Ukraine and America can win together if they combine their assets and strength. The alternative can only be to watch the hard-earned US deterrence capability evaporate.
Imo if Russia achieves more freedom to act it (+Belarus)will close the Suweilka gap, have land access to Kaliningrad and its supposed stock of nukes and "own" the Baltic from St. Petersburg till Kattegat
Given that scenario keeping RU occupied in Ukraine - and let the Ukrainians bleed for it 😭- sounds like a clever albeit very cynic and utterly disgusting military strategy to me 😭👎😭
There is one prominent 🇩🇪 named Kiesewetter who worries about the nukes at Kaliningrad but abIk does not mention the land connection. But he isn't the only one believing RU wants the Baltic sea very much
To readers like me who would be thrilled to see the Ukrainians defeat the Russians and are astounded by the bravery, vigor and creativity with which the Ukranians have fought, Mr. Zubrin’s post sounds pollyannish. We’ve heard a million times that just one more Western weapon system stands in the way of a Russian defeat. It simply has not panned out.
Mr. Zubrin’s suggestion that Ukraine’s lack of soldiers doesn’t matter that much simply isn’t convincing. How Ukraine can win a war fought on its territory without a sufficient number of competent soldiers has never been explained. It would be good if Mr. Zubrin could explain it.
That's exactly what the article explains. Interdict Russia's internal transport and shut down its economy, which is already in a death spiral. Yes, we've heard a million times that "one more weapon system" is needed. We haven't, however, tried sending them.
First the Javelins and then the HImars were touted as the weapons that would turn the tide. They were provided; the tide didn’t turn.
The Patriot air defense system was supposed to protect Ukrainian air space. The few that were available were sent. They helped but they didn’t prove decisive.
Approximately 65 F-16s were sent to Ukraine by its allies. We were told that this could be a game changer; it wasn’t.
For months the press reported that the only thing standing between Ukraine and victory were Abrams and Challenger tanks. They were sent; it didn’t change much.
The United States even delivered cluster munitions to Ukraine. It was a controversial decision but it wasn’t a game changer either.
The idea that Russia can be defeated by destroying its economy is a canard. The Russian tolerance for pain is simply dramatically higher than tolerable pain thresholds in the West. Outside of its major metropolitan areas, Russia is already an economic basket case and has been for centuries. Western economic sanctions are largely irrelevant. Even a cursory review of Russian history demonstrates how difficult it is to defeat Russia by imposing economic pain.
The United States and the Europeans have invested tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in the attempt to rescue Ukraine from its belligerent and brutal neighbor. Nothing has worked. Ukraine is still losing territory slowly but surely.
Ukraine needs the one thing it doesn’t have; tens of thousands of additional soldiers.
A realistic strategy to circumvent this horrific problem has not been articulated by Mr. Zubrin or, I’m afraid, anyone else.
Javelin and HIMARS were essential to stopping the invasion from succeeding. They were both provided in advance because of their ability to blunt the Russian doctrine of massed vehicle assaults and forward operating depots.
Without them, the war would have played out very differently.
I hope no one falls for you attempting to obscure this.
As long as Putin is running Russia, and so long as Putin thinks Russia can prevail, the war in Ukraine will go on as long as the Ukrainians can keep fighting.
So far, the Western approach (greatly oversimplified) has been to backstop Ukrainian resistance and wait for Russia to decide that victory is unattainable and sign a peace treaty to end the war. The Western democracies, however, are rightly skeptical about Russia's willingness to abide by a treaty: Russia is determined to win, by hook, crook or nuclear terror.
So the question for the West should be asking is, "How can WE win?" Not just on the Ukraine battlefield...how can we force regime change on Russia?
The oil and gas sector forms the backbone of the Russian economy. Tightening sanctions against firms and countries buying Russian oil and gas has been part of our diplomatic/military strategy to bring Russia to seriously negotiate peace in Ukraine.
I think that is too modest a goal, given the heavy cost of the war so far and the small likelihood that Putin would ever accept anything but complete control over all of Ukraine.
Russia is such a vast country, I do not believe it can be defeated by a foreign power or combination).
But defeating Russia would not be the aim. The goal should be the overthrow of the corrupt regime of Putin and his cronies. Maybe we'd just see a different set of oligarchs, but a less bloodthirsty crew would surely be in the interests of both Western Democracy and the Russian people.
OK, so how to do it? Search me -- I'm not a diplomat or war planner. Denying free passage to Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers/spy ships -- preventing them from operating on the open seas -- might be a way to do this.
Of course, Russia might claim that such an embargo amounts to piracy, but what's a little bending of the law amongst enemies?
Sanctioning Russian energy exports won’t destroy the Russian economy. China buys almost 50 percent of Russia’s oil. There’s no evidence that it will be deterred or intimidated by Western sanctions. Instead China is likely to become more recalcitrant and impose what consequences it can on those who sanction it.
India buys about 25 percent of Russia’s oil which, of course, it buys at a substantial discount from world oil prices. India might be deterred from buying more Russian oil by additional sanctions but the West runs the risk of antagonizing India by imposing sanctions. Given the importance of India to the competition with China, antagonizing Modi might not be wise.
As for the hope for a coup against Putin, does anyone really believe the West can induce that? You’re right, if Putin was disposed of in a coup, he might be replaced by someone marginally less monstrous. It’s just as likely that he will be replaced by someone marginally more monstrous.
It’s all disastrous really and immensely sad. The whole imbroglio was botched by Biden and his Atlanticist friends from the very beginning. It’s heartbreaking that the Ukranians are reaping the consequences of the West’s passion for expanding NATO right up to the border of Russia.
Those pesky Ukranians and their desire for defensive alliances.
Repeating Kremlin narratives by reframing Ukrainian self determination as "NATO expansion" does Ukraine a disservice. The people there know who threatens their freedom, and its Putin's actions prior to the most recent war show his hand. I refuse to ignore his tell and repeat their lies.
Imo if Russia achieves more freedom to act it (+Belarus)will close the Suweilka gap, have land access to Kaliningrad and its supposed stock of nukes and "own" the Baltic from St. Petersburg till Kattegat
Given that scenario keeping RU occupied in Ukraine - and let the Ukrainians bleed for it 😭- sounds like a clever albeit very cynic and utterly disgusting military strategy to me 😭👎😭
There is one prominent 🇩🇪 named Kiesewetter who worries about the nukes at Kaliningrad but abIk does not mention the land connection. But he isn't the only one believing RU wants the Baltic sea very much
To readers like me who would be thrilled to see the Ukrainians defeat the Russians and are astounded by the bravery, vigor and creativity with which the Ukranians have fought, Mr. Zubrin’s post sounds pollyannish. We’ve heard a million times that just one more Western weapon system stands in the way of a Russian defeat. It simply has not panned out.
Mr. Zubrin’s suggestion that Ukraine’s lack of soldiers doesn’t matter that much simply isn’t convincing. How Ukraine can win a war fought on its territory without a sufficient number of competent soldiers has never been explained. It would be good if Mr. Zubrin could explain it.
That's exactly what the article explains. Interdict Russia's internal transport and shut down its economy, which is already in a death spiral. Yes, we've heard a million times that "one more weapon system" is needed. We haven't, however, tried sending them.
First the Javelins and then the HImars were touted as the weapons that would turn the tide. They were provided; the tide didn’t turn.
The Patriot air defense system was supposed to protect Ukrainian air space. The few that were available were sent. They helped but they didn’t prove decisive.
Approximately 65 F-16s were sent to Ukraine by its allies. We were told that this could be a game changer; it wasn’t.
For months the press reported that the only thing standing between Ukraine and victory were Abrams and Challenger tanks. They were sent; it didn’t change much.
The United States even delivered cluster munitions to Ukraine. It was a controversial decision but it wasn’t a game changer either.
The idea that Russia can be defeated by destroying its economy is a canard. The Russian tolerance for pain is simply dramatically higher than tolerable pain thresholds in the West. Outside of its major metropolitan areas, Russia is already an economic basket case and has been for centuries. Western economic sanctions are largely irrelevant. Even a cursory review of Russian history demonstrates how difficult it is to defeat Russia by imposing economic pain.
The United States and the Europeans have invested tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in the attempt to rescue Ukraine from its belligerent and brutal neighbor. Nothing has worked. Ukraine is still losing territory slowly but surely.
Ukraine needs the one thing it doesn’t have; tens of thousands of additional soldiers.
A realistic strategy to circumvent this horrific problem has not been articulated by Mr. Zubrin or, I’m afraid, anyone else.
Javelin and HIMARS were essential to stopping the invasion from succeeding. They were both provided in advance because of their ability to blunt the Russian doctrine of massed vehicle assaults and forward operating depots.
Without them, the war would have played out very differently.
I hope no one falls for you attempting to obscure this.
As long as Putin is running Russia, and so long as Putin thinks Russia can prevail, the war in Ukraine will go on as long as the Ukrainians can keep fighting.
So far, the Western approach (greatly oversimplified) has been to backstop Ukrainian resistance and wait for Russia to decide that victory is unattainable and sign a peace treaty to end the war. The Western democracies, however, are rightly skeptical about Russia's willingness to abide by a treaty: Russia is determined to win, by hook, crook or nuclear terror.
So the question for the West should be asking is, "How can WE win?" Not just on the Ukraine battlefield...how can we force regime change on Russia?
The oil and gas sector forms the backbone of the Russian economy. Tightening sanctions against firms and countries buying Russian oil and gas has been part of our diplomatic/military strategy to bring Russia to seriously negotiate peace in Ukraine.
I think that is too modest a goal, given the heavy cost of the war so far and the small likelihood that Putin would ever accept anything but complete control over all of Ukraine.
Russia is such a vast country, I do not believe it can be defeated by a foreign power or combination).
But defeating Russia would not be the aim. The goal should be the overthrow of the corrupt regime of Putin and his cronies. Maybe we'd just see a different set of oligarchs, but a less bloodthirsty crew would surely be in the interests of both Western Democracy and the Russian people.
OK, so how to do it? Search me -- I'm not a diplomat or war planner. Denying free passage to Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers/spy ships -- preventing them from operating on the open seas -- might be a way to do this.
Of course, Russia might claim that such an embargo amounts to piracy, but what's a little bending of the law amongst enemies?
Sanctioning Russian energy exports won’t destroy the Russian economy. China buys almost 50 percent of Russia’s oil. There’s no evidence that it will be deterred or intimidated by Western sanctions. Instead China is likely to become more recalcitrant and impose what consequences it can on those who sanction it.
India buys about 25 percent of Russia’s oil which, of course, it buys at a substantial discount from world oil prices. India might be deterred from buying more Russian oil by additional sanctions but the West runs the risk of antagonizing India by imposing sanctions. Given the importance of India to the competition with China, antagonizing Modi might not be wise.
As for the hope for a coup against Putin, does anyone really believe the West can induce that? You’re right, if Putin was disposed of in a coup, he might be replaced by someone marginally less monstrous. It’s just as likely that he will be replaced by someone marginally more monstrous.
It’s all disastrous really and immensely sad. The whole imbroglio was botched by Biden and his Atlanticist friends from the very beginning. It’s heartbreaking that the Ukranians are reaping the consequences of the West’s passion for expanding NATO right up to the border of Russia.
Those pesky Ukranians and their desire for defensive alliances.
Repeating Kremlin narratives by reframing Ukrainian self determination as "NATO expansion" does Ukraine a disservice. The people there know who threatens their freedom, and its Putin's actions prior to the most recent war show his hand. I refuse to ignore his tell and repeat their lies.