deceived, omitted and outright lied to the Russian leadership. On no less than fourteen occasions since the mid 2000s the West has deliberately goaded Russia about Ukraine joining NATO. This is historical record. And who can forget the infamous Minsk II agreement which former Chancellor Merkel said was a tactic that neither the West or Ukraine had any intention of complying with. Publicly available documents from before 2022 have fantasized about turning the Black Sea into a “NATO lake”. FFS. If I know about these documents it’s a fair bet that the Russians were also aware and the national security implications for them are immense.
Should Ukraine be allowed to determine its own destiny? Sure, but its geographic location and historical links to modern day Russia required a degree of finesse – not a dimwitted approach by a former television comedian who was blinded by the promises of the West. The same person who was convinced by Boris Johnson to fight in the early stages when a negotiated ceasefire and withdrawal of Russian forces was on the table. This could have been parlayed into a grand outcome for Ukraine, but it didn’t suit the West. Ukraine has been used in a geopolitical chess game that appeared to be beyond Zelenskyy’s intellectual grasp. More promises and trinkets bedazzled him instead.
Now however, Zelenskyy’s belief that the West would ‘permanently have his back’ looks very shaky as he starts to realise the depth of Western promises as their resolve and money gradually drift away. Worse, if Trump is elected, the war might be over by Christmas as the weapons supply chain dries up. Then what? Russian forces stop at the Dnieper River effectively splitting the country in half or push on to the Polish border meaning that Ukraine is absorbed?
What a mess. I wish the damn thing hadn’t happened at all but we started it and the opportunity for Ukraine, or the West, to end this conflict on anything approaching just terms has long passed. If you think escalation is the answer, be careful what you wish for.
There is not going to be any deal. It’s up to Russia and Russia alone to decide what they want.
Why do people continue to mouth Russian talking points as if they are original or surprising observations?
This one is particularly idiotic. The Eastern borders of Ukraine are 425km from Moscow. The Western borders of Ukraine are also 425km from Vienna.
The countries in Western Europe have the same geographic links to Ukraine as Russia does. The old Soviet bloc countries are even more anxious about having the Russians expanding West, given their experiences in the 20th century.
The countries in Western Europe have the same geographic links to Ukraine as Russia does.
What? That doesn’t make any sense and in any event did you miss the bit about historical links?
The old Soviet bloc countries are even more anxious about having the Russians expanding West, given their experiences in the 20th century.
Since the collapse of the USSR, the following countries have joined NATO. Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Finland, North Macedonia and Sweden. Obviously, not all were Soviet bloc but they constitute the entire western border with Russia beyond Ukraine and Belarus.
What is the point of this?
Do you understand that sovereign nations require armies, which require equipment?
What is the amazing smoking gun you think you have found here?
No, I just did you the favour of ignoring it like most of the rest of your babbling bullshit.
Care to address the point I actually raised?
The geographic proximity of the Ukraine to Western capitals being equal to it’s distance to Moscow?
Or are Warsaw and Vienna of lesser importance than Moscow?
Or are you just going to drop that point now you realise how colossally stupid it is?
Do I have to go through all your stupid shit one point at a time? From experience it won’t be a happy time for either of us.
See the conversation I had with Dover a month ago.
Or do the work yourself to find the original sources about those “negotiations”. Easy to do, but I’m not doing it YET again after already debunking this stupid shit with Dover. Not the Russian talking points characterising what they want individuals such as yourself to repeat into right of centre spaces. Find the original sources. Do some f***ing reading. Use your f***ing head.
I didn’t see that exchange with Dover a month ago because I was in Russia at the time. A place you’ve never been – meaning that you have no direct knowledge of the people, the size of the country and its strength, the intricacies of the politics or attitude to the conflict. Ditto for most Western commentators who offer up their ‘news reports’ which are fed from the talking points of Washington or Downing St.
I may try to find the exchange you had with Dover but that doesn’t, and won’t, alter the fact that the war for Ukraine is unwinnable.
Lol.
I was waiting for you to play that one.
Let me mark it off my bingo card.
Why don’t you f*** off back there.
Permanently.
Russia is grinding Ukraine atm. Ukraine is in a death spiral.
Russian talking points Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.
The US has degraded Russia’s military capacity for at least a generation (probably much longer, given Russia’s demographics) in a politically popular campaign without putting a single US soldier at risk. Sounds like a great outcome for the US.
Russia and Ukraine can decide themselves when they’ve had enough and want to come to an agreement. Ukraine probably cannot secure a “back to 2014 boundaries” victory but Russia can’t win either – they’re using masses of troops and materiel to gain basically no ground. If Trump wins I suspect an agreement will happen fairly quickly – Trump seems to have a knack of finding leverage and applying it effectively. Peace in the region will be good for all, but Russia will be a shadow of its former self.