Would Russia have invaded had the Maidan coup (orchestrated by the U.S.) not happen and/or NATO did not court Ukraine?
"...On both fronts it is bloodying its opponents and is being bloodied in return."
Isn't this a feature in Russian military strategies? Just put it all on black so to speak.
I suppose it all comes down to who 'wants it more'. Russia seems more willing to take the one last punch that could give it amnesia so long as they give a kick to the head that results in dementia to the West.
Another feature of Russian military strategies is having a superabundance of territory across which to fall back and stretch out an invader's supply lines. That means Russia needs Ukraine under its thumb--ALL of Ukraine, not just the Donbass or the lands east of the Dnipro, but every square inch right up to the Polish border. Just as Putin intervened in Georgia, in the Armenian/Azerbaijani conflict, has put peacekeepers in Khazakstan, and has propped up Lukashenko in Belarus, eventually Russia was going to put boots on the ground all the way to Lviv. Russia's defensive doctrine going back to Russia's emergence as a "Great Power" in Europe in the late 18th century requires nothing less.
That same defensive doctrine pretty much also requires Russia to control in some fashion Poland at least up to the Vistula River (which is why Poland is greatly interested in seeing Ukraine stay out from under Russian domination--if Ukraine falls Poland is next).
But it doesn't just come down to "who wants it more". Right now, the most likely economic outcome quite frankly is the destruction of pretty much every economy in Europe from London to Moscow.
Think the aftermath of WW1 but without the devastation across half of France. That war consumed pretty much all of the wealth all the European nations had built up practically since the rise of modern nation states, and what little remained was blown to holy Hell during WW2, especially in Russia (which never recovered from the war economically--it was only the Kremlin's strict control of the media that kept the Russian people from finding out how broke Russia was until Gorbachev opened the pandora's box of glasnost).
Europe is on track to wind up somewhere between 1918 and 1945, economically speaking. And that includes Russia.
No winners. Only losers. Just like Europe after both world wars.
-Add silly green policies that will further hasten the decline.
-As for the economic devastation after the Great Wars, they never recovered. You don't lose tens upon tens of millions and recover in 100 years 'economic miracles' notwithstanding.
In no other media form but here will anyone see the word, "win," in a headline about the war in Ukraine. Everyone silently assumes the only "winners" are companies that make things that go boom. (I wonder. Do bomb-makers have to file environmental impact statements for each bomb?)
Of course, if you get to the end of the article, given that any victory in Ukraine is likely to be of the Pyrrhic variety, there is a certain sardonic irony to the use of the word.
Months ago I heard one of the energy consultants on a conservative radio show, perhaps Glenn Beck, remark how there has been a trillion dollars less investment in North America's energy grid.
The money has simply gone elsewhere since the Biden Administration took over. I simply feel that the same thing must be true in Europe, or at least parts of it.
The first comment I have is to always be careful with "news" presented by Conservative, Inc. They are every bit the propagandists and rage merchants that the liberal leftwing media types are.
The second comment I have is that a sweeping number like that doesn't really tell anyone anything. It doesn't say whether there is simply underinvestment or a correction from malinvestment.
That is an important distinction, as many of the energy issues during the 2021 arctic freeze were the result of malinvestment (and the timing of which obviously predates Dementia Joe's Reign of Error).
Similarly, the challenges facing Europe this winter are a result principally of malinvestment, as the continent has yet to learn the lesson that power grid based entirely on renewables is unreliable infrastructure.
It's not that more or less dollars have been spent on energy infrastructure since Dementia Joe stumbled half confused into the Oval Office. It's that no one in his administration cares to think or act globally, gauging the consequences of their action or inaction beyond the immediate scope of their responsibilities (a degenerate mindset that has been common to both parties).
The same thing can be said regarding Europe. That's how Europe stumbled into an unexpected war of economic attrition quite unprepared; they simply never thought that Putin would respond assertively to sanctions. Now they're stuck.
Depends on where I am. Walking down a city street, I'm never barefoot. At home or in a nice wooded spot during the summertime, shoes are optional. I'm not wild about shoes, but I'm a whole lot less wild about getting puncture wounds in the soles of my feet (those tend to hurt).
It was a mistake for the US government to make its utilities, in effect, government sub-departments. As such, they never get the investment adjusted the way it needs to be.
Let me rephrase or reframe the Ukraine hoopla.
Would Russia have invaded had the Maidan coup (orchestrated by the U.S.) not happen and/or NATO did not court Ukraine?
"...On both fronts it is bloodying its opponents and is being bloodied in return."
Isn't this a feature in Russian military strategies? Just put it all on black so to speak.
I suppose it all comes down to who 'wants it more'. Russia seems more willing to take the one last punch that could give it amnesia so long as they give a kick to the head that results in dementia to the West.
The short answer? "Yes."
Another feature of Russian military strategies is having a superabundance of territory across which to fall back and stretch out an invader's supply lines. That means Russia needs Ukraine under its thumb--ALL of Ukraine, not just the Donbass or the lands east of the Dnipro, but every square inch right up to the Polish border. Just as Putin intervened in Georgia, in the Armenian/Azerbaijani conflict, has put peacekeepers in Khazakstan, and has propped up Lukashenko in Belarus, eventually Russia was going to put boots on the ground all the way to Lviv. Russia's defensive doctrine going back to Russia's emergence as a "Great Power" in Europe in the late 18th century requires nothing less.
That same defensive doctrine pretty much also requires Russia to control in some fashion Poland at least up to the Vistula River (which is why Poland is greatly interested in seeing Ukraine stay out from under Russian domination--if Ukraine falls Poland is next).
But it doesn't just come down to "who wants it more". Right now, the most likely economic outcome quite frankly is the destruction of pretty much every economy in Europe from London to Moscow.
Think the aftermath of WW1 but without the devastation across half of France. That war consumed pretty much all of the wealth all the European nations had built up practically since the rise of modern nation states, and what little remained was blown to holy Hell during WW2, especially in Russia (which never recovered from the war economically--it was only the Kremlin's strict control of the media that kept the Russian people from finding out how broke Russia was until Gorbachev opened the pandora's box of glasnost).
Europe is on track to wind up somewhere between 1918 and 1945, economically speaking. And that includes Russia.
No winners. Only losers. Just like Europe after both world wars.
Pyrrhic Stalemate.
-Minus the mass deaths. But point taken.
-Add silly green policies that will further hasten the decline.
-As for the economic devastation after the Great Wars, they never recovered. You don't lose tens upon tens of millions and recover in 100 years 'economic miracles' notwithstanding.
As I said. No winners. Only losers.
That's Europe in 1918.
That's Europe in 1945.
And that will be Europe whenever this current lunacy finally ends.
Have I mentioned how fundamentally stupid wars are?
In no other media form but here will anyone see the word, "win," in a headline about the war in Ukraine. Everyone silently assumes the only "winners" are companies that make things that go boom. (I wonder. Do bomb-makers have to file environmental impact statements for each bomb?)
Of course, if you get to the end of the article, given that any victory in Ukraine is likely to be of the Pyrrhic variety, there is a certain sardonic irony to the use of the word.
PNK, perhaps you will comment on this.
Months ago I heard one of the energy consultants on a conservative radio show, perhaps Glenn Beck, remark how there has been a trillion dollars less investment in North America's energy grid.
The money has simply gone elsewhere since the Biden Administration took over. I simply feel that the same thing must be true in Europe, or at least parts of it.
Some mistakes you don't get to make twice!
The first comment I have is to always be careful with "news" presented by Conservative, Inc. They are every bit the propagandists and rage merchants that the liberal leftwing media types are.
The second comment I have is that a sweeping number like that doesn't really tell anyone anything. It doesn't say whether there is simply underinvestment or a correction from malinvestment.
That is an important distinction, as many of the energy issues during the 2021 arctic freeze were the result of malinvestment (and the timing of which obviously predates Dementia Joe's Reign of Error).
Similarly, the challenges facing Europe this winter are a result principally of malinvestment, as the continent has yet to learn the lesson that power grid based entirely on renewables is unreliable infrastructure.
It's not that more or less dollars have been spent on energy infrastructure since Dementia Joe stumbled half confused into the Oval Office. It's that no one in his administration cares to think or act globally, gauging the consequences of their action or inaction beyond the immediate scope of their responsibilities (a degenerate mindset that has been common to both parties).
The same thing can be said regarding Europe. That's how Europe stumbled into an unexpected war of economic attrition quite unprepared; they simply never thought that Putin would respond assertively to sanctions. Now they're stuck.
PNK, do you go barefoot much?
You, Sir, are one of the most "grounded in reality" individuals I have ever conversed with.
And yes, it is quite a pleasure!
Thank you.
Depends on where I am. Walking down a city street, I'm never barefoot. At home or in a nice wooded spot during the summertime, shoes are optional. I'm not wild about shoes, but I'm a whole lot less wild about getting puncture wounds in the soles of my feet (those tend to hurt).
(The pleasure is mutual, BTW!)
It was a mistake for the US government to make its utilities, in effect, government sub-departments. As such, they never get the investment adjusted the way it needs to be.