The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTed Rall Archive
How the US Lost the Ukraine War
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The effect of Western sanctions may cause historians of the future to look upon the conflict in Ukraine as a net defeat for Russia. In terms of the military struggle itself, however, Russia is winning.

Watching American and European news coverage, you might ask yourself, how can that be? It comes down to war aims. Russia has them. They are achievable.

The United States doesn’t have any.

“As the war in Ukraine grinds through its third month,” the Washington Post reports, “the Biden administration has tried to maintain a set of public objectives that adapt to changes on the battlefield and stress NATO unity, while making it clear that Russia will lose, even as Ukraine decides what constitutes winning. But the contours of a Russian loss remain as murky as a Ukrainian victory.”

War aims are a list of what one side in a military conflict hopes to achieve at its conclusion.

There are two kinds.

The first type of war aim is propaganda for public consumption. An overt war aim can be vague, as when President Woodrow Wilson urged Americans to enter World War I in order to “make the world safe for democracy” (whatever that meant), or specific, like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s demand for the “unconditional surrender” of the Axis powers. A specific, easily measured metric is better.

Covert war aims are goals that political and military leaders are really after. A covert war aim must be realistic. For example, contrary to the long-standing belief that he viewed the outbreak of the Korean War as an irritating distraction, Joseph Stalin approved of and supported North Korea’s invasion of South Korea in 1950. He didn’t care if North Korea captured territory. He wanted to drag the United States into a conflict that would diminish its standing in Asia and distract it from the Cold War in Europe. The Soviet ruler died knowing that, whatever the final outcome, he had won.

A publicly stated war aim tries to galvanize domestic support, which is especially necessary when fighting a proxy war (Ukraine) or war of choice (Iraq). But you can’t win a war when your military and political leaders are unable to define, even to themselves behind closed doors, what winning looks like.

America’s biggest military debacles occurred after primary objectives metastasized. In Vietnam, both the publicly stated and actual primary war aim was initially to prevent the attempted overthrow of the government of South Vietnam and to prevent the spread of socialism, the so-called Domino Theory. Then the U.S. wanted to make sure that soldiers who had died at the beginning of the war hadn’t died in vain. By the end, the war was about leveraging the safe return of prisoners of war. A recurring theme of accounts by soldiers in the jungle as well as top strategists at the Pentagon is that, before long, no one knew why we were over there.

Again, in Afghanistan after 2002, war aims kept changing. Mission creep expanded from the goal of defeating Al Qaeda to apprehending Osama bin Laden to building infrastructure to establishing democracy to improving security to using the country as a base for airstrikes against neighboring Pakistan. By 2009, the Pentagon couldn’t articulate what it was trying to accomplish. In the end, the U.S. did nothing but stave off the inevitable defeat and collapse of its unpopular Afghan puppet regime.

Clear war aims are essential to winning. Reacting to his experience in Vietnam, the late Gen. Colin Powell led U.S. forces to victory in the first Gulf War with his doctrine that a successful military action enjoys strong domestic political support, is fought by a sufficient number of troops and begins with a clear military and political objective that leads to a quick exit. After Saddam Hussein’s forces were routed from Kuwait, George H.W. Bush ignored advisers who wanted to expand the conflict into Iraq. America’s mission accomplished, there was a ticker tape parade down Broadway, the end.

The U.S. too often involves itself in foreign conflicts without declaring clear war aims — or even knowing themselves what they are. In Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, unclear or shifting war aims led to endless escalation followed by fatigue on the homefront, declining popular will and defeat. Our involvement in the proxy conflicts in Yemen and Syria also have the character of forever wars, though American voters won’t pay much attention as long as the cost is limited to taxpayer dollars rather than their sons and daughters.

I wrote a piece in 2001 titled “How We Lost Afghanistan.” Given that the U.S. had just overthrown the Taliban, it was cheekily counterintuitive. But I was looking at the Afghan war from the Afghan perspective, which is why I was right, and the mainstream media was wrong. I see a similar situation unfolding in Ukraine. We are so misled by our cultural biases that we fail to understand the Russian point of view. The U.S. failure to articulate war aims stems from arrogance. We think we’re so rich and powerful that we can beat anyone, even if our strategy is half-assed and we don’t understand politics on the other side of the planet, where the war is.

President Joe Biden’s approach to Ukraine appears to boil down to: Let’s throw more money and weapons into this conflict and hope it helps.

That’s not a strategy. It’s a prayer.

ORDER IT NOW

Biden says he wants to preserve Ukraine as a sovereign state and defend its territory. But how much territory? How much sovereignty? Would Biden accept continued autonomy for the breakaway republics in the Donbas? The White House appears unwilling to escalate by supporting an attempt to expel Russian forces from eastern Ukraine, much less Crimea, where they are welcomed by a population dominated by ethnic Russians. Short of a willingness to risk nuclear war, the likely ultimate outcome of the U.S. position will be a Korea-like partition into western and eastern zones. A divided Ukraine would create a disputed border, which would disqualify a rump Ukrainian application to join NATO.

Russia’s primary demand is that Ukraine not join NATO. If America’s goal winds up resolving the main reason President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, why is the U.S. involved? A war aim that neatly aligns with one’s adversary’s is grounds for peace talks, not fighting.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently added a second Ukraine war aim: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Weakened to what extent? Reduced to a failed state? Mildly inconvenienced? Not only is the policy dangerous but it fails to define a clear objective.

Russia, on the other hand, has secured its allies in the autonomous republics and created a buffer zone to protect them. Crimea will remain annexed to Russia. NATO membership for Ukraine, a chimera to begin with, is now a mere fever dream. Unlike the U.S., the Russians declared their objectives and achieved the important ones.

Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of a new graphic novel about a journalist gone bad, “The Stringer.”

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, NATO, Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 31 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. TG says:

    An interesting and intelligent post!

    But I would say that the western elites, while vicious and amoral, are pretty smart. Pay no attention to their lickspittle running dog whore Joe Biden whose main job is for his senility to take the blame for what is actually deliberate malice on the part of the people in charge.

    The war aims of the western elite are simple: to bleed Russia, to make Putin lose face, to ultimately have some sort of ‘color revolution’ in Russia, and bring back the Yeltsin days when Russia was an impoverished western gas-station. And to do the same to Belorussia and Kazakhstan – the western elites tried that a little while ago and were rebuffed, but they will try again before too long.

    There will be no truce, there will be no pulling back. Russia will face the totality of western industrial and technological power without being able to strike back, and while my crystal ball is as cloudy as yours, with hindsight Putin seems to have walked into a trap.

    The western elites are not thinking small. They see themselves in total control of what used to be the old Soviet Union and its colossal resources. Suddenly the rising power of China looks less imposing. That’s a big reward, and possibly worth a big risk.

  2. Russia has four times the population of Ukraine, ten times the economic power, and an army three times larger. Every sane person knows Russia will win, which is why Russia began with a limited invasion to show it was serious so a deal could be made. But the USA told the Ukes they can win with new super weapons, so to fight on to the last man to hurt Russia.

    Russia is slowly crushing the main Uke army in Donbass with far greater artillery and is advancing, something not reported in the USA. Ukes should withdraw to the west to consolidate its lines but are told to fight to the death. It will collapse next month. What will Biden do when they flee?

  3. Decoy says:
    @TG

    True that the “western elites” are not thinking small but the U.S. taxpayer has limited patience and even the Ukrainian public has a limit to its patience. Russia and Putin, however, have the patience of a Saint. It will be very interesting to see how this ends. Ukraine cannot be a winner. At some point even their citizens will come to realize that no one in Washington D.C.or Brussels care how many of them die, are displaced, or how much of their country is destroyed. The United States can be a winner but only in the short term. The harm to the USD is irrevocable and I doubt if more than 20% of our elected officials understand how valuable our reserve currency status has benefited us. And the Russia, China, India alliance likely will strengthen as the years go by.

  4. meamjojo says:

    Blah, blah, blah Rall.

    Ukraine’s aim is true – to push Russian forces back behind their pre-2014 lines. I hope Zelensky doesn’t compromise for anything less. Then they should crush any displays of pro-Russian support from inside Ukraine and deport people who refuse to cooperate with the new Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Derer
    , @bwuce wee
  5. Joseph Stalin approved of and supported North Korea’s invasion of South Korea in 1950?
    Stalin did offer to support the DPRK if push came to shove (as China does today), but that’s far from supporting an invasion.

    Besides, Kim had no more need to invade South Korea than had Ho Chi Minh to invade South Vietnam.

    Both men were wildly popular patriots and resistance fighters who would have won the scheduled elections which the US thwarted. I personally verified Kim’s popularity with (middle-class) Koreans when I lived there in the 1960s. In a truly free and fair election today, I suspect young Kim would romp home.

    It was America’s strongman, Syngman Rhee, who desperately needed to prevent the promised election, and it was he who launched the attack.

    I.F. Stone’s Hidden History of the Korean War supports this thesis using official US documents.

    Sir John Pratt, Adviser on Far Eastern Affairs in Britain’s Foreign Office and head of the Far Eastern Section of Ministry of Information approached the matter from a different angle but reached the same conclusion. His essay,Korea: The Lie that Led to War, is a model of concision and logic.

    Today, if they refer to it at all, our media call the conflict ‘the Forgotten War’. For good reason.

    Not only did we get our asses handed to us, but the PLAN’s victories let Mao to set the terms in Vietnam: if we crossed the 20th parallel, he said, China would again enter the war against us.

    Thus it was that, despite unprecedented bombing, the North remained a sanctuary for the patriotic resistance and, this time, there was no ‘forgetting’.

    We lost the Vietnam war on TV, for all the world to see, and earned Mao’s sobriquet, ‘paper tiger’.

    The accuracy of that designation we are currently demonstrating in Ukraine, as General HR Mad Dog McMaster told the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

    The US is no match for Russia in a real war. The Russians have superior artillery firepower, better combat vehicles, and have learned sophisticated use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for tactical effect. “Should US forces find themselves in a land war with Russia, they would be in for a rude, cold awakening.

    https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/05/how-pentagon-preparing-tank-war-russia/128460/

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  6. Derer says:
    @meamjojo

    Stop your hallucination…so far this is Russian velvet war, they can crank it up anytime. Zelensky is a US boy like Saakasvili was in Georgia to prolong the conflict that will end badly for him.

  7. @TG

    “ with hindsight Putin seems to have walked into a trap.”

    But for Russia, the price of inaction in the long run would be far more devastating. From events so far, like the confiscation of Russian assets, one has to wonder if the Russian action was sufficiently premeditated. Their entry into Ukraine with an attack force lower in numbers than that of Ukrainian forces contradicts traditional military policy of having overwhelming numbers on the the attacker’s side. So in the short run Russia will be a net loser. However, looking further down the road, the Western hegemony will get weakened as the only likely outcome of the war is a Ukrainian defeat and a loss of influence of the Western powers over the rest of the globe. Russian tenacity and perseverance have historically proven to be her biggest asset especially when Russians sense a threat as existential. The Western oligarchy is smart, unethical and ruthless, but by trying to subdue and swallow a target as big and strong like Russia, they may have bit more than they can chew.

  8. dearieme says:

    Neither you nor I know what the Russian aims were in February or what they are now.

    Nor do we know much about the progress of the war bar a few sweeping statements – the Russians have conquered a corridor to Crimea; the Russians have not taken Kiev; the Russian navy has lost a cruiser.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  9. BuelahMan says:

    President Joe Biden’s approach to Ukraine appears to boil down to: Let’s throw more money and weapons into this conflict and hope it helps.

    That’s not a strategy. It’s a prayer.

    It’s more related to further dismantling of the US’s hegemony in the world, bringing in the NWO (which Uke and Russia are complicit).

    None of this is legit. None in the past 40 years, at least, is legit. Shoot, go back to WWII and/or WWI and know that NONE of it is legit. There is a jewish desire for world control. This is ALL related.

  10. For the US the goal was to separate Russia from Germany (= Europe),
    prop up the dollar and unload the F-35 (and sundry) on a captive
    customer base (as they had the F-104).
    So far they are succeeding (small wonder, this was 20 years in the making).
    The Jews wanted to steal a country, join the EU (which obviously would include
    Israel 1.0) and at long last rule openly what they until now have had to shamefully do.
    If they do not lose Odessa (Vlad isn´t stupid, you know), it counts as a success also.

    No reason to crow; none whatsoever.

  11. Ukraine is the same clusterf**k the US traditionally gets into, since Washington provoked the second German war. We only won that one because the Red Army did 80% of the fighting for us.

    FDR’s unprecedented idea of compelling an entire nation to surrender its sovereignty without condition came from his fevered brain after he read the autobiography of Ulysses Grant. That Civil War general gained national fame for demanding the unconditional surrender of a single fort, Donelson, which his forces had encircled. Grant’s Confederate opponent termed the demand “ungallant [and] ungentlemanly” but was compelled by circumstances to comply. And the surrendered rebel soldiers were paroled and allowed to return to their homes. They were not imprisoned as slave laborers for years after the war ended, as Wehrmacht men were by their French, British, and Soviet conquerors.

    Even Churchill, as war-mad as he was, was appalled by FDR’s bizarre proposition, which historians generally agree extended Europe’s agony by as much as two years. By any definition, purposely prolonging armed conflict is a war crime in and of itself. Coupled with FDR’s cabinet member Morgenthau’s essentially genocidal plan for postwar Germany, this unprecedented insult not only stiffened German resistance but inspired the Reich to take savage reprisals against those they believed (and not without evidence) had instigated the catastrophic war. But FDR was determined to make a larger mark on history than previous White House occupants Grant and Teddy Roosevelt – especially the latter, his hated archrival cousin – and so he did. Unfortunately it was written in blood spilled for no purpose but to stroke his massive ego.

  12. The effect of Western sanctions may cause historians of the future to look upon the conflict in Ukraine as a net defeat for Russia.

    What an Ar*****e Rall is. Before the incursion, 81 Rubles bought a Dollar, now it’s 65. Similar strengthening of the Ruble against the Euro, GBP and yen has occured. The huge rise in the cost of energy has doubled Russian revenue compared to this time last year, despite the smaller volumes sold.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/russia-doubles-profits-from-oil-and-gas-sales-to-eu-during-war-study

    Everyday life in Russia continues as normal. In an autarkic economy, it can supply the essentials from its own resources, unlike the West. The Russian Central Bank expects an inflation rate of 10 to 12 % over the year. In America and other Western countries, the real inflation rate is already higher than that and will continue to rise much higher.

    Now we are seeing the effects of Russian counter-sanstions. Gas has been cut off to Poland and Bulgaria, and electricity to Finland. Of great importance has been the recent closure of the Yamal pipeline. That accounts for nearly a quarter of all Russian gas exports to the EU.
    https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-05-12/card/gazprom-halting-gas-shipments-via-yamal-europe-pipeline-bKhqGb2LHTBt4LRr4ZfY

    Energy prices are surging all over Europe, and elsewhere. As Russia pivots towards Asia, expect more closures of pipelines to Europe, and less and less gas being exported there. Alternative supplies of LNG will be costly and totally inadequate to cover the losses. There will be energy blackouts and factory closures all over Europe as a result. Many Europeans will suffer economic hardship. There will be serious economic decline. And it will continue for years.

    Of course, a cartoonist living in La La Land may think: none of this is going to affect me, I’m insulated from all of this. Except of course he’s not. Surging energy prices are pushing inflation even higher. As Russia demands that all its commodities must be bought in Rubles or precious metals, the days of the USD as World’s Reserve Currency will shortly end. Once that goes, America will be a washed up former hegemon. In its rise, America has made many enemies. On its way down, these enemies will not be kind.

    .

    • Thanks: Kali
  13. @dearieme

    I think we know a bit more than that. The Russians and Ukrainians did meet on March 29th in Istanbul. Essentially, the Russians wanted Ukrainian neutrality enshrined in treaty and Ukrainian recognition of Crimea as Russian and of the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. NB The two latter were to consist of the complete territories of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts, not just the areas controlled by their militias.

    The Ukrainians seemed willing to accommodate neutrality, but asked for security guarantees from NATO states and others. However, these guarantees were not to apply to Crimea and the areas under the control of the DPR and LPR, so there was tacit acceptance of the loss of these territories to Ukraine.

    However, there have been no meetings since, and Zelensky has recently been demanding that Russia surrender and its troops leave all of Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbas. Why the volte face? We can only speculate. Western pressure ( highly likely). Russian withdrawal from Kiev, Nikolayev and areas round Kharkhov ( possible). Zelensky and others threatened with removal and liquidation by hardliners. ( possible)

    Regardless, the move has backfired. Independence/unification referenda are being prepared for areas controlled by Russia in Kherson oblast and elsewhere. So, it is reasonable to assume that Russian aims go very much further than those posited on March 29th. It may be the incorporation of all – or nearly all- ethnic Russian areas in south and east Ukraine. Time will tell

  14. @Observator

    Even Churchill, as war-mad as he was, was appalled by FDR’s bizarre proposition, which historians generally agree extended Europe’s agony by as much as two years.

    By 1944 all German Generals knew the war was lost and wanted peace. They would have overthrown Hitler if the Allies had offered terms. This could have resulted in a democratic Germany and Eastern Europe. But FDR insisted that Germany itself must be destroyed so that prolonged the war, killed millions more people, allowed the Soviets to grab Eastern Europe, and led to the Cold war. Historians are not allowed to discuss this in public.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  15. The sanctions have only hurt the West and may yet crash the American economy. Russia will come out stronger, AND will win in Ukraine, of course.

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse
  16. Jim H says:

    ‘Short of a willingness to risk nuclear war, the likely ultimate outcome of the U.S. position will be a Korea-like partition into western and eastern zones.’ — Ted Rall

    In offering to talk to Putin, Zelenskyy declared that Ukraine will not give up any territory.

    Too late — that ship has already sailed.

    Even if US troops rolled into Ukraine with guns blazing, they would not be able to reclaim Ukraine’s lost territory in the east and south.

    Who lost Crimea in 2014? Idiot neocon Victoria Nuland.

    Who lost Donbas in 2022? Idiot neocon Antony Blinken.

    This wouldn’t have happened if actual Americans had been in charge.

  17. Miro23 says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Russia is slowly crushing the main Uke army in Donbass with far greater artillery and is advancing, something not reported in the USA.

    That’s what it looks like. A steady (relatively low risk) grinding down of the Ukrainian armed forces. And at some point the UAF break and they pull out.

    The problem, is that the Kagan/Nuland neo-cons can also see what is happening. They have a particular hatred for Russia and don’t back off. They’re the PNAC people who know all about false flags and bio-warfare so they could likely run another 9/11 style false flag to trigger media outrage and get direct NATO military involvement on the ground.

    If they choose a nuclear false flag (quite possible) we would really be on the edge of WW3.

  18. Wild Man says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    “Ukes should withdraw to the west to consolidate its lines but are told to fight to the death. It will collapse next month. What will Biden do when they flee?”

    Blame his bully-pawn like he did in Afghanistan. Watch, … he will do so (if there is no narrative misdirection prior, which I think, there probably will be). Will the rest of the people wake up then? The man has zero shame. Extreme high psychopathic load. It’s a wonder anyone at all likes him still, and don’t see though that great big ‘I-am-gonna-eat-your-lunch-f*ckwad’ grin. And the way he puts his hands on people (never mind his creep-mode on children and women), … but with men, the way he does it, … it’s about psychopathic domination. He would get a big f*ck-you and a punch in the face from me, for that type of thing

    Somehow, each time he is so blatantly psychopathically lying, and gets all grinny and touchy-feely about it, I always think ….. OK, dude crossed the line this time, people will not be able to unseee that. But no, …. the charade just continues and continues. I think it is quite possible this Biden dude is worse than LBJ, in the psychopathic way. How about this time?, ….. when he will try to say “the f*cking Ukes didn’t fight hard enough” ….. how is that gonna fly, with such a giant amount of pro-Uke propaganda going around about now. At least, this is gonna be fun to watch, but probably that is just wishful thinking, because the western monsters (of which Biden is one) will do something totally unexpected, and even more shockingly putrid, than even what we have seen up to now, within the next month or so. So, …. no, …. this is going to end up being not fun to watch. It’s probably world war 3.

  19. dearieme says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I think FDR a dreadful little shitbag but I will speak up for this decision. WWII was caused by the Germans not accepting that they had been beaten fair and square in WWI. So it was essential that WWII end in such a way that even the most paranoid Germans could not doubt that they had been beaten.

    And so it was, and the Germans have not been a threat since – not to France, not to Poland, not to the Low Countries, not to Russia.

  20. Anonymous[109] • Disclaimer says:
    @TG

    Agree. Ukraine is like a giant Afghanistan with unlimited weaponry. The West’s goal is obviously regime change (like in 1917), with or without a breakup of the Russian Federation.

    The sanctions will take some time to exert their full effect. It may feel nice to spurn chichi claptrap designed by Italian homosexuals or start some kind of McBliny, but crucial stuff like transportation, infrastructure and even oil exploration will be hit at some point; it remains to be seen just how severe the hit will be.

    China will help Russia out to some extent, but experience in places like Libya and Iraq shows that the hydrocarbons will keep flowing even while a country is in total chaos. This means that China won’t bother preventing regime change or a breakup of the Russian state. I believe at least one of those outcomes will happen.

  21. @dearieme

    Yes, and Churchill made sure that we bankrupted ourselves and lost our empire. This has blighted the prospects of all White Britons since.
    And stupid twits like you applaud.

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
    • Replies: @dearieme
  22. Protogonus says: • Website

    We keep forgetting there is now, and historically always has been, one and only one anti-nation, all of whose wars have been proxy wars. In the final stage of geopolitics, which is now, everybody but the anti-nation loses. This is new and represents the Last Act of the Absolute Warmonger, whose interim goals—killing and robbing naive belligerents century after century— have heretofore been financed by interest on the war loans it has made to all sides. If this sounds like a nightmare written by Satan, it is:

    https://www.academia.edu/76372363/To_Sevastopol_With_Love

    • Thanks: Bro43rd
  23. The United States doesn’t have any [war aims].

    American War Slogans for the ages:

    “No taxation without representation.”
    “We have met the enemy and they are ours.”
    “Remember the Alamo.”
    “54-40 or fight!”
    “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
    “Remember the Maine!”
    “The war to end all wars.”
    “Your name is unknown. Your deed is immortal.”
    “All right. They’re on our left. They’re on our right. They’re in front of us, they’re behind us. They can’t get away this time’.”
    “We had to destroy the village to save it.”
    “Ten percent for the Big Guy.”

    • Thanks: Adam Smith
  24. dearieme says:
    @Verymuchalive

    If we were right to fight then the bankruptcy was just the price to pay.

    Losing the Empire was fine: notoriously expensive things, empires. Only Leninist twits think they are money-spinners.

  25. @dearieme

    There was no reason to fight. It could easily be avoided. Churchill’s declared aims were to maintain Britain as a great power and with it the British Empire. His actual policies achieved the opposite.

    As regards the Empire, much British trade was still tied up with the White Dominions. The Black and Brown Colonies could and should have been discarded. They were no benefit. Even Leninist twits didn’t think they were. Bankruptcy seriously undermined the Sterling Zone and, with it, ties to the Dominions.

    There is absolutely no doubt that, if Britain had avoided the War, it would be a much wealthier and more powerful state. No War, No Bretton Woods, No GATT, No WTO, No Globalisation. To which one may add: No Mass 3rd World Immigration, No Multi-culti.

  26. @Observator

    FDR was ignorant of his own American history. In reference to Grant he should have recalled Grant’ s greatest victory at Vicksburg. There he dealt out very generous terms.

  27. @dearieme

    WW2 was caused by the unworkable and unjust treaty of Versailles. Even if we accept your logic, destroying a whole country and the costs so incurred were too high.

  28. @dearieme

    “If we were right to fight”…

    You were NOT right to fight, either from a moral or strategic view.

  29. Cookie says:

    I can’t see Ukraine winning, if Russia continues hitting supply lines then the cost of resupply by Western nations is too great.

    Russia also cannot defeat the whole of Ukraine, but they don’t have to, Mariupol is now theirs…Ukraine isn’t getting that back…and now the last strategic piece Russia wants is Odessa.

    But the biggest death toll is now going to happen outside Ukraine borders, the planting season is over…how much crop was planted who knows?

    Diesel would of been requisitioned to the military, and with the strikes on storage the military will travel further and further to empty storage tanks, they are probably at the end of their ability for mobile war.

    Its over the war as far as Ukraine is concerned…its now up to how much cost the U.S “elite” is willing to put on the world for their purposes?

  30. bwuce wee says:
    @meamjojo

    i see a putin victory getting closer every day! funny how when you study battle tactics of the ancients in this same area, you see putin’s strategy. too bad all the talking heads have not studied the scythians- who ruled this area thousands of years ago. but go ahead, i support mentally ill persons being deluded in their safe spaces- as long as they don’t creep out into the public… the cavalry is the biden clown world, and the russians are the apaches. russia take-em heap big pile of scalps before summer. he is only just now bringing out the new weapons, AFTER THE UKRAINIANS HAVE RUN OUT OF WEAPONS, AMMO, AND MEN. if you can call them men, i cannot. they are cringing crybabt cowards alll of them. ‘oh please help me, i started a war i cannot finish! you big shtrong joe biden help me.’ what a bunch of pathetic baby-raping, organ-trafficking, woman-beating losers. can’t wait till they are all in siberia mining salt.

  31. The US didn’t lose the war in Ukraine. You need to quit listening to those voices in your head, Rall.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ted Rall Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement