With all due respect, Professor, what on earth makes you think that anybody of influence and authority, whether in Washington, in Brussels, or in Kiev, gives a rat's ass about Ukraine or Ukrainians except as pawns to be moved and sacrificed, as sheep to be sheared or fleeced?
The only reason why NATO wants the Ukraine to be a member is to provide them with a platform to launch missiles at Moscow with a five minute flight time. NATO, the US, and the EU have always coveted Russia's resources and they won't stop until Russia stops them, with a nuclear war, if necessary.
For those who think, yes, but judging from the MSM/government cheerleading, the flags performatively flown by the signalers of virtue, etc., one might be forgiven for thinking differently.
I don't think he expects to change any minds in Washington, Brussels, or Kiev. The point of this is to convince their consituents and voters to hold them accountable.
It's plainly obvious to everyone other than the most intentionally obtuse that our governments, when it comes to "listening" to constituents, are giving nothing but lip service... zero substance, they either will give you a pretense of "hearing" your concerns, or, as is more common nowadays, they won't even acknowledge you.
That being said, the more the masses accept this, the more they say "What can you do?", the more they believe, the more they internalize that this is just the way things are, and that we are powerless to stop or change this state of affairs, the more the masses help create and foster this state of affairs, the more they seal their fate.
It is up to each and every individual one of us to be indignant of this state of the world, and up to us to NEVER be accepting of it, never resigned to it.
The more people, in numbers, get indignant, the more this mindset/attitude/resolve permeates throughout society, the more this frame of mind influences/convinces/turns others around us, eventually to create among the population a sense of not accepting it anymore, and at some point there will be so much of this lack of acceptance and so much firm demand for better or change, that the ruling class will no longer be able to suppress or ignore it.
The more we resign ourselves to the status quo, the more status quo we will get.
The more we can make people understand the necessity for every individual to respect themselves and stop putting up with being abused, the more we can evoke change.
It's always been up to us, and it's mostly our apathy and acceptance or willingness to be cheated that enables the ruling powers to constantly ratchet up the assaults on us.
Quite so, but the only way they will be "punished" is if the populace becomes threatening to the abuser/bully, and they only way the populace will become threatening is when they develop self-respect, which is necessary to generate indignation that will in turn motivate a desire to organize a response/counter (if only a perceived readiness) to the abuse.
History can show many who thought themselves to be iron-fisted rulers end up strung up regardless of the amount and or severity of repression, when the people just had enough.
Never accept Injustice. Never.
As MLK warned us half a century ago,
Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.
Really? Do you think they pursued the case against Derek Chauvin, who was eventually convicted, out of the goodness of their heart and that the public protests had no effect?
Everyone in the foreign policy establishment affects a touching sympathy for Ukraine, Ukrainians, Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights, all the other stuff that Ukraine lacks, even as they condemn Ukrainians to press gangs deaths by the thousands.
The Ukraine turned down diplomacy and neutrality when they refused to sign the Minsk agreements after having spent time negotiating them as a ruse to cover their ineffective military buildup.
What is sad, is that this was always the only hope. Two years and much death and destruction later, the circumstances have not only not changed, they have worsened.
Fantastic program. I am so glad to hear that Professor Mearsheimer thinks that the ship is beginning to turn in the US with regard to our policy on Ukraine. Let’s save some Ukrainian (and Russian) lives.
Thank you Professor Mearsheimer and Lieutenant Colonel Davis for keeping us informed! Fortunately, we do not have to rely on public media.
At least two more years of war. At the end of 2025
US will be ready to accept the result at the battlefield, with the excuse that whatever Ukraine and European partners are ready to accept is fine with the US.
Ukraine will be somewhat smaller, and without men, but political ruling class will not change, and firmly in NATO. Will be obstructed from negotiating with Russia until the end.
Russia will enlarge the army to be able to reliably deter, respond to NATO threat. This will make it significantly stronger than Ukraine. Russia will advance until either neutrality is negotiated (unlikely), a stalemate reached (even more unlikely), or a final border on Dnieper river achieved.
Risk of nuclear war, rising with the number of casualties, a real risk, but not extreme.
Diplomatic solution would require to design a new European security architecture, something US has been expressly refusing to consider, from 1990 on.
After war in Ukraine, solutions that existed as potentials, as neutrality for Ukraine, are unfortunately not realistic.
Accepting neutrality for Ukraine would bring immediate peace, would save hundreds thousands of lives, and from a point of view of Ukrainian citizen would not be a bad solution, but would mean a defeat for US.
US will push for a some type of Korean solution, a division, a temporary ceasefire reached after a stalemate on battlefield, not a termination of the war.
Russia will not accept anything that is not a definitive solution.
Ukraine has a problem, namely it is difficult to mobilize energy of a nation, difficult to send young people to death, if the goal is ugly stalemate.
can you elaborate further on what exactly Ukraine needs to win the war ?
As evidence shows, Ukraine has been prepared by CIA, NATO for at least seven years, starting in 2014. Merkel herself publicly admitted that all negotiations between Ukraine and Russia had served to gain time to prepare Ukraine militarily for the conflict with Russia.
What more can be given to Ukraine?
Unwritten rules of the proxy war, intended to guard US, NATO and Russia and the whole world from dangerous escalation mean there is a red line; no foreign soldiers, no nuclear weapons.
After two years, Ukraine is loosing
. What makes you think sacrifice of another generation of young males will bring different result.
This is an exceptional discussion with Danny Davis. One of your best! Thank you so much Professor Mearsheimer! I pray that diplomacy takes place, just as you speculate. Bless You. The US government and NATO, would do well to have you are their top advisor!
Dear Professor Mearsheimer, is there a way to run your wonderful interviews through an automated software that would create a written transcript? This would allow quotes, portions of the transcript and the whole dialogue to be shared more broadly and on many additional platforms, including on X. Thank you.
Is the resignation of Nuland the sign that a pro negotiation party has won out? Also, to me the apparent ascendancy of Rutte to be the political head of NATO indicates a less hawkish faction is about to take over on the western side. A collapse of the army is the next thing to look for. The Dneiper river might be the stopping point. A collapse and a dramatic stopping of Russia's advance gives the impetus for passing some money for Ukraine and also for the passing of the legislation to draft more soldiers in Kiev. I wonder how able Russia is able to follow up behind a Ukrainian collapse?
It will drain resources Russia does not have if they are ultimately victorious unless they completely take over Ukraine and impoverish their citizens. There is precedent for that type of behavior and it is a strong incentive for Ukraine to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.
They still have not drafted young adult males so there is capacity if Europe supports them economically. US might provide arms but US citizens would not support large economic transfers so it has to be Europe IMO.
can you elaborate further on what exactly Ukraine needs to win the war ?
As evidence shows, Ukraine has been prepared by CIA, NATO for at least seven years, starting in 2014. Merkel herself publicly admitted that all negotiations between Ukraine and Russia had served to gain time to prepare Ukraine militarily for the conflict with Russia.
What more can be given to Ukraine?
Unwritten rules of the proxy war, intended to guard US, NATO and Russia and the whole world from dangerous escalation mean there is a red line; no foreign soldiers, no nuclear weapons.
After two years, Ukraine is loosing. What makes you think sacrifice of another generation of young males will bring different result?
There was preparation but nothing like what has happened since Russia actually invaded. I know I expected Zelinsky to get out of town and Ukraine to capitulate.
I'm not totally clear on what the Professor's position is but I know he has said Russia's goal was not to take Ukraine. I'm not sure what he means by that but I believe it is pretty evident that they wanted to replace the government. They tried to do it on a shoestring but I don't think they expected serious opposition and the truth is they did have great success early on with exception of Kyiv.
As for what more could be provided; an awful lot. Early on, I was opposed to sending F-16s but they are going eventually. I hope they have plans to send many more and other weapons systems but it needs to be slowly ramped up with ability to train support staff. I don't know that they are doing so, but I would send all of the young men who have not been drafted to the West for training. Wouldn't be easy to do, but that is my hope to avoid crossing those red lines. Given that France and Germany are talking about crossing the red line of sending at least some troops, I no longer view even that as a red line anymore where earlier I would have been horrified by thought.
I don't generally support the line of thought that I'm about to put forward but Stalin starved millions in Ukraine for the benefit of Russia. If Ukraine falls (or most of it), Russia will not rebuild it as they have at least tried to do in Crimea as they will be strained for resources again. It won't be starvation this time but something along the lines of what was done to East Germany where things were carted off is likely or possibly just giving all the wealth to Russians.
The Ukrainians are in a fix and arguably, they are in a position where they have no choice but to choose to sacrifice another generation of young men although my wild guess is they wouldn't have to. I think they can win if they send those men off for training with very acceptable losses. The numbers the professor has tossed out regarding Ukrainian losses are wildly inflated in my opinion but I'm just guessing and I'm pretty sure he is too.
Might it trigger a nuclear war? I suppose Russia might use limited numbers of weapons or possibly turn Ukraine into a wasteland but if they did that Russia would ultimately lose Belarus and much of southwest Russia as NATO would not accept nuclear weapons use without a response.
Obviously, I'm just speculating based on guesses. No one knows how things will turn out or what the best route is for Ukraine in long term. The world is filled with far more unknowns than what most people are willing to accept. In other words, they fool themselves. I did it when I was younger but as you get older and experience small probability occurrences which most people do not face, you recognize that fact.
One has to promise victory if one is to succeed in sending hundreds of thousands of young men to die. This sad fact significantly reduces the chance of honest discussion.
Ukrainians are promised victory, and what they experience is defeat.
One has to promise victory if one is to motivate US and European citizens to accept significant costs of supporting continuing war.
A smart man can always deflect arguments, and refuse to see the truth.
Regarding the conventional war continuing the war will result in more Ukrainian casualties, but there is always a chance that something unexpected might happen...
Regarding the nuclear danger of nuclear war, unfortunately refusing to see the truth, refusing to negotiate, pushing for escalation, definitely raises the chance of nuclear war.
And no, nuclear war will come in distinct steps
a. destruction of satellites over Ukraine
b. destruction of military installations, airfields, NATO bases in Ukraine
NATO will not retaliate on Russia, Belarus (Belarus has its own nukes now, so whoever thinks about targeting Belarus should be ready for retaliatory strike)
if London, PAris, Berlin are not ready to be a target
Essentially all of the wars the US has been involved in were based on greatly simplified reasons. or lies but there were well thought out reasons behind closed doors. We have a Republic in US. Our elected officials make the decisions and rarely fully explain things. It is the way of the world and at least we allow debate in the West and that is quite an accomplishment even if it is politicians (or media in some cases) manipulating emotions.
reasons for the war in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Ukraine are unimportant once war has been successfully provoked. No one who lied is ever held responsible, no one even remembers who was it who lied to push US into war.
Ray Dalio has a saying a beautiful deleverage, regarding a financial decision.
US has a way of beautiful exit from the war, US gets out and never, never turns back, never debates whose decision it was to start a war, just goes on into next war.
A problem with motivation can be partially solved through demonizaton of the enemy, painting Putin as a dictator, threatening Europe etc.
Ukrainians and Europeans are not in this theoretically, Ukrainians run a real risk of dying on battlefield, and depletion of soldiers is real. No one who pushes for war likes to discuss real numbers of casualties, because it is obviously demotivating. Close to a million soldiers are not able to fight anymore, dead, wounded, disappeared, captives. Three armies of Ukraine have already mostly disappeared, first 200 000 who were in uniform in February 2022, a great deal of volunteers from 2022, beginning of 2023, a solid part of conscripts of 2023, almost a million.
Whatever West provides, will not be enough for victory. There is here a cloud of obfuscation. There is no way to create an army that will defeat Russian army all along the 2000 km front.
As a key to motivating Europeans to join a US provoked war, is demonization of Russia and Putin, obvious facts are being forgotten in discussions. Putin will not take the whole of Ukraine. The initial goal was regime change, second goal negotiations, third goal something like if Ukraine will become NATO Russia will take what is Russian
You are certainly correct regarding the need for demonization. No one would want a leader who is honest. Putin is not a terrible guy in my opinion. He is ruthless and has technically met the definition of genocide by bringing Ukrainian kids to Russia but is it what I call genocide? Not at all.
I would be curious as to where you get your stats on Ukrainian losses. I do not pretend to know but I think Russian losses are larger. I could "buy" two to one but my guess based on previous wars fought in a similar fashion is somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 to 1. Like I said, guesses and I approach it differently from others as I do not trust anyone elses numbers although some people do know.
Military strategy is not a topic I know much about but I will say that when the Professor says it is a war of artillary, he is right as of today but I don't think that will be the case in a couple of years and I do not know what is in the pipeline.
I don't want to talk about US provoking war. US and NATO might have poked Russia a few times but it is a reflection of Russian weakness as Russia was provoking with both fists while US was not doing much; the Ukrainians decided they want to be part of Europe. How deep that desire is, I do not know with certainty but it has grown due to Russia's invasion.
Regarding accusations of genocide, it is so hypocritical it is almost British.
A short glimpse at Gaza, and comparison with Ukraine, means, one of the victims of current US led or supported wars will be loss of moral authority, globally.
If ICC does not revoke its accusation of Putin, the term genocide will lose its meaning.
Ukrainian kids whose fathers and mothers speak Russian were protected from the war by moving them away from the war zone. Since this part has already been annexed, it is internal Russian problem.
US knows, Russia knows, CIA knows.... I do not know. With a lot of scepticism, trying to evaluate all different kinds of sources. There are some open source sources that follow Russian losses, and from time to time someone from Ukrainian/Western side has a slip of the tongue, comments in a way you would call "naive" and gives us a glimpse of the true numbers.
Losses are probably larger on Ukrainian side. Artillery. Loss of experienced soldiers in attacks on established defenses, defending undefendable cities beyond a reasonable point. Ukraine started with 220 000 professional soldiers, recruited/mobilized 700 000 in 2022, continued to mobilize, and have less than 500 000 now. A number of 30 000 monthly new soldiers as a necessity to fill for the losses was mentioned in 2024.
Russia started with 250 000, mobilized 300 000 in the fall of 2022, continues to mobilize successfully app. 30 000 a month, and has around 850 000 and will have 1 200 000 at the end od 2025.
US did provoke the war. If it was unwilling, unrecognized, so be it. I do not blame US citizens. But people who get paid to lead a country, a superpower should think about the consequences of their actions.
I see John is still simping for Putin. Slobbery lips!
Putin's Only Hope: Stop being a war criminal copy-pasting Hitler's playback right down to "the big lie" theory.
The situation is hopeless allright, hopeless for Putin. Everyone else on earth has figured out Putin is basically doing the hitler and are stopping him.
I have been shocked at European concerns and willingness to discuss things I never would have thought conceivable. I'm not sure they will carry through, the US will go along, or there will not be some event like a collapse of Ukrainian army but still, the odds of a Ukrainian victory are higher than I would have guessed a week ago.
It also caused me to reconsider why NATO expanded eastward. I refuse to believe they were aggressive as if that was their goal, they essentially did nothing to prepare for war. They had to have genuine concerns about Russia's future behavior.
Here, let me give you a nasty REALIST fascist take on Russia's continuation of Hitler's work. Could it be there are germans who would be only too happy to watch Slavs in Russia and Slavs in Ukraine murder each other off, at the cost of not one German life and perhaps some paltry old NATO kit? John wants everyone to be a bitter cynical scared bully. The world does not work that way, thankfully. But if it did the neofascists would be only too happy to trickle in Just enough aid to keep the Ukrainian's busy killing off all the slavs! So, if you are not into Genocide hit Russia, as hard as you can, as often as you can, again and again, with anything and everything. Oh, and there are cynics maybe in Beijing who are also only too glad to see Russia's military decimated. 但是我不会中文.我不太聪明
Eastward expansion was driven by the Eastern European countries which did not wish to become part of Russia's empire again as well as NATOs desire to integrate Russia into NATO back in the early 2000s. Russia decided not to seek integration into nato because it is a thoroughly corrupt criminal state run by a mafia and thus doesn't want courts and laws. Also they foster corruption anywhere they can.
The NATO expansion caused the war is a myth in other words a lie. When you set about like Hitler to reconquer all those lands you lost using a lot of lies you make shit up like promises were made expansions did happen. Putin NEEDS excuses for his mafia to rob rape and murder.
The strategy of NATO enlargement inevitably led to conflict with Russia. War with Russia was started on a hypothesis that Russia can be beaten through a conventional proxy war on a Russian border coupled with harsh economic sanctions. In other words that strategic defeat can be inflicted on Russia, that would lead to internal turmoil, regime change in Moscow.
It almost succeeded, remember Prigozhin.
Now we are in the third year of the war and US begins to understand the gravity of the situation. Russia can perhaps be beaten only if NATO & US enters the battlefield, and that means ...
A. a real risk of nuclear escalation.
B. a possibility that NATO might lose
Is placing US missiles on Russian border worthy of a nuclear war?
With all due respect, Professor, what on earth makes you think that anybody of influence and authority, whether in Washington, in Brussels, or in Kiev, gives a rat's ass about Ukraine or Ukrainians except as pawns to be moved and sacrificed, as sheep to be sheared or fleeced?
The only reason why NATO wants the Ukraine to be a member is to provide them with a platform to launch missiles at Moscow with a five minute flight time. NATO, the US, and the EU have always coveted Russia's resources and they won't stop until Russia stops them, with a nuclear war, if necessary.
Take away Russia, and Ukraine would be a pariah state.
The Ukraine has always been a pariah state.
For those who think, yes, but judging from the MSM/government cheerleading, the flags performatively flown by the signalers of virtue, etc., one might be forgiven for thinking differently.
Or merely ignored.
Truth
I don't think he expects to change any minds in Washington, Brussels, or Kiev. The point of this is to convince their consituents and voters to hold them accountable.
Good point, but since when did governments in the West start to care about public opinion?
It's plainly obvious to everyone other than the most intentionally obtuse that our governments, when it comes to "listening" to constituents, are giving nothing but lip service... zero substance, they either will give you a pretense of "hearing" your concerns, or, as is more common nowadays, they won't even acknowledge you.
That being said, the more the masses accept this, the more they say "What can you do?", the more they believe, the more they internalize that this is just the way things are, and that we are powerless to stop or change this state of affairs, the more the masses help create and foster this state of affairs, the more they seal their fate.
It is up to each and every individual one of us to be indignant of this state of the world, and up to us to NEVER be accepting of it, never resigned to it.
The more people, in numbers, get indignant, the more this mindset/attitude/resolve permeates throughout society, the more this frame of mind influences/convinces/turns others around us, eventually to create among the population a sense of not accepting it anymore, and at some point there will be so much of this lack of acceptance and so much firm demand for better or change, that the ruling class will no longer be able to suppress or ignore it.
The more we resign ourselves to the status quo, the more status quo we will get.
The more we can make people understand the necessity for every individual to respect themselves and stop putting up with being abused, the more we can evoke change.
It's always been up to us, and it's mostly our apathy and acceptance or willingness to be cheated that enables the ruling powers to constantly ratchet up the assaults on us.
Reward and punishment are the only language that sociopaths understand, but they understand it quite well.
Quite so, but the only way they will be "punished" is if the populace becomes threatening to the abuser/bully, and they only way the populace will become threatening is when they develop self-respect, which is necessary to generate indignation that will in turn motivate a desire to organize a response/counter (if only a perceived readiness) to the abuse.
History can show many who thought themselves to be iron-fisted rulers end up strung up regardless of the amount and or severity of repression, when the people just had enough.
Never accept Injustice. Never.
As MLK warned us half a century ago,
Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.
The only thing that the rulers worry about are whether the police and army will no longer shoot when ordered to do so.
Hell, the sociopaths who rule over us would gladly obliterate 99% of life on earth, if that were the price of dominion over whatever remains.
Well said
Lol I share your sentiment, but things can only get better if the world's more aware
Reminds me of this scene from a Monty Python movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw
Really? Do you think they pursued the case against Derek Chauvin, who was eventually convicted, out of the goodness of their heart and that the public protests had no effect?
Neither. The rulers didn't care and don't care about Chauvin or the peons.
Neither? So to you, everything just happens in random. LOL
No, just that the rulers do not share your concerns. If Chauvin's conviction made their lives easier, it was no big deal to them.
Who says they “give a rat's ass about Ukraine or Ukrainians?”
Everyone in the foreign policy establishment affects a touching sympathy for Ukraine, Ukrainians, Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights, all the other stuff that Ukraine lacks, even as they condemn Ukrainians to press gangs deaths by the thousands.
Nancy Pelosi: "We'll win in Ukraine. We must. Because Russia's evil."
This is not a military strategy. It's wishful thinking. And it's typical of all our leaders on this subject.
The Ukraine turned down diplomacy and neutrality when they refused to sign the Minsk agreements after having spent time negotiating them as a ruse to cover their ineffective military buildup.
What is sad, is that this was always the only hope. Two years and much death and destruction later, the circumstances have not only not changed, they have worsened.
Fantastic program. I am so glad to hear that Professor Mearsheimer thinks that the ship is beginning to turn in the US with regard to our policy on Ukraine. Let’s save some Ukrainian (and Russian) lives.
Thank you Professor Mearsheimer and Lieutenant Colonel Davis for keeping us informed! Fortunately, we do not have to rely on public media.
At least two more years of war. At the end of 2025
US will be ready to accept the result at the battlefield, with the excuse that whatever Ukraine and European partners are ready to accept is fine with the US.
Ukraine will be somewhat smaller, and without men, but political ruling class will not change, and firmly in NATO. Will be obstructed from negotiating with Russia until the end.
Russia will enlarge the army to be able to reliably deter, respond to NATO threat. This will make it significantly stronger than Ukraine. Russia will advance until either neutrality is negotiated (unlikely), a stalemate reached (even more unlikely), or a final border on Dnieper river achieved.
Risk of nuclear war, rising with the number of casualties, a real risk, but not extreme.
Diplomatic solution would require to design a new European security architecture, something US has been expressly refusing to consider, from 1990 on.
After war in Ukraine, solutions that existed as potentials, as neutrality for Ukraine, are unfortunately not realistic.
Accepting neutrality for Ukraine would bring immediate peace, would save hundreds thousands of lives, and from a point of view of Ukrainian citizen would not be a bad solution, but would mean a defeat for US.
US will push for a some type of Korean solution, a division, a temporary ceasefire reached after a stalemate on battlefield, not a termination of the war.
Russia will not accept anything that is not a definitive solution.
Ukraine has a problem, namely it is difficult to mobilize energy of a nation, difficult to send young people to death, if the goal is ugly stalemate.
Jeff,
can you elaborate further on what exactly Ukraine needs to win the war ?
As evidence shows, Ukraine has been prepared by CIA, NATO for at least seven years, starting in 2014. Merkel herself publicly admitted that all negotiations between Ukraine and Russia had served to gain time to prepare Ukraine militarily for the conflict with Russia.
What more can be given to Ukraine?
Unwritten rules of the proxy war, intended to guard US, NATO and Russia and the whole world from dangerous escalation mean there is a red line; no foreign soldiers, no nuclear weapons.
After two years, Ukraine is loosing
. What makes you think sacrifice of another generation of young males will bring different result.
YES!
This is an exceptional discussion with Danny Davis. One of your best! Thank you so much Professor Mearsheimer! I pray that diplomacy takes place, just as you speculate. Bless You. The US government and NATO, would do well to have you are their top advisor!
Dear Professor Mearsheimer, is there a way to run your wonderful interviews through an automated software that would create a written transcript? This would allow quotes, portions of the transcript and the whole dialogue to be shared more broadly and on many additional platforms, including on X. Thank you.
I just did a quick search: "video transcript ai free"
Got this as the first result below the obnoxious ads: https://riverside.fm/transcription
Don't know how good they are, but worth a try. If you're not happy with that one, lots more potential candidates to try out: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=video+transcript+ai+free&ia=web
Good luck.
Is the resignation of Nuland the sign that a pro negotiation party has won out? Also, to me the apparent ascendancy of Rutte to be the political head of NATO indicates a less hawkish faction is about to take over on the western side. A collapse of the army is the next thing to look for. The Dneiper river might be the stopping point. A collapse and a dramatic stopping of Russia's advance gives the impetus for passing some money for Ukraine and also for the passing of the legislation to draft more soldiers in Kiev. I wonder how able Russia is able to follow up behind a Ukrainian collapse?
It will drain resources Russia does not have if they are ultimately victorious unless they completely take over Ukraine and impoverish their citizens. There is precedent for that type of behavior and it is a strong incentive for Ukraine to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.
They still have not drafted young adult males so there is capacity if Europe supports them economically. US might provide arms but US citizens would not support large economic transfers so it has to be Europe IMO.
Jeff,
can you elaborate further on what exactly Ukraine needs to win the war ?
As evidence shows, Ukraine has been prepared by CIA, NATO for at least seven years, starting in 2014. Merkel herself publicly admitted that all negotiations between Ukraine and Russia had served to gain time to prepare Ukraine militarily for the conflict with Russia.
What more can be given to Ukraine?
Unwritten rules of the proxy war, intended to guard US, NATO and Russia and the whole world from dangerous escalation mean there is a red line; no foreign soldiers, no nuclear weapons.
After two years, Ukraine is loosing. What makes you think sacrifice of another generation of young males will bring different result?
There was preparation but nothing like what has happened since Russia actually invaded. I know I expected Zelinsky to get out of town and Ukraine to capitulate.
I'm not totally clear on what the Professor's position is but I know he has said Russia's goal was not to take Ukraine. I'm not sure what he means by that but I believe it is pretty evident that they wanted to replace the government. They tried to do it on a shoestring but I don't think they expected serious opposition and the truth is they did have great success early on with exception of Kyiv.
As for what more could be provided; an awful lot. Early on, I was opposed to sending F-16s but they are going eventually. I hope they have plans to send many more and other weapons systems but it needs to be slowly ramped up with ability to train support staff. I don't know that they are doing so, but I would send all of the young men who have not been drafted to the West for training. Wouldn't be easy to do, but that is my hope to avoid crossing those red lines. Given that France and Germany are talking about crossing the red line of sending at least some troops, I no longer view even that as a red line anymore where earlier I would have been horrified by thought.
I don't generally support the line of thought that I'm about to put forward but Stalin starved millions in Ukraine for the benefit of Russia. If Ukraine falls (or most of it), Russia will not rebuild it as they have at least tried to do in Crimea as they will be strained for resources again. It won't be starvation this time but something along the lines of what was done to East Germany where things were carted off is likely or possibly just giving all the wealth to Russians.
The Ukrainians are in a fix and arguably, they are in a position where they have no choice but to choose to sacrifice another generation of young men although my wild guess is they wouldn't have to. I think they can win if they send those men off for training with very acceptable losses. The numbers the professor has tossed out regarding Ukrainian losses are wildly inflated in my opinion but I'm just guessing and I'm pretty sure he is too.
Might it trigger a nuclear war? I suppose Russia might use limited numbers of weapons or possibly turn Ukraine into a wasteland but if they did that Russia would ultimately lose Belarus and much of southwest Russia as NATO would not accept nuclear weapons use without a response.
Obviously, I'm just speculating based on guesses. No one knows how things will turn out or what the best route is for Ukraine in long term. The world is filled with far more unknowns than what most people are willing to accept. In other words, they fool themselves. I did it when I was younger but as you get older and experience small probability occurrences which most people do not face, you recognize that fact.
One has to promise victory if one is to succeed in sending hundreds of thousands of young men to die. This sad fact significantly reduces the chance of honest discussion.
Ukrainians are promised victory, and what they experience is defeat.
One has to promise victory if one is to motivate US and European citizens to accept significant costs of supporting continuing war.
A smart man can always deflect arguments, and refuse to see the truth.
Regarding the conventional war continuing the war will result in more Ukrainian casualties, but there is always a chance that something unexpected might happen...
Regarding the nuclear danger of nuclear war, unfortunately refusing to see the truth, refusing to negotiate, pushing for escalation, definitely raises the chance of nuclear war.
And no, nuclear war will come in distinct steps
a. destruction of satellites over Ukraine
b. destruction of military installations, airfields, NATO bases in Ukraine
NATO will not retaliate on Russia, Belarus (Belarus has its own nukes now, so whoever thinks about targeting Belarus should be ready for retaliatory strike)
if London, PAris, Berlin are not ready to be a target
Essentially all of the wars the US has been involved in were based on greatly simplified reasons. or lies but there were well thought out reasons behind closed doors. We have a Republic in US. Our elected officials make the decisions and rarely fully explain things. It is the way of the world and at least we allow debate in the West and that is quite an accomplishment even if it is politicians (or media in some cases) manipulating emotions.
Jeff
reasons for the war in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Ukraine are unimportant once war has been successfully provoked. No one who lied is ever held responsible, no one even remembers who was it who lied to push US into war.
Ray Dalio has a saying a beautiful deleverage, regarding a financial decision.
US has a way of beautiful exit from the war, US gets out and never, never turns back, never debates whose decision it was to start a war, just goes on into next war.
A problem with motivation can be partially solved through demonizaton of the enemy, painting Putin as a dictator, threatening Europe etc.
Ukrainians and Europeans are not in this theoretically, Ukrainians run a real risk of dying on battlefield, and depletion of soldiers is real. No one who pushes for war likes to discuss real numbers of casualties, because it is obviously demotivating. Close to a million soldiers are not able to fight anymore, dead, wounded, disappeared, captives. Three armies of Ukraine have already mostly disappeared, first 200 000 who were in uniform in February 2022, a great deal of volunteers from 2022, beginning of 2023, a solid part of conscripts of 2023, almost a million.
Whatever West provides, will not be enough for victory. There is here a cloud of obfuscation. There is no way to create an army that will defeat Russian army all along the 2000 km front.
As a key to motivating Europeans to join a US provoked war, is demonization of Russia and Putin, obvious facts are being forgotten in discussions. Putin will not take the whole of Ukraine. The initial goal was regime change, second goal negotiations, third goal something like if Ukraine will become NATO Russia will take what is Russian
You are certainly correct regarding the need for demonization. No one would want a leader who is honest. Putin is not a terrible guy in my opinion. He is ruthless and has technically met the definition of genocide by bringing Ukrainian kids to Russia but is it what I call genocide? Not at all.
I would be curious as to where you get your stats on Ukrainian losses. I do not pretend to know but I think Russian losses are larger. I could "buy" two to one but my guess based on previous wars fought in a similar fashion is somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 to 1. Like I said, guesses and I approach it differently from others as I do not trust anyone elses numbers although some people do know.
Military strategy is not a topic I know much about but I will say that when the Professor says it is a war of artillary, he is right as of today but I don't think that will be the case in a couple of years and I do not know what is in the pipeline.
I don't want to talk about US provoking war. US and NATO might have poked Russia a few times but it is a reflection of Russian weakness as Russia was provoking with both fists while US was not doing much; the Ukrainians decided they want to be part of Europe. How deep that desire is, I do not know with certainty but it has grown due to Russia's invasion.
Regarding accusations of genocide, it is so hypocritical it is almost British.
A short glimpse at Gaza, and comparison with Ukraine, means, one of the victims of current US led or supported wars will be loss of moral authority, globally.
If ICC does not revoke its accusation of Putin, the term genocide will lose its meaning.
Ukrainian kids whose fathers and mothers speak Russian were protected from the war by moving them away from the war zone. Since this part has already been annexed, it is internal Russian problem.
US knows, Russia knows, CIA knows.... I do not know. With a lot of scepticism, trying to evaluate all different kinds of sources. There are some open source sources that follow Russian losses, and from time to time someone from Ukrainian/Western side has a slip of the tongue, comments in a way you would call "naive" and gives us a glimpse of the true numbers.
Losses are probably larger on Ukrainian side. Artillery. Loss of experienced soldiers in attacks on established defenses, defending undefendable cities beyond a reasonable point. Ukraine started with 220 000 professional soldiers, recruited/mobilized 700 000 in 2022, continued to mobilize, and have less than 500 000 now. A number of 30 000 monthly new soldiers as a necessity to fill for the losses was mentioned in 2024.
Russia started with 250 000, mobilized 300 000 in the fall of 2022, continues to mobilize successfully app. 30 000 a month, and has around 850 000 and will have 1 200 000 at the end od 2025.
US did provoke the war. If it was unwilling, unrecognized, so be it. I do not blame US citizens. But people who get paid to lead a country, a superpower should think about the consequences of their actions.
I see John is still simping for Putin. Slobbery lips!
Putin's Only Hope: Stop being a war criminal copy-pasting Hitler's playback right down to "the big lie" theory.
The situation is hopeless allright, hopeless for Putin. Everyone else on earth has figured out Putin is basically doing the hitler and are stopping him.
I have been shocked at European concerns and willingness to discuss things I never would have thought conceivable. I'm not sure they will carry through, the US will go along, or there will not be some event like a collapse of Ukrainian army but still, the odds of a Ukrainian victory are higher than I would have guessed a week ago.
It also caused me to reconsider why NATO expanded eastward. I refuse to believe they were aggressive as if that was their goal, they essentially did nothing to prepare for war. They had to have genuine concerns about Russia's future behavior.
Here, let me give you a nasty REALIST fascist take on Russia's continuation of Hitler's work. Could it be there are germans who would be only too happy to watch Slavs in Russia and Slavs in Ukraine murder each other off, at the cost of not one German life and perhaps some paltry old NATO kit? John wants everyone to be a bitter cynical scared bully. The world does not work that way, thankfully. But if it did the neofascists would be only too happy to trickle in Just enough aid to keep the Ukrainian's busy killing off all the slavs! So, if you are not into Genocide hit Russia, as hard as you can, as often as you can, again and again, with anything and everything. Oh, and there are cynics maybe in Beijing who are also only too glad to see Russia's military decimated. 但是我不会中文.我不太聪明
Eastward expansion was driven by the Eastern European countries which did not wish to become part of Russia's empire again as well as NATOs desire to integrate Russia into NATO back in the early 2000s. Russia decided not to seek integration into nato because it is a thoroughly corrupt criminal state run by a mafia and thus doesn't want courts and laws. Also they foster corruption anywhere they can.
Eric
facts are different, meaning what you are saying is not true. The truth is:
NATO
A. expressly refused to accept Russia as a member
B. aggressively pursued enlargement to the East, in spite of Russian objections
C. refused to discuss any other security arrangement for Europe that would in some way address Russian security concerns
Result of this strategy is Russian reaction, first in Georgia, than Crimea, and in 2022 Ukraine.
The NATO expansion caused the war is a myth in other words a lie. When you set about like Hitler to reconquer all those lands you lost using a lot of lies you make shit up like promises were made expansions did happen. Putin NEEDS excuses for his mafia to rob rape and murder.
Don't worry! You're not next, honest!
US has made a strategic mistake.
The strategy of NATO enlargement inevitably led to conflict with Russia. War with Russia was started on a hypothesis that Russia can be beaten through a conventional proxy war on a Russian border coupled with harsh economic sanctions. In other words that strategic defeat can be inflicted on Russia, that would lead to internal turmoil, regime change in Moscow.
It almost succeeded, remember Prigozhin.
Now we are in the third year of the war and US begins to understand the gravity of the situation. Russia can perhaps be beaten only if NATO & US enters the battlefield, and that means ...
A. a real risk of nuclear escalation.
B. a possibility that NATO might lose
Is placing US missiles on Russian border worthy of a nuclear war?
That is definitely the opinion of European leaders with just one minor exception I can think of.