Russia is bleeding to death in front of our eyes. Some in the West are suggesting we suture and bandage the wounds. The wise would suggest to continue to inflict deeper wounds and more bleeding. The West has two conflict points. The ongoing one with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a potential future conflict point with China. Defeat Russia now and the future potential conflict with China will not take place.
China is at a crossroads. Their economy is shrinking, the people are getting restless, and the CCP needs something to distract its attention away from these problems. This leaves them with a decision: do they in invade Taiwan, or do they start something with Russia? Russia would be an ideal target because they can use land forces rather than seaborne. Just my thoughts.
Agree. Russia or parts of it close to the Chinese border would be an ideal target (acquisition) for China. The West would object but with a smile on their collective faces.
Truth and the fog of war are hard to reconcile until after the fact. Maxim Tucker has just returned from the front lines. It will interest readers to listen to him via the link below. He is an experienced journalist. If you don't, or won't use YouTube, Times Radio is available by free app.
There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over this conflict. Rightly so. However, many European countries still remember the Russian occupation and suppression of their countries after WW2. For this reason, many will support Ukraine. Rightly so.
We just dusted off a post WWII housing strategy to deal with immigration - why not pull out war-time plans to manufacture and supply ammo and other means to supply our allies and re-supply our own under-equipped military? Guns and butter has become guns and EV battery plants?
Western governments are in this predicament because they have neglected 10,000 yrs of human nature regarding power and warfare which has shown up in their neglect for the military. That money is used for policies and programs that deliver votes, whether or not those programs actually help is open for discussion. So, cancel the grift to resupply the military? Ask JT what he thinks of that.
An interesting historical overview, and a cogently reasoned analysis. I would quibble only over the claim that "territory is the currency of maneuver," since it's a half-truth and a strange slip by Clarke, who shows his awareness of the importance of timeliness elsewhere in the article. As Napoleon, a master of maneuver if ever there was one, put it, "Strategy is the art of making use of space and time. I am more chary of the latter than the former. Space once lost can be recovered; time never. I may lose a battle, but I shall never lose a minute."
That's a great quibble. I covered that point summarily and could have done it more justice. To expand on it, I'd suggest that maneuver warfare does function by acquiring territory, but that not all territory is of equal or constant value.
So I agree wholeheartedly with the wisdom of that Napoleon quote - what I'd suggest is that Napoleon was specifically a master (inter alia) of accurately valuing territory, in much the same way the best investment bankers have a virtuoso eye for the true value of a stock. What was Austerlitz if not Napoleon knowing better than the Tsar the value of the Pratzen Heights (and Napoleon predicting exactly how the Tsar would misvalue it)?
Even more to the point, Napoleon understood (just like a banker evaluating an investment) that the value of the Pratzen was time-sensitive. There was a time to occupy it PRECISELY BECAUSE there would also come a time to "swing the weight of the Grande Armee, more than 25,000 men, southwards, off the Pratzen to trap and annihilate Buxhowden." After which, the French could forget about the Pratzen.
I had heard a few months back that Vlad Putin was, shall we say, quite ill. This was from a recent Ukranian immigrant during the time the Ukranian pushback was especially strong/visibly effective.
Was that a rumour that anyone can confirm or refute? Wishful thinking on the part of my acquaintance?
My point in asking is that I wonder if Putin's inner circle has anyone in it that we should be
a) more worried about than Putin himself
b) no more and no less worried about than Putin himself
c) less worried - more optomistic about than Putin himslef
if Putin were to succumb in the near term to natural or human-encouraged causes?
In short, if Putin was out of the picture (hopefully permanently) what does the situation in Ukraine look like then?
Would Russia fold up like a cheap tent?
Would the war just keep dragging on?
Would The West intervene to a greater degree in a post-Putin Russia?
Interested in hearing from the author and anyone else with insight.
I suspect Russia would be more likely to fold its hand in Ukraine if Putin ceased to rule, or simply ceased to be. Putin made the decision to launch the invasion, so his political future is more inextricably tied to its outcome than his successor's would be.
That is a possibility. However Russia is not a functioning democracy with a functioning rule of law. It is a security service with a country attached to it. Three quarters of the government is made up of people with security or military connections. Putin is at the top of that pyramid at the pleasure of the “services”. Putin may be the moderate devil that we know, preferable to a group of hardline devils that we don’t know. That Yevgeny Prigozhin got as far and lived as long as he did may indicate that the groups of devils are widely fractured in their forward looking vision. It may be an enticing strategy to cheer for the most dovish devils to prevail; but even that may be a be careful what you wish for scenario. In the meantime it is imperative to aid Ukraine to be more stubborn and determined than the Russian security service they are freeing themselves of.
All good points. Against those, this war is ripping the Russian economy apart, and that also affects the livelihoods of the "ejectorate" that unofficially decides who controls the country. They are more likely than the median Russian to be directly named in international sanctions, and to have business concerns (yes, even members of the security service) damaged by sanctions and by the cratering value of the ruble.
If Putin were no longer in the picture, his replacement might also be a hardliner, it's true: but his replacement would at least have the option to frame the war as somebody else's bad idea, making it in my opinion at least *somewhat* more likely that whoever follows Putin would end the war.
But like I said, I don't hold that opinion strongly. There are many conflicting factors at play, including several you've ably named.
Putin and the “ejectorate” are “diversified”. Hot saucing their “diversification” appears to have coalesced into a staying power preservative from an irritating gas inducing incendiary spice since Roman Abramovitch was the marquee headline. Nelson Mandela stated there was no doubt that economic sanctions helped to bring down South African apartheid. So stay on the sanction course, keep shaking the tree, and see what falls out. Time is money. Time means more dead soldiers. Somebody always pays. When all Russian mothers hit the streets in protest at the same time the cheque is signed.
The problem for Ukraine and for that attention span the author refers to is the timelines for support. Many announcements of support (tanks, artillery, ammo, etc) made by Western leaders were made when Ukraine was preparing their Spring offensive. Too many assumed the support was there for the offensive. In reality, moving armour takes time. Then there is the training time for the crews and even more time to train the maintainers and build up spare parts. I would expect more out of next Spring’s offensive now that the Ukrainian Army is more familiar with the equipment and how to use that equipment. It just takes time and time is not a friend of today’s generation brought up on Sesame Street snipits.
This is a good article, but the Line normally states the occupation/background of pieces' authors, which helps substantiate their credibility. I consider myself fairly informed when it comes to military and foreign affairs, but with all due respect, who the hell is Clarke Ries?
We don't require credentials to write on or rebut a subject here (neither Gerson or Gurmey are experts on much.) The piece just needs to be good. This one was. JG
Very well argued, but sorry, I don't buy it. The propaganda saying that Russia is in the border of collapse, that the moral of its soldiers is on the floor, that it is running out of weapons, etc. has been out there pretty much since the war started, yet they are still standing firm. Meanwhile, last reports from Ukraine show people in their 50's being sent to fight, so I have serious doubts about which muscles are really twitching in this arm wrestling battle.
The problem is that, lacking independent journalists in the front reporting what they really see, all we are left with is propaganda, and that goes for both sides, of course. After all, truth is the first victim of every war. Therefore, there's no other option than being sceptic and demand our government for proper accounting of where is the money going and, most importantly, what is the end game and how to get there.
I think you're wise to have a healthy skepticism for state propaganda and for the assessments and predictions of the most ardent advocates for each side.
I'll note, though, that I did not argue Russia is on the border of collapse! Only that Ukraine is making substantial attritional progress. We have ways of measuring that, independent of the propaganda generated by either side.
For example:
1. Why can't Russia stop Ukrainian grain shipments?
2. Why is Russia fielding, for any purpose, 70-year-old tanks?
3. Why are Russian assaults increasingly proceeding without preparatory artillery fire?
4. Why do Russian forces no longer threaten Kyiv or Kharkiv, and why do they no longer occupy Kherson?
5. Why did Russia fall back behind the Dnieper River?
6. Why hasn't Russia taken any strategically meaningful Ukrainian territory in over a year, despite their stated intent to do so?
Why, put another way, is Russia *only capable* of standing firm? The answer, I believe, is that the attrition inflicted by Ukraine has had a significant impact on Russia's battlefield capabilities.
That does not mean Ukraine will inevitably win. Russia is also making progress, as you've pointed out, in attriting Ukrainian resources. But looked at objectively and dispassionately, there is an excellent chance that Russia will break first, defined here as abandoning their claim to occupied Ukrainian territory and pulling their army back behind the internationally-recognized border.
Absolutely right. But even in the most totalitarian regime, the supreme leader is only one man, and requires the support of an array of key officials (mostly in the military and security services) to maintain power.
Putin cannot politically afford to end the war. But that informal, unofficial body, sometimes termed the "ejectorate", may eventually decide that they cannot afford Putin. When Prigozhin rebelled, the dog that didn't bark was the remarkable absence of military opposition to Wagner's drive on Moscow.
It suggests that the ejectorate, while not yet ready to openly oppose Putin, is less than pleased with him and at best ambivalently committed to his political survival.
Assuming, of course, that the integrity of the ejectoral system is intact. I’m no longer convinced of that integrity - in Russia or most anywhere else, for that matter.
The thing about ejectoral systems in authoritarian states is that they are by definition never intact - they're amorphous and operate according to no fixed rules. Membership changes often, sometimes without the knowledge of those who find themselves in or out.
The ejectorate is less an institution, in other words, and more the manifestation of the immutable principle that one man cannot govern 143 million people without the ongoing support of others. In broad strokes, the men with the guns. But in detail, in terms of who exactly he must keep loyal, not even Putin can be entirely certain until a crisis of loyalty arises, should one occur.
Maxim Tucker, an experienced journalist, has just returned from the front lines. Please listen to him via the link below. Remember to place a finger on the journalistic scales because Maxim was a guest of Ukraine. Times Radio is available by free app, attainable by a search. And yes you are correct, truth and the fog of war are hard to reconcile until after the fact. However, morality and determination are always valid. The end game is for Ukraine to be a country able to diplomatically negotiate with Russia, preferably in the EU, and preferably in NATO.
As has become clear, the greatest threat to western democracy; the western way of life is the GOP. What Russia has yet to contemplate is that things won't just go back to normal when this is over either. If only Ukraine can hang on until next November.....a lot will be resolved then.
If Trump gets in again the likelihood of the US pulling out of NATO is significant. That would change the game completely. No wonder the former SSRs are very nervous.
You must be joking. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if mainstream media's analysts are considered deep by anybody it's because one can never discover any bottom to them. They are not even shallow.
Well said and a cogent analysis. I understand attention spans as measured by the Sesame Street formula, about 30 seconds. Fight on and neuter Russia because we still do not know what China is thinking and better to have one whole enemy plus one crippled versus two whole.
Thank you for the snappy prose Clarke. Enjoyed it.
I again urge readers, who haven’t yet, to carefully listen to Philip Ingram. The patient is very much alive. Dr. Frankenstein may need to apply for more malpractice insurance.
Times Radio is available via your platform’s App Store. Once you get to Times Radio search out: “Putin under pressure as 'special operations' threaten to 'hollow out' Russia's army | Philip Ingram”
I don't know enough about the history to feel confident commenting on whether Russia or Ukraine has the moral position however i do feel confident in stating neither side comes out of this with anything resembling a satisfactory outcome. The Industrial War Machine is happy, having rid itself of billions worth of obsolete killing weapons just in time to manufacture more for the next 'righteous' conflict....politicians like Trudeau get to throw other peoples money in a giant sink hole while preening on the world stage while at the same time supporting Hamas butchers.....i have seen estimates of 60% of the weapons materials sent to Ukraine have ended up on the black market and found its way into the hands of terrorists in Africa and the Mid East......meantime the news media continues the propaganda campaign that everything is black and white, good and evil.......we are being gamed folks.
Brilliantly written and about as wrong headed as possible: the aid situation is NOT being foiled by a failure of Ukrainian progress or even their ability to hold a line on the map, what is underlying the lack of support of the UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT is its ability to absorb massive amounts of cash with little or no accountability. That they cancel elections, jail observant journalists that have the temerity to offer observations of politicians fealties, and continue to hide aid monies are far more responsible. If you can hold a rock concert and host international leaders you can hold an election. Amateur general s discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics, and you touch this, but you miss the real logistics questions and issues underlying the west's reluctance to be an unending bottomless supply of cash to Kiev: where is it all going and what is the end game? Maskorova maybe a Russian term but the Ukrainians are using it on the western public and are suddenly shocked when we don't like it.
Russia is bleeding to death in front of our eyes. Some in the West are suggesting we suture and bandage the wounds. The wise would suggest to continue to inflict deeper wounds and more bleeding. The West has two conflict points. The ongoing one with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a potential future conflict point with China. Defeat Russia now and the future potential conflict with China will not take place.
I fully agree if you edit "will not" to "may not". China is on a mission.
China is at a crossroads. Their economy is shrinking, the people are getting restless, and the CCP needs something to distract its attention away from these problems. This leaves them with a decision: do they in invade Taiwan, or do they start something with Russia? Russia would be an ideal target because they can use land forces rather than seaborne. Just my thoughts.
Agree. Russia or parts of it close to the Chinese border would be an ideal target (acquisition) for China. The West would object but with a smile on their collective faces.
Truth and the fog of war are hard to reconcile until after the fact. Maxim Tucker has just returned from the front lines. It will interest readers to listen to him via the link below. He is an experienced journalist. If you don't, or won't use YouTube, Times Radio is available by free app.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoCWyu9pheY
There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over this conflict. Rightly so. However, many European countries still remember the Russian occupation and suppression of their countries after WW2. For this reason, many will support Ukraine. Rightly so.
We just dusted off a post WWII housing strategy to deal with immigration - why not pull out war-time plans to manufacture and supply ammo and other means to supply our allies and re-supply our own under-equipped military? Guns and butter has become guns and EV battery plants?
How many votes do you think that will buy?
Western governments are in this predicament because they have neglected 10,000 yrs of human nature regarding power and warfare which has shown up in their neglect for the military. That money is used for policies and programs that deliver votes, whether or not those programs actually help is open for discussion. So, cancel the grift to resupply the military? Ask JT what he thinks of that.
Outstanding analysis, well reasoned and with many relevant historical references. I hope Pierre reads this...
An interesting historical overview, and a cogently reasoned analysis. I would quibble only over the claim that "territory is the currency of maneuver," since it's a half-truth and a strange slip by Clarke, who shows his awareness of the importance of timeliness elsewhere in the article. As Napoleon, a master of maneuver if ever there was one, put it, "Strategy is the art of making use of space and time. I am more chary of the latter than the former. Space once lost can be recovered; time never. I may lose a battle, but I shall never lose a minute."
That's a great quibble. I covered that point summarily and could have done it more justice. To expand on it, I'd suggest that maneuver warfare does function by acquiring territory, but that not all territory is of equal or constant value.
So I agree wholeheartedly with the wisdom of that Napoleon quote - what I'd suggest is that Napoleon was specifically a master (inter alia) of accurately valuing territory, in much the same way the best investment bankers have a virtuoso eye for the true value of a stock. What was Austerlitz if not Napoleon knowing better than the Tsar the value of the Pratzen Heights (and Napoleon predicting exactly how the Tsar would misvalue it)?
Even more to the point, Napoleon understood (just like a banker evaluating an investment) that the value of the Pratzen was time-sensitive. There was a time to occupy it PRECISELY BECAUSE there would also come a time to "swing the weight of the Grande Armee, more than 25,000 men, southwards, off the Pratzen to trap and annihilate Buxhowden." After which, the French could forget about the Pratzen.
Perfectly put.
We could apply for jobs as Napoleonic marshals, but I suspect we're too late.
Wait a few years.
I don't have them. I retired ten years ago, so I'll defer to my grandson. But whom do you foresee as the new Napoleon he'd be serving?
Interesting counterpoints to Andrew's article.
I had heard a few months back that Vlad Putin was, shall we say, quite ill. This was from a recent Ukranian immigrant during the time the Ukranian pushback was especially strong/visibly effective.
Was that a rumour that anyone can confirm or refute? Wishful thinking on the part of my acquaintance?
My point in asking is that I wonder if Putin's inner circle has anyone in it that we should be
a) more worried about than Putin himself
b) no more and no less worried about than Putin himself
c) less worried - more optomistic about than Putin himslef
if Putin were to succumb in the near term to natural or human-encouraged causes?
In short, if Putin was out of the picture (hopefully permanently) what does the situation in Ukraine look like then?
Would Russia fold up like a cheap tent?
Would the war just keep dragging on?
Would The West intervene to a greater degree in a post-Putin Russia?
Interested in hearing from the author and anyone else with insight.
I suspect Russia would be more likely to fold its hand in Ukraine if Putin ceased to rule, or simply ceased to be. Putin made the decision to launch the invasion, so his political future is more inextricably tied to its outcome than his successor's would be.
That is a possibility. However Russia is not a functioning democracy with a functioning rule of law. It is a security service with a country attached to it. Three quarters of the government is made up of people with security or military connections. Putin is at the top of that pyramid at the pleasure of the “services”. Putin may be the moderate devil that we know, preferable to a group of hardline devils that we don’t know. That Yevgeny Prigozhin got as far and lived as long as he did may indicate that the groups of devils are widely fractured in their forward looking vision. It may be an enticing strategy to cheer for the most dovish devils to prevail; but even that may be a be careful what you wish for scenario. In the meantime it is imperative to aid Ukraine to be more stubborn and determined than the Russian security service they are freeing themselves of.
All good points. Against those, this war is ripping the Russian economy apart, and that also affects the livelihoods of the "ejectorate" that unofficially decides who controls the country. They are more likely than the median Russian to be directly named in international sanctions, and to have business concerns (yes, even members of the security service) damaged by sanctions and by the cratering value of the ruble.
If Putin were no longer in the picture, his replacement might also be a hardliner, it's true: but his replacement would at least have the option to frame the war as somebody else's bad idea, making it in my opinion at least *somewhat* more likely that whoever follows Putin would end the war.
But like I said, I don't hold that opinion strongly. There are many conflicting factors at play, including several you've ably named.
Putin and the “ejectorate” are “diversified”. Hot saucing their “diversification” appears to have coalesced into a staying power preservative from an irritating gas inducing incendiary spice since Roman Abramovitch was the marquee headline. Nelson Mandela stated there was no doubt that economic sanctions helped to bring down South African apartheid. So stay on the sanction course, keep shaking the tree, and see what falls out. Time is money. Time means more dead soldiers. Somebody always pays. When all Russian mothers hit the streets in protest at the same time the cheque is signed.
The problem for Ukraine and for that attention span the author refers to is the timelines for support. Many announcements of support (tanks, artillery, ammo, etc) made by Western leaders were made when Ukraine was preparing their Spring offensive. Too many assumed the support was there for the offensive. In reality, moving armour takes time. Then there is the training time for the crews and even more time to train the maintainers and build up spare parts. I would expect more out of next Spring’s offensive now that the Ukrainian Army is more familiar with the equipment and how to use that equipment. It just takes time and time is not a friend of today’s generation brought up on Sesame Street snipits.
This is a good article, but the Line normally states the occupation/background of pieces' authors, which helps substantiate their credibility. I consider myself fairly informed when it comes to military and foreign affairs, but with all due respect, who the hell is Clarke Ries?
It's @Grizwald.
We don't require credentials to write on or rebut a subject here (neither Gerson or Gurmey are experts on much.) The piece just needs to be good. This one was. JG
#gurmey
This is an excellent essay which has measurably shifted my perception of the war in Ukraine.
Very well argued, but sorry, I don't buy it. The propaganda saying that Russia is in the border of collapse, that the moral of its soldiers is on the floor, that it is running out of weapons, etc. has been out there pretty much since the war started, yet they are still standing firm. Meanwhile, last reports from Ukraine show people in their 50's being sent to fight, so I have serious doubts about which muscles are really twitching in this arm wrestling battle.
The problem is that, lacking independent journalists in the front reporting what they really see, all we are left with is propaganda, and that goes for both sides, of course. After all, truth is the first victim of every war. Therefore, there's no other option than being sceptic and demand our government for proper accounting of where is the money going and, most importantly, what is the end game and how to get there.
I think you're wise to have a healthy skepticism for state propaganda and for the assessments and predictions of the most ardent advocates for each side.
I'll note, though, that I did not argue Russia is on the border of collapse! Only that Ukraine is making substantial attritional progress. We have ways of measuring that, independent of the propaganda generated by either side.
For example:
1. Why can't Russia stop Ukrainian grain shipments?
2. Why is Russia fielding, for any purpose, 70-year-old tanks?
3. Why are Russian assaults increasingly proceeding without preparatory artillery fire?
4. Why do Russian forces no longer threaten Kyiv or Kharkiv, and why do they no longer occupy Kherson?
5. Why did Russia fall back behind the Dnieper River?
6. Why hasn't Russia taken any strategically meaningful Ukrainian territory in over a year, despite their stated intent to do so?
Why, put another way, is Russia *only capable* of standing firm? The answer, I believe, is that the attrition inflicted by Ukraine has had a significant impact on Russia's battlefield capabilities.
That does not mean Ukraine will inevitably win. Russia is also making progress, as you've pointed out, in attriting Ukrainian resources. But looked at objectively and dispassionately, there is an excellent chance that Russia will break first, defined here as abandoning their claim to occupied Ukrainian territory and pulling their army back behind the internationally-recognized border.
That would be the death knell for Putin and his intent to remain through the next ‘election’.
Absolutely right. But even in the most totalitarian regime, the supreme leader is only one man, and requires the support of an array of key officials (mostly in the military and security services) to maintain power.
Putin cannot politically afford to end the war. But that informal, unofficial body, sometimes termed the "ejectorate", may eventually decide that they cannot afford Putin. When Prigozhin rebelled, the dog that didn't bark was the remarkable absence of military opposition to Wagner's drive on Moscow.
It suggests that the ejectorate, while not yet ready to openly oppose Putin, is less than pleased with him and at best ambivalently committed to his political survival.
Assuming, of course, that the integrity of the ejectoral system is intact. I’m no longer convinced of that integrity - in Russia or most anywhere else, for that matter.
The thing about ejectoral systems in authoritarian states is that they are by definition never intact - they're amorphous and operate according to no fixed rules. Membership changes often, sometimes without the knowledge of those who find themselves in or out.
The ejectorate is less an institution, in other words, and more the manifestation of the immutable principle that one man cannot govern 143 million people without the ongoing support of others. In broad strokes, the men with the guns. But in detail, in terms of who exactly he must keep loyal, not even Putin can be entirely certain until a crisis of loyalty arises, should one occur.
Maxim Tucker, an experienced journalist, has just returned from the front lines. Please listen to him via the link below. Remember to place a finger on the journalistic scales because Maxim was a guest of Ukraine. Times Radio is available by free app, attainable by a search. And yes you are correct, truth and the fog of war are hard to reconcile until after the fact. However, morality and determination are always valid. The end game is for Ukraine to be a country able to diplomatically negotiate with Russia, preferably in the EU, and preferably in NATO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoCWyu9pheY
As has become clear, the greatest threat to western democracy; the western way of life is the GOP. What Russia has yet to contemplate is that things won't just go back to normal when this is over either. If only Ukraine can hang on until next November.....a lot will be resolved then.
If Trump gets in again the likelihood of the US pulling out of NATO is significant. That would change the game completely. No wonder the former SSRs are very nervous.
Brilliant article! Where is this depth of analysis in our mainstream media....?
You must be joking. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if mainstream media's analysts are considered deep by anybody it's because one can never discover any bottom to them. They are not even shallow.
Well said and a cogent analysis. I understand attention spans as measured by the Sesame Street formula, about 30 seconds. Fight on and neuter Russia because we still do not know what China is thinking and better to have one whole enemy plus one crippled versus two whole.
Thank you for the snappy prose Clarke. Enjoyed it.
I again urge readers, who haven’t yet, to carefully listen to Philip Ingram. The patient is very much alive. Dr. Frankenstein may need to apply for more malpractice insurance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEj_oOgPFQ0
Times Radio is available via your platform’s App Store. Once you get to Times Radio search out: “Putin under pressure as 'special operations' threaten to 'hollow out' Russia's army | Philip Ingram”
I don't know enough about the history to feel confident commenting on whether Russia or Ukraine has the moral position however i do feel confident in stating neither side comes out of this with anything resembling a satisfactory outcome. The Industrial War Machine is happy, having rid itself of billions worth of obsolete killing weapons just in time to manufacture more for the next 'righteous' conflict....politicians like Trudeau get to throw other peoples money in a giant sink hole while preening on the world stage while at the same time supporting Hamas butchers.....i have seen estimates of 60% of the weapons materials sent to Ukraine have ended up on the black market and found its way into the hands of terrorists in Africa and the Mid East......meantime the news media continues the propaganda campaign that everything is black and white, good and evil.......we are being gamed folks.
Brilliantly written and about as wrong headed as possible: the aid situation is NOT being foiled by a failure of Ukrainian progress or even their ability to hold a line on the map, what is underlying the lack of support of the UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT is its ability to absorb massive amounts of cash with little or no accountability. That they cancel elections, jail observant journalists that have the temerity to offer observations of politicians fealties, and continue to hide aid monies are far more responsible. If you can hold a rock concert and host international leaders you can hold an election. Amateur general s discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics, and you touch this, but you miss the real logistics questions and issues underlying the west's reluctance to be an unending bottomless supply of cash to Kiev: where is it all going and what is the end game? Maskorova maybe a Russian term but the Ukrainians are using it on the western public and are suddenly shocked when we don't like it.