O/T:- Trump

[Jampie]

Funny how much you hate the far right unless they're corrupt neo nazis

Ukraine aren't neo-nazis. You know Zelensky is Jewish, right?

They have higher corruption than most of europe but considerably less than Russia. Having them folded into the EU is likely to trend the corruption down, letting Ukraine fall into Russian hands will absolutely increase it. So if you're concerned about Ukrainian corruption, you absolutely want them to kick the russians out.

[andy6025]

Since the topic of the US, Russia, Ukraine and NATO seems to be prominent in this thread, I highly recommend this article that came out today. I find that the author, who goes by a pseudonym, is consistently thoughtful in his analysis:

https://open.substack.com/pub/bigser...m_medium=email

[Jampie]

Since the topic of the US, Russia, Ukraine and NATO seems to be prominent in this thread, I highly recommend this article that came out today. I find that the author, who goes by a pseudonym, is consistently thoughtful in his analysis:

https://open.substack.com/pub/bigser...m_medium=email

Yeah not a bad read, thanks for posting. I find myself in broad agreement on a lot of points with some reservations... until his conclusions.

I think he's largely right where he says NATO had no plan from basically the fall of the USSR up until now - and indeed no western military has had a truly coherent plan in that time.

But I don't think he completely understands the nature of NATO expansion, or the strategy (such as it is) in Ukraine and with rearmament.

First, expansion. NATO's expansion was (as he correctly surmises) not driven by a brilliant plan of any kind, least of all one to "provoke" Russia or even to "contain" Russia. NATO's expansion was primarily driven by the now new member states wanting to join, for the very good reason that Putin does indeed intend to re-form the USSR under a new banner, as he has now shown the world with his own "brilliant plan" in Ukraine.

Which brings me to the Ukraine "strategy". Clearly we are looking at an exercise in deliberate stalemate. I say that because the west has consistently dragged its feet with critical weapons and supplies, always giving Ukraine enough to resist Russian advances, but never enough to push them back (with some very notable exceptions in the first 18 months of the war).

I believe this is because the west sees this conflict as a strategic stalemate. It's absolutely the case that we are unwilling to risk a nuclear confrontation, which means sending in NATO troops is ruled out unless Russia uses nukes or attacks NATO directly. And it's absolutely true that part of the analysis is that arming Ukraine has massively degraded the conventional threat Russia posed in January 2022. Ugly as that calculus is, there's no way western leaders haven't been shown that particular graph.

Lastly with respect to re-armament, clearly NATO states see it as a priority, but not an urgent one. Defence spending has massively increased, but yes they are looking at the long term. Not seeing, for example, a land with against Russia in 2025 or 2026 as something to prepare for. There's a few different reasons for that. One is that yes, western military strategy is often terrible, and that's a big part of it. We might be buying the wrong stuff at the wrong time. We often do. But the bigger component is that while NATO has been shaken out of (the worst of) its complacency by the Ukraine war, at the same time we have witnessed the supposed threat fall flat on its face with appalling losses of equipment and personnel. As mentioned, Russia is sitting on about 20% of Ukrainian territory in July 2024. They were also sitting on about 20% of Ukrainian territory in July 2022. The war isn't progressing - at all - for either side.

Which brings me to the Russian strategy, or I should say the Putin strategy, because this is where I think Serge really misses the point. Putin has also adopted a strategy of deliberate stalemate for the time being. He hasn't implemented the universal conscription or 100% war economy he would need to, to actually win the war. Why not? It may be he fears it might be the end of him politically, or more likely (IMO) he has a better plan.

And also IMO and based on all available evidence, that plan is absolutely Donald Trump, who has quite directly stated that if elected again he will force the Ukrainians to end the war on Russian terms. Yeah, he didn't phrase it like that, but that's what he said. There is no way to bring this conflict to a close rapidly without giving Russia everything they demand (because they are the aggressor), and he's committed to doing exactly that.

Trump's role (for Putin) is also the disablement of NATO. Either pulling the US out, or refusing to commit to article 5 in the case of, for example, a Latvian adventure.

When Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 I was honestly shocked. Not because I didn't expect him to attack westwards. I did. I just expected him to attack a NATO member, one of the weaker ones (Latvia's a decent example), and I expected him to do it while Trump was in charge. However, based on the evidence, I don't think Putin expected Trump to lose in 2020. He just wasn't prepared for it, and that's a key factor that lead him to attack Ukraine instead of a much weaker (but NATO) target.

The last point I will make, and I know you have no faith in this but I see it as well established fact at this point. There is a massive technological gap between NATO equipment and Russian equipment, and this plays heavily into NATO and broader western strategic thinking. While the Ukraine war has showcased that offset to a large extent, it's also obscured key components. The most relevant of which is western air power, and I think the world's general population would be absolutely shocked to realise the capability difference there.

Russian military research largely ground to a halt at the end of the cold war. At that point it was already behind, but nothing like the gap we see today. However, from that point until today, Russia has spent a tiny fraction of what the west does on military research and development, and the capability gaps have consistently widened.

As a result, I would expect a full scale conventional war between NATO and Russia to:

1) Be shockingly one-sided in NATO's favour. Especially the air war, followed by the ground war with air superiority for NATO
2) To go nuclear not long after starting, because Putin will face a choice between defeat and nuclear war

So... this will also be feeding into NATO strategy, and especially Biden's. A conventional war with Russia is to be avoided if possible. Not because we would lose, but because we would all lose.

[slack_pie]

Ukraine aren't neo-nazis. You know Zelensky is Jewish, right?

They have higher corruption than most of europe but considerably less than Russia. Having them folded into the EU is likely to trend the corruption down, letting Ukraine fall into Russian hands will absolutely increase it. So if you're concerned about Ukrainian corruption, you absolutely want them to kick the russians out.

I don't think most people care how corrupt Ukraine is. That's their problem. People are concerned about funnelling billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the most corrupt nation in Europe.

[Jampie]

I don't think most people care how corrupt Ukraine is. That's their problem. People are concerned about funnelling billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the most corrupt nation in Europe.

Apparently Ukraine beats Hunary, Bosnia and Russia in the corruption sweepstakes but their scores are pretty terrible.

As I say though, letting Russia take them over will result in drastically worse corruption, so if you're concerned about Ukrainian corruption you should be campaigning for them to be armed to the teeth, not the opposite.

Also, although some aid is money, a huge proportion is weapons and military equipment/supplies, and there isn't much evidence of that being misused.

All up I think most people who bang on about Ukrainian corruption don't actually give a damn about Ukrainian corruption, they just oppose aid, for whatever reason. Pretty short sighted if you ask me. The aid going to Ukraine is extremely good value for money. Better than any other defence spending the west has allocated for a very long time.

[Old_pie]

The last point I will make, and I know you have no faith in this but I see it as well established fact at this point. There is a massive technological gap between NATO equipment and Russian equipment, and this plays heavily into NATO and broader western strategic thinking. While the Ukraine war has showcased that offset to a large extent, it's also obscured key components. The most relevant of which is western air power, and I think the world's general population would be absolutely shocked to realise the capability difference there.

Russian military research largely ground to a halt at the end of the cold war. At that point it was already behind, but nothing like the gap we see today. However, from that point until today, Russia has spent a tiny fraction of what the west does on military research and development, and the capability gaps have consistently widened.

As a result, I would expect a full scale conventional war between NATO and Russia to:

1) Be shockingly one-sided in NATO's favour. Especially the air war, followed by the ground war with air superiority for NATO
2) To go nuclear not long after starting, because Putin will face a choice between defeat and nuclear war

So... this will also be feeding into NATO strategy, and especially Biden's. A conventional war with Russia is to be avoided if possible. Not because we would lose, but because we would all lose.

Whilst we might all "lose" if there is a nuclear war, there will be nothing left of Russia. And I suspect that nuclear Russian aggression will have many technical failures or be preempted at source. Putin is relying on bully tactics which border on blustering. Even without the USA I cannot believe that Russia could compete with a combined European response. Of course whilst the cost of the gamble is only Ukraine (sorry Zelensky), or even just part of Ukraine then the cost benefit falls in favour of containment which in any event has thwarted Putin's original plan, strengthened NATO and united Europe.

[i961pie]

I'm not pro-Trump, but I think he's more likely to bring a swift resolution to the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine rather than chucking endless money at them. Perhaps a bit of a fringe issue for some, but I also much prefer his stance on digital assets and the entire industry being built around them, which the Democrats have done everything they can to stifle.

The only way Trump will bring a swift resolution to end to this war is he will dump Ukraine and Russia will keep all the land they have taken. Putin can't afford to give it up his reputation would be in shreds back home.

[andy6025]

As a result, I would expect a full scale conventional war between NATO and Russia to:

1) Be shockingly one-sided in NATO's favour. Especially the air war, followed by the ground war with air superiority for NATO
2) To go nuclear not long after starting, because Putin will face a choice between defeat and nuclear war

I agree with you on point #2 in regards to the nuclear part, not so much about defeat, but if it goes nuclear then the point would be moot.

You might have a point on the west wanting a stalemate… why else did they push Ukraine into that disastrous counter offensive, when it has even been stated since that in the halls of Washington and the Pentagon, they knew it wouldn’t work!!! You think they set the Ukrainians up to impale themselves full on in the name of a stalemate? Yikes, but you might be right.

The rest of what you wrote is hogwash, but a fun read. Thanks for engaging the article.