Are you seeing a lot of energy in support of the Ukraine in your personal life at this point?
At first, the media just did the whole “bad thing is bad, good ones say bad thing is bad” bit, and people went along with it, saying they support the Ukraine, putting flags in their bios and so on. People are social creatures, and in the age of electronic media, manipulating social cues to drive behavior is a fully developed science and technology.
However, as it was presented, the Ukraine war wouldn’t cost anything. Now, they’re claiming it is going to cost a lot – economic collapse and global food shortages.
Will pro-war sentiment remain strong?
The US is ready to back Ukraine in the conflict with Russia for the long term, the Washington Post reported, citing administration officials who say the plans have been in the works for some time.
A senior State Department staffer told the Post on Friday that President Joe Biden would like to see an “eventual negotiated conclusion [to the fighting],” voicing hopes that waves of Western arms shipments to Kiev and the harsh sanctions campaign against Moscow would weaken the European power’s ability to fight.
“While it’s certainly challenging – we’re not certainly sugarcoating that – in terms of how to navigate these stormy waters, our guiding light is that the outcome of Russia being able to achieve its maximalist demands is really bad for the United States, really bad for our partners and allies, and really bad for the global community,” the unnamed official said.
They added that the Biden team had “discussed the possibility of a protracted conflict with global spillover effects” even before February, during a time when American officials repeatedly predicted an imminent attack by Russia.
Though support for the Ukrainian government has been costly for Washington – which has devoted more than \$50 billion in various forms of aid since March – the Post noted that Biden is willing to risk “a global recession and mounting hunger” in order to prevent Russia from achieving its objectives.
Notice that the narrative is in the process of shifting away from “defense of the Ukraine” to “offensive attack on Russia.” Everyone who knew anything already understood that reality, but they’re rolling it out more aggressively now.
This suggests that they want to shift this away from “we’re doing this as charity for some country you know nothing about” to “this is about American interests somehow.”
As I’ve said from the beginning, none of this really makes any sense, because there is no way to win the conflict. They are now talking about a protracted, years-long conflict, but no one can really understand what that would look like, and the whole concept appears to be the result of stupid people making dumb predictions about things they don’t understand.
Russia is going to complete what they are doing, and draw a border.
Currently, Russia is not especially close to meeting what are its presumed territorial goals.
Here’s a recent map:
Here’s what they most likely want the map to look like:
However, there are two things:
- Much of that area in the center is not heavily populated, and
- When the Ukraine military is destroyed, it will be possible to just roll through much of that
The Ukraine military is already mostly destroyed, but they do take up positions in population centers and launch rockets from residential areas, which is a very effective tactic. Human shields are obviously illegal under any kind of international law, but there is no one enforcing that.
But the Donbass battle is wrapping up, and much more of the Ukraine military is going to be wiped out in the finale. It’s also possible that Russia will change its border claims (which have never been officially stated anyway and therefore can’t actually be officially changed), and forget about Odessa after finishing Kharkov.
Either way – it’s not going to take “years” to draw a border, and then enforce the border. So then you’ll have a situation where the West is militarizing the West of the Ukraine and… and what? Launching terrorist-style attacks?
The basic thinking of the Pentagon seems to be that they can turn the Ukraine into Afghanistan. The US armed Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen to fight Russia after they invaded Afghanistan, and this Russian boondoggle is considered one of the things that led to the collapse of the USSR. However, there is no reason to believe that Ukrainians will behave like Afghans, especially when Russia has already partitioned the country, and the conflict no longer has any direct effect on their lives.
Then, of course, you have the question of American support. The claim that Americans are willing to tolerate economic collapse and food shortages may or may not be true. It’s possible Americans will tolerate anything. You also have the problem that Americans don’t have the option of voting for anti-war candidates, because both parties are so aggressively supportive of this war.
The deeper America digs, the better it is in the long run, because they’ve chosen a hill to die on that they are going to die on.
Once America loses their status as global empire, the American government will no longer have the resources to force all of these horrors on us, the American people. That will be better.