Very balanced and captured the 'Trumpian' and 'Semi-Trumpian' position well. As one of the latter who lives surrounded by the other side, I think you understate the corruption and classism driving the other side, but I think you covered that fairly.
I suspect, in my case, the suppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church weighs heavily into the equation.
I am quite confused about the various churches. There are multiples with similar names
I do know that in Russia the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is Putins close buddy and nicely corrupt. And I know that one off shoot of that church was active in Ukraine and not in a positive way
Yep. It's a mess. And like all churches of any faith, corruption is a problem. And as bad as it is overseas, the state of Orthodoxy in the US is worse.
Very good. New subscriber and still free so I was sort of testing the waters so to speak. The references to Phillips OB in the previous post made me suspicious (he's the only substack acct I've cancelled), but this post was very good.
I've moved slowly but surely towards the anti-war position (your position 1 - well stated). That said, however, I'd like to support Ukraine more than I do for a couple of reasons. The main one is that Ukraine has exposed Russia as a paper tiger. The arguments about Russia taking Ukraine and then and then and then... carry no weight for me anymore.
Secondly, Ukraine has fought the war so cleverly. The Ukrainian military has literally changed war fighting by their adept use of drones. The control of the Black Sea is because of drones invented by Ukraine. Most of the Russian Army, infantry and armor, is dying because of drones. Land, sea, in the air - warfare will not be the same. I know for a fact that militaries around the world have noticed (Taiwan and West Taiwan).
The idea that Russia will "just" use a cease fire to build up its military ignores the fact that the US and Western Europe could do the same. Western (and Ukrainian) hardware has shown itself to be superior to Russian. Western (and Ukrainian) military doctrine has shown itself to be superior to Russian. Sounds like a challenge.
Sorry, that went on a long time... anyway, thanks for this post. Looking forward to more.
Thanks for the insight. Best overview I've seen. However, I'm stuck on one thing. I keep wondering what the heck Zelensky thought was going on, and why he acted the way he did. He had to know there would be a negative response, public or private. It's not how the leader of a country at war convinces an ally to sustain or increase aid. I think I'm one of the few who think Ukraine can successfully push back the Russians and would have already if Biden had provided a few more tools. I am amazed at how the Ukrainians are destroying Russia's logistical network that turns out to be very brittle. As you point out, Ufa was hit hard last night. The rail lines are under constant attack. A million men at the front isn't worth much if they don't have guns and ammunition. Zelensky really, really screwed up.
I am another who thinks Ukraine could have already won.
I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist but I do find myself wondering if the Bidenites actually want Ukraine to remain a quagmire. Both from their slow-walking of supplies in the past and now the report that Zelenskyy met with Dems just before his WH disaster. Did they prime him to blow it?
As time passes, it looks to me more and more like a deliberate attempt to discredit Trump. This is my conspiracy theory: Rice/Blinken/Nuland told Zelensky to ask for the meeting, lead Rubio and Vance to believe a deal would be agreed to and then act out in public. They probably advised Zelensky this would get more US aid. EU leaders and Starmer were already waiting to receive Zelensky for another round of pr/photo ops to make everyone in Europe look good, and Trump the fool by comparison. Timing is everything and leads to the idea that all this was pre-planned. So far so good, but in the days that have passed, Trump support has not wavered, and many neutral Americans have begun to get background on the full blow up, and some opinion there is shifting towards Trump or at least against the war. Ukraine will hit the wall when the EU support via Russian assets runs out -- and it will very quickly. The darkest part of my theory is that people like Rice et al or whoever are willing to allow the slaughter of young Ukrainians, as well as Russians and ethnic minority Russians to go on in order to provide a bad day for Trump. I think I'm becoming an old school isolationist.
You did an excellent job defining/describing the Jacksonian camp, which, as camps go is the one I'm closest to.
I would place them closer to your group three rather than the there is no Trump but Trump and Elon is his prophet group.
& yes in this ongoing war issue we're on opposite sides of the fence. I'm all for ending it now, right now.
Having said that I'd much rather read opinions such as yours and discuss the issue with you than preach back and forth to a chorus. One can by debating clarify opinions, thoughts, sometimes even change them. However just hanging with those singing from the same hymnal more often than not ossifies rather than clarifies.
The problem with ending it right now is that it kicks the can down the road until Putin or a successor tries to have another go. Moscow has consistent form in this matter going back centuries and that needs to be stomped on
Going back centuries also is Russia being invaded from the West. Every country in NATO except Iceland has participated in at least one invasion of Russia.
I've mispent some reading and writing time on this, too close to bed time to boot.
Short version, LARPing vietnam. Afghanistan withdrawal and this were probably desperate cargo cult attempts to neutralize the uniformed armed services.
Pelosi still has power, grew up well connected inside the Democrats. I don't know of connections to Tip O'Neal, etc., but may simply be lack of study on my part. Post vietnam, by all accounts, US army was dysfunctional for a bit.
I think you underestimate degree to which these people simply have a narrow and sparse world that they try to think and feel within. And are now insane by their previous standards.
Related elements of ranting included a) ACW b) American oral history c) domestic threat modeling. Also, the usual pattern of a spree shooting, and a push for Americans to give up their guns, and the subsequent stuff. As well as big city pro rioters and the hinterlands.
Further afield, MAGA is a hypothesis about internal and trust, not so much the external threat model. Most Americans are not the autistic paranoids who constantly fix on conventional warfare match ups. They do have a bunch of people acting as proxies, and opinions on how much they trust.
Way off topic, the additional factions that flipped to Trump last year are both a hazard and a safeguard. They have a bunch of different asks, so it might be hard to satisfy all of them.
I thought Zelensky was a hero. Still do. The whole thing is deeply depressing. I could weep. My maternal grandmother was Ukrainian. I think Putin is a murderous leader and a terrifying neighbour. Ask Georgia, or Moldova. I wish Russia would be driven out of Ukraine. But what was Zelensky thinking? Why wasn't he prepared? This should just have been a show up, thank you for all your help, sign, smile and shake hands moment (see Starmer for how it should be done). That's what was expected. That's why there were 2 podiums ready. Zelensky was not prepared. If he didn't like the deal, he shouldn't have gone. You're polite, when you're seeking - needing - a deal. Zelensky wasn't. I hope Starmer talks him round.
But I disagree with the 'no point in a ceasefire deal with Putin. He'll break it.'
It's cost Russia too much to get this far. If there was to be a next time, they'd have to spend a ton more money, be prepared for tons more Russians to die and I don't think that can be done. Look back at Finland. Unprovoked aggression against Finland. Thought Finns would fold. Eventually a deal. Had to give up some territory, but Russia didn't go back for more. I think same here. Ukraine would be very prepared for a second time and I don't think Putin would try.
Actually the Russians did go back against Finland. There was the Winter War where the Finns kicked their butts and then there was the continuation war where the Finns, allied with the Nazis, sorta kinda held their own.
But yeah I don't think Russia will break ceasefire for a while because they have to rebuild their economy and rearm
Yes, I was thinking of the Winter War. But even at the end of WW2, Russia didn't seek more territory from the Finns. And, going forward, it'll be so hard to get another invasion going. So many young Russian men have been killed or maimed. Russian women don't want to see their menfolk killedAfghanistan was a significant factor in the collapse (hurray!) of the Soviet Union. Also, Putin can't live forever. He's 72. Must be fearful of a coup, like all dictators. And how long before they could launch another bid (all while Ukraine is rearming and building more defences)? So I think a ceasefire could hold.
This is a really good article, except for the stupid nicknames for prominent people that are not liked. Can't you make your point without peurile schoolyard nicknames? For fuck's sake grow up. Your stuff is good without it.
Apropos Group 2b: I can see their motivation. Call it the Richelieu Option: tie up a geopolitical rival in a seemingly endless (thirty years then ;)) proxy war and support your proxy just enough that they can keep the rival's nose bloodied but not enough to force a victory.
Which leads me to a darker thought: which other geopolitical rival of the US benefits most? The longer and deeper Russia sinks into this quagmire, the more dependent it becomes on "West Taiwan" (heh). It might well become a de-facto client state of China.
And if the US cannot or will not broker a peace deal, and the Euros are too impotent to do so, they will turn to Beijing, which has repeatedly offered its services as an "honest broker" (about as honest as La Cicciolina was chaste). What if... some of the Beltway Bandits in Group 2b were actually in the tank for, or outright on the payroll of, "West Taiwan"?
That is not a cheery thought. Doesn't mean it isn't plausible. The Chicoms have previous in terms of trying to (maybe succeeding) influence Dem politicians. Hunter Biden, Swalwell & FangFang, Feinstein's driver...
Default explanation for the reasoning and strategic decision to put Biden in was as a PRC proxy. This model does not explain the weak campaign performance in 2024 (except that Biden 2020 was also weak), and except that case where nobody had effective control over Biden regime factions. PRC simping explains 2020 very well for the US, and Europe. Europe is working for China, and is intentionally being incompetent at understanding what they need to do about Russia is a model that explains right now, but it is simpler to assume that Europe does not understand Americans.
As a whole, none of the national establishments in Europe has ever given any real sign that they understand Americans well.
The French and the Germans obviously do not think that they would achieve great respect and mutual understanding if the French staff kept their plans to invade Germany up to date, and German staff likewise, and their armies held every two years joint exercises to test and refine invasion and defense doctrines. Would set off the paranoids both nations, and in other nations, because 'everyone' knows who hates whom, if the doctrine is fresh, and the armies are ready to go.
Americans do not 'know' that we are actually gonna to fight anyone, and this understanding takes time to penetrate our skulls. We personally have a great deal of luck when it comes to avoiding 'inevitable' fights by relocating. We think we might fight people, and that if other people are rational actors, they will respond to us being prepared by discarding plans for war that would be profitable if we were unready. Capability does not set off our paranoids as much, because we don't know what the fight will be, and because since the 1990s, it clearly has not been enough for the most expansive scenarios of the internal use cases.
Preparing for war is a great sport for us, and we probably tricked ourselves into thinking that the Soviets were a peer adversary, because it was more fun that way. Since the 1990s we have been looking into the question of who the next peer adversary is, and some of the answers are that the only credible possibility is internal.
The masking drastically exacerbated our own paranoid tendencies. Face channel is very important for us for smiling, which is "I have no plans to kill you at this time" for us. Paranoia stayed up, homicidal ideation seems to be up, and mental instability is up.
We don't know who our next fight will be, nor do we know who will have our backs in that fight. To us, the tea leaves of German energy policy might be that the Germans have Russia's back. Starmer seems to like Merz for some reason. But, if we are trying to logistically support our own troops in Ukraine, as well as Ukrainian allies, the Germans could screw us by shooting down our air logistics, or the UK could screw us by sinking some of our naval logistics.
If Euro leaders had enough demonstrated loyalty to their own populations not to be, say, PRC proxies who will flee to the PRC, then their own populations might be a safeguard against against them warring against us while we are trying to protect their populations.
American leaders during the cold war could commit to risky deployments, because they had internal credibility that is no longer present.
We also had evidence that we could interpret as assurance about the political reliability of our 'allies' in NATO. Internet means that the potential information channels are much much wider, but that means that the ordinary citizen can do their own collection, and as a lay analyst, wildly misread what the situations in various European nations mean about that nation. To Americans Vance's age, if they bother to understand that other countries exist, Tommy Robinson and AfD look a lot more sane and politically reliable than Starmer and the CDU/CSU.
There was always a deep gulf of mutually alien cultures, but we could hide that if we used proxies who were immersed in the alien culture, and that we still thought we could trust to represent our interest. The expedient political theory in Europe is that symbols can be stained forever, and are a free club against one's domestic opponents. The expedient political theory in the US is/was 'the parties switched places', which is very incompatible, and and breaks a bit when we apply 'stained forever'.
Trying to have the same speech codes in all of these countries was always going to result in a breakdown of relations. Invisible overseas, because they mostly don't have access to US conversations that are not public, and not surveiled. Rumor back channel is huge in America, and for understanding American choices. Thinking that everything we do is based only in academic and media discussions is basically going to really badly mispredict, and look like maybe totalitarianism.
Who else might think they would benefit from a quagmire in Ukraine?
The Davosie, to bleed an "uncooperative" Russia dry, and/or continue to disrupt brown-energy infrastructure in Ukraine, so their nations are more likely to buy into their Green New Bubble.
I have a simpler idea. Group 2B wants the war to go on because they are siphoning off large chunks of the aid being sent. Given what we've learned of other foreign aid programs in the past month, I find this to be a plausible explanation, if not the only one.
What I think I think. 1. Zelensky is now a dictator. When he refused elections, he became a dictator, and his only path to remain in power is to keep the war going. This is definitely a BAD thing, and not conducive to peace in the region.
2. The Ukrainians are killing Russians and destroying their stockpiles of equipment. Having grown up under the constant threat of being killed by Russians, I cannot see this as a bad thing. I wish them the absolute best in their war with Russia. I hope they win and win big.
3. The US is in big trouble financially, and I cannot see where borrowing money from China to give to Ukraine is in our best interests right now. If we need to support a war in Ukraine, then the Congress needs to ACT like it. Go on an austerity program that balances the budget, fixes domestic problems, and then give Ukraine money and/or weapons.
4. Zelensky appears to be an instrument of the Democratic Party. HE came to Washington so sign a deal and it appears on advice from Democratic Pols, HE blew it up.
5. I do not think Zelensky can recover from this. He managed to piss off those Republicans who were suppporting him. I think the Obama clique managed to convince him that he could affect the current power structure in the US. Zelensky should have realized that in the US, he is stuck for 2 more years with the exact structure we have, and probably for 4 years. I do not think he can survive 4 years without US aid, so the Ukraine may be sunk.
6. The Ukraine is not and has never been in our sphere of influence. Yeah, Putin is at mainly at fault, and I wish him the worst, but......RUSSIANs figure they bled and died for Crimea in the mid 1850s, and they are unlikely to back off on Black Sea access. HISTORICALLY, Sevastopol has been the Russians warm water port and Black Sea stronghold. They are likely to go nuclear if that becomes required to keep it so. SOMEBODY needs to be thinking about that.
7. It seems to me that this is a problem for Europe. Unfortunately, Europe has at least a 500 year history of screwing territorial disputes up to the point of Europe or World wide wars.
8. NO ONE in a position of power seems to be a student of history....and that is a dangerous situation. Worse,those who pretend to be, like Samantha Powers and John Bolton, are too bloody stupid to give advice to anyone.
You need better friends. Little z would not sign the minerals agreement during two opportunities when senior Trump administration representatives were in Europe. One excuse was that he needed to sleep in. Then z stopped in to see several Democrats before the minerals signatory meeting with the president last Friday. Little z followed their coaching and now here we are. Little of this reflects poorly on Vance and the president unless one is completely uninformed.
Re Ukraine starting the war. Actually the US did with its 2014 coup in Ukraine but it would be awkward for Trump to say that. That of course was just the last straw for the Russians after NATO moved East for about 1000km after promising Gorbachev that they wouldn't move one inch after German reunification. Why Bush 1 wanted those useless people in NATO is a mystery to me but I suppose that is hindsight.
Europe is an authoritarian mess from the Urals to Ireland. Russia is Russia and it has periodic flings at being a Great Power and it will again. As for the rest, The Free World is a dangerous fiction. JD is correct. We don't share values with them any more. This is way more important than anything that happens in Ukraine.
What is hard to understand about 2b? That consists of grifters using the Ukraine war as a means to siphon and launder money, and Western political operatives that use Ukraine to harm Trump/MAGA because they are an acute threat to their power base. These two groups have strong overlap. Neither has any interest in losing their revenue stream or influence; a forever-war is perfect for them.
You didn't address (consider?) whether Zelensky is a free actor and leader, or a figurehead largely controlled by non-Ukrainian interests. It's surely somewhere in between, but it's quite possible that the "bad advice" he got about how to deal with Trump was more in the nature of instructions he believed he could not refuse.
Interesting take and thank you for kindly referring to my own.
You are very welcome.
Very balanced and captured the 'Trumpian' and 'Semi-Trumpian' position well. As one of the latter who lives surrounded by the other side, I think you understate the corruption and classism driving the other side, but I think you covered that fairly.
I suspect, in my case, the suppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church weighs heavily into the equation.
I am quite confused about the various churches. There are multiples with similar names
I do know that in Russia the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is Putins close buddy and nicely corrupt. And I know that one off shoot of that church was active in Ukraine and not in a positive way
Yep. It's a mess. And like all churches of any faith, corruption is a problem. And as bad as it is overseas, the state of Orthodoxy in the US is worse.
Very good. New subscriber and still free so I was sort of testing the waters so to speak. The references to Phillips OB in the previous post made me suspicious (he's the only substack acct I've cancelled), but this post was very good.
I've moved slowly but surely towards the anti-war position (your position 1 - well stated). That said, however, I'd like to support Ukraine more than I do for a couple of reasons. The main one is that Ukraine has exposed Russia as a paper tiger. The arguments about Russia taking Ukraine and then and then and then... carry no weight for me anymore.
Secondly, Ukraine has fought the war so cleverly. The Ukrainian military has literally changed war fighting by their adept use of drones. The control of the Black Sea is because of drones invented by Ukraine. Most of the Russian Army, infantry and armor, is dying because of drones. Land, sea, in the air - warfare will not be the same. I know for a fact that militaries around the world have noticed (Taiwan and West Taiwan).
The idea that Russia will "just" use a cease fire to build up its military ignores the fact that the US and Western Europe could do the same. Western (and Ukrainian) hardware has shown itself to be superior to Russian. Western (and Ukrainian) military doctrine has shown itself to be superior to Russian. Sounds like a challenge.
Sorry, that went on a long time... anyway, thanks for this post. Looking forward to more.
Please read some of my earlier posts. I've been going on about drones for a while now
Thanks, I will.
Thanks for the insight. Best overview I've seen. However, I'm stuck on one thing. I keep wondering what the heck Zelensky thought was going on, and why he acted the way he did. He had to know there would be a negative response, public or private. It's not how the leader of a country at war convinces an ally to sustain or increase aid. I think I'm one of the few who think Ukraine can successfully push back the Russians and would have already if Biden had provided a few more tools. I am amazed at how the Ukrainians are destroying Russia's logistical network that turns out to be very brittle. As you point out, Ufa was hit hard last night. The rail lines are under constant attack. A million men at the front isn't worth much if they don't have guns and ammunition. Zelensky really, really screwed up.
I am another who thinks Ukraine could have already won.
I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist but I do find myself wondering if the Bidenites actually want Ukraine to remain a quagmire. Both from their slow-walking of supplies in the past and now the report that Zelenskyy met with Dems just before his WH disaster. Did they prime him to blow it?
Thanks for the response.
As time passes, it looks to me more and more like a deliberate attempt to discredit Trump. This is my conspiracy theory: Rice/Blinken/Nuland told Zelensky to ask for the meeting, lead Rubio and Vance to believe a deal would be agreed to and then act out in public. They probably advised Zelensky this would get more US aid. EU leaders and Starmer were already waiting to receive Zelensky for another round of pr/photo ops to make everyone in Europe look good, and Trump the fool by comparison. Timing is everything and leads to the idea that all this was pre-planned. So far so good, but in the days that have passed, Trump support has not wavered, and many neutral Americans have begun to get background on the full blow up, and some opinion there is shifting towards Trump or at least against the war. Ukraine will hit the wall when the EU support via Russian assets runs out -- and it will very quickly. The darkest part of my theory is that people like Rice et al or whoever are willing to allow the slaughter of young Ukrainians, as well as Russians and ethnic minority Russians to go on in order to provide a bad day for Trump. I think I'm becoming an old school isolationist.
You did an excellent job defining/describing the Jacksonian camp, which, as camps go is the one I'm closest to.
I would place them closer to your group three rather than the there is no Trump but Trump and Elon is his prophet group.
& yes in this ongoing war issue we're on opposite sides of the fence. I'm all for ending it now, right now.
Having said that I'd much rather read opinions such as yours and discuss the issue with you than preach back and forth to a chorus. One can by debating clarify opinions, thoughts, sometimes even change them. However just hanging with those singing from the same hymnal more often than not ossifies rather than clarifies.
Excellent essay!
The problem with ending it right now is that it kicks the can down the road until Putin or a successor tries to have another go. Moscow has consistent form in this matter going back centuries and that needs to be stomped on
Going back centuries also is Russia being invaded from the West. Every country in NATO except Iceland has participated in at least one invasion of Russia.
Not worth updating the post - https://substack.com/@francisturner/note/c-97796523?
I've mispent some reading and writing time on this, too close to bed time to boot.
Short version, LARPing vietnam. Afghanistan withdrawal and this were probably desperate cargo cult attempts to neutralize the uniformed armed services.
Pelosi still has power, grew up well connected inside the Democrats. I don't know of connections to Tip O'Neal, etc., but may simply be lack of study on my part. Post vietnam, by all accounts, US army was dysfunctional for a bit.
I think you underestimate degree to which these people simply have a narrow and sparse world that they try to think and feel within. And are now insane by their previous standards.
Related elements of ranting included a) ACW b) American oral history c) domestic threat modeling. Also, the usual pattern of a spree shooting, and a push for Americans to give up their guns, and the subsequent stuff. As well as big city pro rioters and the hinterlands.
Further afield, MAGA is a hypothesis about internal and trust, not so much the external threat model. Most Americans are not the autistic paranoids who constantly fix on conventional warfare match ups. They do have a bunch of people acting as proxies, and opinions on how much they trust.
Way off topic, the additional factions that flipped to Trump last year are both a hazard and a safeguard. They have a bunch of different asks, so it might be hard to satisfy all of them.
I'm in group 3.
This is what I wrote on Friday evening,
I thought Zelensky was a hero. Still do. The whole thing is deeply depressing. I could weep. My maternal grandmother was Ukrainian. I think Putin is a murderous leader and a terrifying neighbour. Ask Georgia, or Moldova. I wish Russia would be driven out of Ukraine. But what was Zelensky thinking? Why wasn't he prepared? This should just have been a show up, thank you for all your help, sign, smile and shake hands moment (see Starmer for how it should be done). That's what was expected. That's why there were 2 podiums ready. Zelensky was not prepared. If he didn't like the deal, he shouldn't have gone. You're polite, when you're seeking - needing - a deal. Zelensky wasn't. I hope Starmer talks him round.
But I disagree with the 'no point in a ceasefire deal with Putin. He'll break it.'
It's cost Russia too much to get this far. If there was to be a next time, they'd have to spend a ton more money, be prepared for tons more Russians to die and I don't think that can be done. Look back at Finland. Unprovoked aggression against Finland. Thought Finns would fold. Eventually a deal. Had to give up some territory, but Russia didn't go back for more. I think same here. Ukraine would be very prepared for a second time and I don't think Putin would try.
Actually the Russians did go back against Finland. There was the Winter War where the Finns kicked their butts and then there was the continuation war where the Finns, allied with the Nazis, sorta kinda held their own.
But yeah I don't think Russia will break ceasefire for a while because they have to rebuild their economy and rearm
Yes, I was thinking of the Winter War. But even at the end of WW2, Russia didn't seek more territory from the Finns. And, going forward, it'll be so hard to get another invasion going. So many young Russian men have been killed or maimed. Russian women don't want to see their menfolk killedAfghanistan was a significant factor in the collapse (hurray!) of the Soviet Union. Also, Putin can't live forever. He's 72. Must be fearful of a coup, like all dictators. And how long before they could launch another bid (all while Ukraine is rearming and building more defences)? So I think a ceasefire could hold.
Actually, Russia won the Winter War after setbacks in the opening months.
This is a really good article, except for the stupid nicknames for prominent people that are not liked. Can't you make your point without peurile schoolyard nicknames? For fuck's sake grow up. Your stuff is good without it.
Apropos Group 2b: I can see their motivation. Call it the Richelieu Option: tie up a geopolitical rival in a seemingly endless (thirty years then ;)) proxy war and support your proxy just enough that they can keep the rival's nose bloodied but not enough to force a victory.
Which leads me to a darker thought: which other geopolitical rival of the US benefits most? The longer and deeper Russia sinks into this quagmire, the more dependent it becomes on "West Taiwan" (heh). It might well become a de-facto client state of China.
And if the US cannot or will not broker a peace deal, and the Euros are too impotent to do so, they will turn to Beijing, which has repeatedly offered its services as an "honest broker" (about as honest as La Cicciolina was chaste). What if... some of the Beltway Bandits in Group 2b were actually in the tank for, or outright on the payroll of, "West Taiwan"?
That is not a cheery thought. Doesn't mean it isn't plausible. The Chicoms have previous in terms of trying to (maybe succeeding) influence Dem politicians. Hunter Biden, Swalwell & FangFang, Feinstein's driver...
Default explanation for the reasoning and strategic decision to put Biden in was as a PRC proxy. This model does not explain the weak campaign performance in 2024 (except that Biden 2020 was also weak), and except that case where nobody had effective control over Biden regime factions. PRC simping explains 2020 very well for the US, and Europe. Europe is working for China, and is intentionally being incompetent at understanding what they need to do about Russia is a model that explains right now, but it is simpler to assume that Europe does not understand Americans.
As a whole, none of the national establishments in Europe has ever given any real sign that they understand Americans well.
The French and the Germans obviously do not think that they would achieve great respect and mutual understanding if the French staff kept their plans to invade Germany up to date, and German staff likewise, and their armies held every two years joint exercises to test and refine invasion and defense doctrines. Would set off the paranoids both nations, and in other nations, because 'everyone' knows who hates whom, if the doctrine is fresh, and the armies are ready to go.
Americans do not 'know' that we are actually gonna to fight anyone, and this understanding takes time to penetrate our skulls. We personally have a great deal of luck when it comes to avoiding 'inevitable' fights by relocating. We think we might fight people, and that if other people are rational actors, they will respond to us being prepared by discarding plans for war that would be profitable if we were unready. Capability does not set off our paranoids as much, because we don't know what the fight will be, and because since the 1990s, it clearly has not been enough for the most expansive scenarios of the internal use cases.
Preparing for war is a great sport for us, and we probably tricked ourselves into thinking that the Soviets were a peer adversary, because it was more fun that way. Since the 1990s we have been looking into the question of who the next peer adversary is, and some of the answers are that the only credible possibility is internal.
The masking drastically exacerbated our own paranoid tendencies. Face channel is very important for us for smiling, which is "I have no plans to kill you at this time" for us. Paranoia stayed up, homicidal ideation seems to be up, and mental instability is up.
We don't know who our next fight will be, nor do we know who will have our backs in that fight. To us, the tea leaves of German energy policy might be that the Germans have Russia's back. Starmer seems to like Merz for some reason. But, if we are trying to logistically support our own troops in Ukraine, as well as Ukrainian allies, the Germans could screw us by shooting down our air logistics, or the UK could screw us by sinking some of our naval logistics.
If Euro leaders had enough demonstrated loyalty to their own populations not to be, say, PRC proxies who will flee to the PRC, then their own populations might be a safeguard against against them warring against us while we are trying to protect their populations.
American leaders during the cold war could commit to risky deployments, because they had internal credibility that is no longer present.
We also had evidence that we could interpret as assurance about the political reliability of our 'allies' in NATO. Internet means that the potential information channels are much much wider, but that means that the ordinary citizen can do their own collection, and as a lay analyst, wildly misread what the situations in various European nations mean about that nation. To Americans Vance's age, if they bother to understand that other countries exist, Tommy Robinson and AfD look a lot more sane and politically reliable than Starmer and the CDU/CSU.
There was always a deep gulf of mutually alien cultures, but we could hide that if we used proxies who were immersed in the alien culture, and that we still thought we could trust to represent our interest. The expedient political theory in Europe is that symbols can be stained forever, and are a free club against one's domestic opponents. The expedient political theory in the US is/was 'the parties switched places', which is very incompatible, and and breaks a bit when we apply 'stained forever'.
Trying to have the same speech codes in all of these countries was always going to result in a breakdown of relations. Invisible overseas, because they mostly don't have access to US conversations that are not public, and not surveiled. Rumor back channel is huge in America, and for understanding American choices. Thinking that everything we do is based only in academic and media discussions is basically going to really badly mispredict, and look like maybe totalitarianism.
Who else might think they would benefit from a quagmire in Ukraine?
The Davosie, to bleed an "uncooperative" Russia dry, and/or continue to disrupt brown-energy infrastructure in Ukraine, so their nations are more likely to buy into their Green New Bubble.
I have a simpler idea. Group 2B wants the war to go on because they are siphoning off large chunks of the aid being sent. Given what we've learned of other foreign aid programs in the past month, I find this to be a plausible explanation, if not the only one.
What I think I think. 1. Zelensky is now a dictator. When he refused elections, he became a dictator, and his only path to remain in power is to keep the war going. This is definitely a BAD thing, and not conducive to peace in the region.
2. The Ukrainians are killing Russians and destroying their stockpiles of equipment. Having grown up under the constant threat of being killed by Russians, I cannot see this as a bad thing. I wish them the absolute best in their war with Russia. I hope they win and win big.
3. The US is in big trouble financially, and I cannot see where borrowing money from China to give to Ukraine is in our best interests right now. If we need to support a war in Ukraine, then the Congress needs to ACT like it. Go on an austerity program that balances the budget, fixes domestic problems, and then give Ukraine money and/or weapons.
4. Zelensky appears to be an instrument of the Democratic Party. HE came to Washington so sign a deal and it appears on advice from Democratic Pols, HE blew it up.
5. I do not think Zelensky can recover from this. He managed to piss off those Republicans who were suppporting him. I think the Obama clique managed to convince him that he could affect the current power structure in the US. Zelensky should have realized that in the US, he is stuck for 2 more years with the exact structure we have, and probably for 4 years. I do not think he can survive 4 years without US aid, so the Ukraine may be sunk.
6. The Ukraine is not and has never been in our sphere of influence. Yeah, Putin is at mainly at fault, and I wish him the worst, but......RUSSIANs figure they bled and died for Crimea in the mid 1850s, and they are unlikely to back off on Black Sea access. HISTORICALLY, Sevastopol has been the Russians warm water port and Black Sea stronghold. They are likely to go nuclear if that becomes required to keep it so. SOMEBODY needs to be thinking about that.
7. It seems to me that this is a problem for Europe. Unfortunately, Europe has at least a 500 year history of screwing territorial disputes up to the point of Europe or World wide wars.
8. NO ONE in a position of power seems to be a student of history....and that is a dangerous situation. Worse,those who pretend to be, like Samantha Powers and John Bolton, are too bloody stupid to give advice to anyone.
You need better friends. Little z would not sign the minerals agreement during two opportunities when senior Trump administration representatives were in Europe. One excuse was that he needed to sleep in. Then z stopped in to see several Democrats before the minerals signatory meeting with the president last Friday. Little z followed their coaching and now here we are. Little of this reflects poorly on Vance and the president unless one is completely uninformed.
Re Ukraine starting the war. Actually the US did with its 2014 coup in Ukraine but it would be awkward for Trump to say that. That of course was just the last straw for the Russians after NATO moved East for about 1000km after promising Gorbachev that they wouldn't move one inch after German reunification. Why Bush 1 wanted those useless people in NATO is a mystery to me but I suppose that is hindsight.
Europe is an authoritarian mess from the Urals to Ireland. Russia is Russia and it has periodic flings at being a Great Power and it will again. As for the rest, The Free World is a dangerous fiction. JD is correct. We don't share values with them any more. This is way more important than anything that happens in Ukraine.
What is hard to understand about 2b? That consists of grifters using the Ukraine war as a means to siphon and launder money, and Western political operatives that use Ukraine to harm Trump/MAGA because they are an acute threat to their power base. These two groups have strong overlap. Neither has any interest in losing their revenue stream or influence; a forever-war is perfect for them.
You didn't address (consider?) whether Zelensky is a free actor and leader, or a figurehead largely controlled by non-Ukrainian interests. It's surely somewhere in between, but it's quite possible that the "bad advice" he got about how to deal with Trump was more in the nature of instructions he believed he could not refuse.