Putin's Likely To Win

Putin's Likely To Win
Putin’s Likely To Win In Ukraine

This is not something that pleases me, but it needs to be said. Putin is likely to win in Ukraine and get what he wants out of it. He is, quite frankly, a stronger leader and a better strategist than any of his counterparts in the West, and, as such, victory favors him.

A Brief Note On C-Factor First

I am not and have never been a direct employee of the US State Dept or any of our Intelligence services in any capacity that proximately related to crafting, furthering, and analyzing foreign policy. I’ve also been “on the outside” of the entire geopolitical analysis commuting for over 2 decades, meaning that my data is no better than anyone else on the streets as it were and my conclusions and predictions are just that of the average private American citizen mired in the swamp or poor and corrupted information.


It somewhat pains me to say this – Putin is better at both mind games and longer-term planning than any of the leaders of the West, which is understandable with him being essentially an autarch for life and not having to worry about what will happen to his plans in just a few years at most. And, this means that Putin and Biden and Co. probably aren’t even fighting the same war.

Think upon this: Putin probably doesn’t want to conquer Ukraine, at least not most of it. It wouldn’t serve him at all to do so, since he – and pretty much every Russian ruler since 1923 – has always wanted buffer states between Russia and her Western enemies. Annexing the whole of Ukraine would not achieve this and would actually make a vulnerable tangent into NATO that would serve as a corridor for the invasion of Putin’s motherland.

This Is As Much As Putin Would Likely Take

No, Putin will probably take, either through force of arms or through a forced treaty, the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kerson oblasti (regions) of Ukraine. This would give Russia a straight land route to Crimea and its warm water ports. He might also take over any number of the oblasti of Kharkiv, Dniepropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, and Odessa, though the latter two are unlikely due to the geopolitical problems that would arise from denying Ukraine access to the Black Sea.

In truth – a truth that many in power in the West want to ignore – Putin could almost righteously claim to be liberating the people of those Oblasti, especially those of Luhansk and Donetsk, since large numbers of those people want to be part of Russia in the first place and were violently prevented from seceding back in 2014.

But all that is likely an important but secondary goal for Putin.

Again, Putin wants a buffer between Russia – and to a somewhat lesser extent the rest of the Russian Federation – and NATO nations and forces. That, in my opinion, is his goal, not any form of expansionistic conquest – the above-mentioned Ukrainian oblasti being a probable exception. And, he doesn’t need to take any parts of Ukraine to get a good chance at achieving this goal.

Simply keeping the pressure on and making things uncertain and problematic will likely cause the current Ukrainian regime to fall “peacefully”, much like it did some 8 years ago. This time, however, the people who would very likely take over the governance of Ukraine are the National Corps Party (Natsionalnyi korpus), who are ultra-nationalist Neo-Nazis who are deadset against joining NATO or being closely aligned with Europe or America, wanting instead to create some sort of iteration of Piłsudski’s Intermarium with other Baltic and Black Sea nations.

Natsionalnyi korpus Activists
Natsionalnyi korpus Activists In Kiev

And, if and when that happens, Putin wins, his goals of an ablative layer between his people and NATO having been achieved. And, in that event, it also gives Putin the ability to easily spin things to paint the EU and the Biden Administration of helping put Neo-Nazis into power and of having supported and armed them.


As I said at the beginning of this article, I’m no geo-political expert. Yet, it seems to me that Putin has a number of ways of winning this conflict and likely will do so.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

Obama’s Only Defense

President Obama has, despite the efforts of the MSM to keep things quiet, managed to rile up a strong and growing storm of condemnation over his usurpation of power and arguably illegal war in Libya.

Obama’s defense of his violation of US law and even the War Powers Act, which gives the POTUS certain limited leeway in using force without prior congressional approval, seems to center upon the war in Libya being a UN mandated action that is being conducted under the auspices of NATO.

Obama - Uh ... What They Said
The UN Made Me Do It. I was Only Following Orders

The only other possibility is that Obama is attempting the Whoopi Defense – It’s not war-war, much like it wasn’t rape-rape in the case of Roman Polanski drugging and rutting into an unconscious 13 year-old girl.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Libya – How Long Again?

A lot of Americans wonder how long the US military will be involved in trying to decide the outcome of the civil war in Libya. Sadly, it appears that the Obama Regime cannot or will not answer that question. Indeed, they are not even willing to speculate upon the potential range of dates involved – Days? Weeks? Months? Years?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that nobody has “any idea” how long the United States military could be involved in Libya, though he stressed that Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi’s forces have been crippled by U.S.-led airstrikes.

Asked whether he expects the mission to be over by year’s end, Gates said, “I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that.”

Gates discussed the intervention over the course of several interviews Sunday alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While he declined to give any estimates for how long the United States could be involved, the two officials stressed that significant gains have been made and NATO is taking on a much bigger role.

That makes more than a little sense actually. One would have to have decided upon a set of victory conditions before one could even begin to predict how long it will take to achieve them or have it proved that they cannot be achieved. There’s no visible signs that either the Obama Regime or the UN Security Council has defined those victory conditions.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

Finally Fighting To Win

General Bantz John Craddock-  Commander, U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) for NATO and the commanding officer of Allied Command Operations (ACO).Finally, after years of NATO forces waging a running war against the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere across the globe, the military commanders involved are finally ready to prosecute the war in an efficient and proven manner. NATO’s senior military commander, General Bantz John Craddock, has proposed that the alliance’s soldiers in Afghanistan shoot drug traffickers as enemy combatants.

NATO is finally fighting to win this war.

General Craddock understands that, in order to win the war against the Islamists and their jihadi terrorist cells, NATO has to do a lot more than just fight a long war of attrition against their forces.

BERLIN — NATO’s senior military commander has proposed that the alliance’s soldiers in Afghanistan shoot drug traffickers without waiting for proof of their involvement with the Taliban insurgency, according to a report in the online edition of Der Spiegel magazine.

The commander, Gen. John Craddock of the United States, floated the idea in a confidential letter on Jan. 5 to Gen. Egon Ramms, a German officer who heads the NATO command center responsible for Afghanistan, Spiegel Online reported Thursday.

General Craddock wrote that “it was no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective,” the news magazine reported. A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the wording of the letter, and several NATO officials said publicly on Friday that no such orders had ever been given to NATO troops.

— Judy Dempsey
NY Times article, January 30, 2009

Yes! Finally! At least General Craddock knows that NATO has to destroy the infrastructure that the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the other terrorists use to fund and arm their organizations. A protracted engagement that attacks only the terrorists’ and insurgents’ – all too disposable – fighter will not win this war.

We didn’t win WW2 by just fighting troops in the field. We leveled the Nazis’ and Japan’s manufacturing capabilities. Allied bombing raids destroyed the factory districts – at a minimum – of dozens and dozens of Axis cities. That is to a large extent what gave the Allies their victory; we denied Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo the ability to effectively supply and arm their militaries.

The only functional difference between WW2 and the War on Terror, in this respect, is the nature of the enemies infrastructure. In WW2 the enemy were nations with heavy industry capabilities. In the War on Terror the enemy are bands of jihadis with little or no manufacturing capability but with access to large amounts of money from the international drug trade. In both cases, however, the enemy is dependent upon static resources and extended supply lines.

If NATO starts launching operations against the drug traffickers, we’ll break the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s supply lines. If NATO starts – finally – destroying the opium poppy fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we’ll destroy what passes for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s manufacturing capabilities. It will be a lot harder for these terrorists and insurgents to wage war or launch terror attacks against the civilians of the Civilized World if they can’t afford ammunition for their Kalashnikovs, grenades for the RPG-7s, and sundry other munitions and explosives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: | | | | | | | |