Some are calling Kyiv's cross-border invasion of Russia a humiliation for Putin. It's also a wake-up alarm to the West about a war Ukraine is on the verge of losing.
The appeasement of Russia by Ukraine's allies is one of the saddest stories of our times. I understand that it would be impossible to police all the negative events in the world, which are mainly issues within national borders, but stopping this blatant assault on another country should be of the highest priorities.
You nailed it. If Ukraine fails, it will be yet another western nations’ and especially USA failure. This time with consequences far beyond the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam. The problem is, most Americans are becoming, again, isolationists. Not an easy fix in way, shape or form at this point.
Just a couple of observations. One effect of the incursion that has been overlooked is the morale of the Ukrainian forces. Constant defence is morale destroying; whereas, going on the offence builds morale and will have an effect in many areas of the Ukrainian military and civilian world.
One great danger is the Ukrainian incursion is a salient and salients are historically frought with danger. If it becomes too large and/or is not defended well it’s a potential trap for Ukrainian forces within the salient. Ukrainian’s have proven to be more tactically adept than their Russian counterparts, but it remains a danger if the Russians were to get their act together.
This war is looking more and more like a modern version of Vietnam. Young men are sent into a war where they will be encouraged to fight bravely but will not be allowed to win by those who control the means to win. Morality once more takes a back seat to politics both domestic and international.
An excellent commentary. I was unaware of the likely role Jake Sullivan has played in the decisions made by the White House to "tie one of Ukraine's hands behind its back" (to paraphrase your more elegantly worded prose). Nonetheless, I've grown increasingly frustrated by the risk-averse strategy fronted by the Biden administration. It's pretty clear that Putin has taken serious advantage of that--and of the willingness of isolationists (and pro-Putin boosters) in the Republican Party (or should I say the MAGA party)--to wreak havoc in Ukraine. I should add, though, that it isn't as if the other NATO member states--especially France and Germany, and to a lesser extent, Canada--have been willing to "belly up to the bar" on behalf of a more robust and tenable strategy of support for Ukraine.
The fear of pushing Russia must be replaced by a more vigorous strategy that includes the removal of strictures on Ukraines' use of advanced US- and allied military kit.
I hope, rather than expect, Trudeau's government to advocate for a tougher and more aggressive strategy.
Could the motivation be to clearly demonstrate that Russia has fewer red lines than thought? Ukraine's allies fear that incursions into Russian territory might ellicit a tactical nuclear response. The fact that it hasn't should allay thos fears and embolden the allies to better equip Ukraine.
The world's democracies absolutely must start working for Russias defeat. If Putins wins it does not stop here. It is not just about Russia. The PRC is watching . Putin delenda est.
I mean, I don't disagree, but given that we've had since 2014 and all we've done is further enable Russian aggression, I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. Putin doesn't need to defeat NATO to defeat NATO, he just needs to demonstrate that the US and the Western Alliance won't stand by their commitments.
Thesen western nations just do not understand Slavic culture, or they just refuse to believe it. There is no such thing as permanent peace with Russia. Russia culturally is always at war, recovering from war or building up for the next war. It's who they are, which is the modern vestige of both the Mongol horde.
The only policy I'm afraid is containment and only a united NATO is capable of that.
"General Syrsky’s great gamble has offered Ukrainians hope after a year of consistently grim news. It has also given him renewed authority. But the long-term success or otherwise of the operation will depend largely on how Russia responds. It appears to be pursuing a twin approach of responding more aggressively to the incursion while also sustaining pressure inside Ukraine along the line in the Donbas. The Kremlin’s goal will be to turn Kursk into little more than an embarrassing mosquito bite amid a bloodbath inside Ukraine.
"Evidence of an intensifying response inside Kursk is now clear. Ukrainian soldiers on the ground inside Russia say they are already beginning to see a different level of resistance. Losses are increasing. The Russians have reinforced with better trained units, including marines and special forces. They had studied the area. This belated Russian response to the incursion in Kursk has forced it to divert some troops from strangleholds inside Ukraine in the Donbas. Reflecting this, a Ukrainian government source says military activity in the Donbas has significantly decreased since August 16th. However there is a big exception: Pokrovsk, the town where Russia was making steady advances before the incursion and where it is seeking to maintain heavy pressure on Ukraine.
"The scene is thus set for a dramatic moment in the war: Ukraine wants to sustain its attack inside Russia and disrupt the contours of the frontline, changing the defeatist narrative about a frozen conflict to which negotiation is the only answer. Russia wants to crush the incursion and exploit the resulting depletion of Ukraine’s resources by pressing home its assault elsewhere, in Pokrovsk."
I am prone to believe that the resolution of this war - in the eyes of the military industrial complex, and by extension the WH - is a state of managed, but non-escalating war. Peace is not an option on the table.
The US; Trump (the GOP and Trump are the same entity) specifically betrayed Ukraine and enabled Putin. Nothing has changed since 2015. But the US military industrial complex has still profited handsomely.
I can't help but wonder if the incursion is a precursor to try and gain bargaining power at the peace talks?
The appeasement of Russia by Ukraine's allies is one of the saddest stories of our times. I understand that it would be impossible to police all the negative events in the world, which are mainly issues within national borders, but stopping this blatant assault on another country should be of the highest priorities.
You nailed it. If Ukraine fails, it will be yet another western nations’ and especially USA failure. This time with consequences far beyond the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam. The problem is, most Americans are becoming, again, isolationists. Not an easy fix in way, shape or form at this point.
Just a couple of observations. One effect of the incursion that has been overlooked is the morale of the Ukrainian forces. Constant defence is morale destroying; whereas, going on the offence builds morale and will have an effect in many areas of the Ukrainian military and civilian world.
One great danger is the Ukrainian incursion is a salient and salients are historically frought with danger. If it becomes too large and/or is not defended well it’s a potential trap for Ukrainian forces within the salient. Ukrainian’s have proven to be more tactically adept than their Russian counterparts, but it remains a danger if the Russians were to get their act together.
Got to agree with you. The way Ukraine is being treated is possibly worse then the appeasment by roughly the same players before the 2nd world war
This war is looking more and more like a modern version of Vietnam. Young men are sent into a war where they will be encouraged to fight bravely but will not be allowed to win by those who control the means to win. Morality once more takes a back seat to politics both domestic and international.
An excellent commentary. I was unaware of the likely role Jake Sullivan has played in the decisions made by the White House to "tie one of Ukraine's hands behind its back" (to paraphrase your more elegantly worded prose). Nonetheless, I've grown increasingly frustrated by the risk-averse strategy fronted by the Biden administration. It's pretty clear that Putin has taken serious advantage of that--and of the willingness of isolationists (and pro-Putin boosters) in the Republican Party (or should I say the MAGA party)--to wreak havoc in Ukraine. I should add, though, that it isn't as if the other NATO member states--especially France and Germany, and to a lesser extent, Canada--have been willing to "belly up to the bar" on behalf of a more robust and tenable strategy of support for Ukraine.
The fear of pushing Russia must be replaced by a more vigorous strategy that includes the removal of strictures on Ukraines' use of advanced US- and allied military kit.
I hope, rather than expect, Trudeau's government to advocate for a tougher and more aggressive strategy.
Could the motivation be to clearly demonstrate that Russia has fewer red lines than thought? Ukraine's allies fear that incursions into Russian territory might ellicit a tactical nuclear response. The fact that it hasn't should allay thos fears and embolden the allies to better equip Ukraine.
The world's democracies absolutely must start working for Russias defeat. If Putins wins it does not stop here. It is not just about Russia. The PRC is watching . Putin delenda est.
I mean, I don't disagree, but given that we've had since 2014 and all we've done is further enable Russian aggression, I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. Putin doesn't need to defeat NATO to defeat NATO, he just needs to demonstrate that the US and the Western Alliance won't stand by their commitments.
Thesen western nations just do not understand Slavic culture, or they just refuse to believe it. There is no such thing as permanent peace with Russia. Russia culturally is always at war, recovering from war or building up for the next war. It's who they are, which is the modern vestige of both the Mongol horde.
The only policy I'm afraid is containment and only a united NATO is capable of that.
The big question is whether Trump or Harris wins the US election in November. Right now it's 50/50.
Reporting from the Economist: https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/08/18/russias-double-punch-back-against-ukraines-shock-raid
"General Syrsky’s great gamble has offered Ukrainians hope after a year of consistently grim news. It has also given him renewed authority. But the long-term success or otherwise of the operation will depend largely on how Russia responds. It appears to be pursuing a twin approach of responding more aggressively to the incursion while also sustaining pressure inside Ukraine along the line in the Donbas. The Kremlin’s goal will be to turn Kursk into little more than an embarrassing mosquito bite amid a bloodbath inside Ukraine.
"Evidence of an intensifying response inside Kursk is now clear. Ukrainian soldiers on the ground inside Russia say they are already beginning to see a different level of resistance. Losses are increasing. The Russians have reinforced with better trained units, including marines and special forces. They had studied the area. This belated Russian response to the incursion in Kursk has forced it to divert some troops from strangleholds inside Ukraine in the Donbas. Reflecting this, a Ukrainian government source says military activity in the Donbas has significantly decreased since August 16th. However there is a big exception: Pokrovsk, the town where Russia was making steady advances before the incursion and where it is seeking to maintain heavy pressure on Ukraine.
"The scene is thus set for a dramatic moment in the war: Ukraine wants to sustain its attack inside Russia and disrupt the contours of the frontline, changing the defeatist narrative about a frozen conflict to which negotiation is the only answer. Russia wants to crush the incursion and exploit the resulting depletion of Ukraine’s resources by pressing home its assault elsewhere, in Pokrovsk."
I am prone to believe that the resolution of this war - in the eyes of the military industrial complex, and by extension the WH - is a state of managed, but non-escalating war. Peace is not an option on the table.
The US; Trump (the GOP and Trump are the same entity) specifically betrayed Ukraine and enabled Putin. Nothing has changed since 2015. But the US military industrial complex has still profited handsomely.
I can't help but wonder if the incursion is a precursor to try and gain bargaining power at the peace talks?