It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Men and Women, Boys and Girls, Americans and our Allies, this is what the Democrats installed as the “Leader of the Free World.”
Yep! I’m sad and sickened to say it, but the Biden Administration’s response to Putin’s forces attacking Ukraine was to request that Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy evacuate Kyiv and possibly the country.
Happily for the Ukrainian people, they have an actual leader. His response to the Biden Admistration’s cowardice was to tell them that he needed ammo – specifically, anti-tank ammunition – not a ride.
It’s truly disgusting that President Zelenskyy used to be a professional comedian but it’s Biden who the joke.
Well 🙁 As I said, I think Putin is likely to win. Certainly, from the sound of it, there’s nobody with the means to do so outside of Ukraine that’s going to prevent him from doing so.
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.
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’sIntermarium with other Baltic and Black Sea nations.
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.
While Wolverton’s cartoon is just another of his Leftwing insults to our President, there is some accuracy to this particular imagery. President Trump’s foreign policy is bold, brash, and quite ham-handed in comparison to the status quo that came into being after the end of WW2.
But 60+ years of that status quo has achieved very little. Indeed, the only great strides made in the realm of geopolitics were the result of what were at the time declared be ham-handed actions and policies, e.g., President Reagan’s handling the USSR which helped in their resultant fall.
So, ham-handed? Certainly by what has become traditional standards. But President Trump’s foreign policy has already seen positive results despite best efforts of the Democrats and their propaganda corps.
Modern Trophyism – the perceived need for physical representations of worth or status – within America is a virulent weed that has born foul fruit, as the Liberals’ and Progressives’ response to Mr. Trump being triumphant in the 2016 elections.
This Is What Happens When You Give Children A Trophy For Losing
True, the need or obsessive desire for trophies or any material representation of others’ validation of one’s worth is and always been a bad thing. Sadly however, the intersection of trophyism with the Liberals’ and Progressives’ obsession with equality of results and ensuring that everyone “succeeds” in anything they do irrespective of their merit in that endeavor has resulted in a pernicious, synergistic cycle of personal and social degeneration.
The Millennials’ ongoing, disruptive protests; their riots; their cry-ins; their need for specialized counseling; and their desire for special dispensation from their duties as students or, in all too rare cases, workers in the wake of Mr. Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections is persuasive evidence of this pathology.
There always seems to be a plethora of questions about how one can win. Indeed, there are whole industries profiteering off of it. The answer is so simple though…
This Is How You Win
That’s the answer. Just as Heather Dorniden did, you get up after you’ve fallen – or have been tripped – and you run faster, try harder. This is how you win, whether it is in sports or life.
What you don’t do is: expect the race to halted and restarted; for any of your competitors to help you up; or to just lay there and blame various and sundry other people, groups, organizations, or whole cultures for your having fallen down in some fashion – even in those rare occurrences when they are to blame for it.
Sadly, this is lesson rarely taught anymore. Instead being a victim is what is taught along with blamecasting whenever one doesn’t achieve success quick enough or at all. Perhaps this is because “winning” requires there to also being losers and that’s “not fair.” Perhaps it’s simply that “validation” of one’s self-image has become more important than being of worth in the first place.
In any event, winning is quite simple. Yet, losing because you’re a victim is so much easier to both do and teach.