While the Western response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine was clear from the start, the objective has been nebulous. After over a year of fighting, the likely direction of this war is coming into focus.
I think the context here is that there are rifts forming in US government now. There is the neocon camp that wants to keep escalating, and there’s the realist camp who say that this has gone as far as it can go. The realists are putting this stuff out so they can point to it later when the war is shown to be a debacle and use it for political leverage against the neocons.
Perhaps a bit individualist of me, but I do feel there are many that have turned this into a pet project. Especially Biden and Blinken, their careers now live or die by at least stretching the conflict and maintaining its intensity.
They have no choice, to backdown now would be to admit to the warhawk faction they are totally incapable. It’ll be Afghanistan pullout 2.0 but 10x politically devastating. The Republicans would riot.
I definitely agree, a lot of prominent politicians in the west have effectively staked their political careers on the success of the war. This makes it impossible for them to look for any sort of compromise. The concerning part here is that it could easily lead to NATO boots on the ground, and we’re already seeing article being published calling for that. That would basically mean WW3.
The future is bleak. I definetly see the pathway to formal NATO intervention, but that would destroy any ability make the eastern pivot.
The escalation is far from over, with f16s and God knows what else on the way, but it seems the US is trying to pivot while maintaining face, and thus soft power. I expect the conflict will eventually be “frozen”, atleast until Russian stockpiles are ready for a proper offensive.
Unfortunately I am more concerned about the political consequences of doing such. WWIII may happen or not, but it’s almost a certainty that facist and facist adjacent types will benefit greatly in the coming elections.
Le Pen is basically a shoe in at this point, Macron has so thoroughly burned through electoral trust. Of course Meloni already won, and undoubtedly will be strengthened. Trump is very likely to return to the Whitehouse, and how he handles the situation is unclear. It’ll be interesting to see how the Torries fair in a general since Labour isn’t doing too well either. AFD is still on the rise, even in South America many bourgeois are reacting to the economic fallout by couping soc dems like Castillo. Freaking we might see another Fujimori facist leading Peru again.
It feels like the 1930s all over again. Facist rise as liberals dogmatically enforce the very capitalism that creates facism. Whether WWIII arrives from facism, I am not sure.
There are definitely a lot of really horrific scenarios that open up if the west keeps escalating. I don’t think stuff like f16s is going to really make much of a difference though. The real escalation would be NATO countries getting directly involved. In particular, there’s been talk of making a coalition with Poland and some Baltic countries that would be outside of NATO. However, once they’re in trouble then there will be a lot of pressure for the rest of NATO to get involved.
On the other hand, there is continued discontent with the way the war is going in the west, and the economic situation in western countries continues to unravel. So, the west may be forced to pull out in the end. I imagine that democrats will not want to have the war hanging over them during the election, so they may decide that whatever political damage they suffer is best to absorb now.
Also agree that we may see a lot of regime change happening in Europe. Anti war parties are gaining popularity in a lot of countries, and as recession deepens support for current regimes will wither.
I certainly can’t see Russia agreeing to any sort of a freeze though. That would simply allow NATO to rearm Ukraine and effectively brings things back to where they were before the war. Now that Russia has committed itself to the war, they will see it through to the end.
The best case scenario is likely for the west to implode economically so that the rest of the world can move on.
For the US at this point, though, the war is still in the “let’s tint our profile pictures” phase. There is little direct human exposure, and the military consequences basically amount to queuing up future orders for defence contractors.
One thing that’s been learned from Viet Nam/Iraq/Afghanistan is that it’s a lot less politically toxic to not get to a state where you’re shipping home your own in pine boxes. So the “supply and bankroll from a distance” model can sort of work, at least as a cute little cause to stand behind, as long as Ukranians and willing volunteers from abroad are willing to do the actual dying.
There’s also the other side of the coin-- as much as Russia is cast as the aggressor, why isn’t the Ukranian leadership also culpable for not looking for the fastest deal to end hostilities? Having the Overpromoted Comedian going on world tours and insisting he’ll never give up a square centimetre of land is hardly an open invitation to a negotiation table. At some point, does he cease to be “heroic” and instead become “obstinate” and a net cause of more suffering for his countrymen?
I think there is already a severe economic impact in US, but people aren’t linking it to the war yet. It’s very likely US will be in a recession next year, and that’s when people are going to start getting more rowdy I expect.
Given that the fabled offensive is looking like a complete disaster, it’s not clear what the plan in the west is going to be. I expect things will continue to get worse for Ukraine militarily, an the west is now out of supplies to give. Meanwhile, the economic situation is turning against the west as well.
I think the context here is that there are rifts forming in US government now. There is the neocon camp that wants to keep escalating, and there’s the realist camp who say that this has gone as far as it can go. The realists are putting this stuff out so they can point to it later when the war is shown to be a debacle and use it for political leverage against the neocons.
Perhaps a bit individualist of me, but I do feel there are many that have turned this into a pet project. Especially Biden and Blinken, their careers now live or die by at least stretching the conflict and maintaining its intensity.
They have no choice, to backdown now would be to admit to the warhawk faction they are totally incapable. It’ll be Afghanistan pullout 2.0 but 10x politically devastating. The Republicans would riot.
I definitely agree, a lot of prominent politicians in the west have effectively staked their political careers on the success of the war. This makes it impossible for them to look for any sort of compromise. The concerning part here is that it could easily lead to NATO boots on the ground, and we’re already seeing article being published calling for that. That would basically mean WW3.
The future is bleak. I definetly see the pathway to formal NATO intervention, but that would destroy any ability make the eastern pivot.
The escalation is far from over, with f16s and God knows what else on the way, but it seems the US is trying to pivot while maintaining face, and thus soft power. I expect the conflict will eventually be “frozen”, atleast until Russian stockpiles are ready for a proper offensive.
Unfortunately I am more concerned about the political consequences of doing such. WWIII may happen or not, but it’s almost a certainty that facist and facist adjacent types will benefit greatly in the coming elections.
Le Pen is basically a shoe in at this point, Macron has so thoroughly burned through electoral trust. Of course Meloni already won, and undoubtedly will be strengthened. Trump is very likely to return to the Whitehouse, and how he handles the situation is unclear. It’ll be interesting to see how the Torries fair in a general since Labour isn’t doing too well either. AFD is still on the rise, even in South America many bourgeois are reacting to the economic fallout by couping soc dems like Castillo. Freaking we might see another Fujimori facist leading Peru again.
It feels like the 1930s all over again. Facist rise as liberals dogmatically enforce the very capitalism that creates facism. Whether WWIII arrives from facism, I am not sure.
There are definitely a lot of really horrific scenarios that open up if the west keeps escalating. I don’t think stuff like f16s is going to really make much of a difference though. The real escalation would be NATO countries getting directly involved. In particular, there’s been talk of making a coalition with Poland and some Baltic countries that would be outside of NATO. However, once they’re in trouble then there will be a lot of pressure for the rest of NATO to get involved.
On the other hand, there is continued discontent with the way the war is going in the west, and the economic situation in western countries continues to unravel. So, the west may be forced to pull out in the end. I imagine that democrats will not want to have the war hanging over them during the election, so they may decide that whatever political damage they suffer is best to absorb now.
Also agree that we may see a lot of regime change happening in Europe. Anti war parties are gaining popularity in a lot of countries, and as recession deepens support for current regimes will wither.
I certainly can’t see Russia agreeing to any sort of a freeze though. That would simply allow NATO to rearm Ukraine and effectively brings things back to where they were before the war. Now that Russia has committed itself to the war, they will see it through to the end.
The best case scenario is likely for the west to implode economically so that the rest of the world can move on.
For the US at this point, though, the war is still in the “let’s tint our profile pictures” phase. There is little direct human exposure, and the military consequences basically amount to queuing up future orders for defence contractors.
One thing that’s been learned from Viet Nam/Iraq/Afghanistan is that it’s a lot less politically toxic to not get to a state where you’re shipping home your own in pine boxes. So the “supply and bankroll from a distance” model can sort of work, at least as a cute little cause to stand behind, as long as Ukranians and willing volunteers from abroad are willing to do the actual dying.
There’s also the other side of the coin-- as much as Russia is cast as the aggressor, why isn’t the Ukranian leadership also culpable for not looking for the fastest deal to end hostilities? Having the Overpromoted Comedian going on world tours and insisting he’ll never give up a square centimetre of land is hardly an open invitation to a negotiation table. At some point, does he cease to be “heroic” and instead become “obstinate” and a net cause of more suffering for his countrymen?
I think there is already a severe economic impact in US, but people aren’t linking it to the war yet. It’s very likely US will be in a recession next year, and that’s when people are going to start getting more rowdy I expect.
Given that the fabled offensive is looking like a complete disaster, it’s not clear what the plan in the west is going to be. I expect things will continue to get worse for Ukraine militarily, an the west is now out of supplies to give. Meanwhile, the economic situation is turning against the west as well.
I think the neocon camp is the war with China camp
Oh yeah, that’s always been the end game for them.
Blinken, Sullivan, and Nuland are 100% card carrying neocons. The Neocons who crafted the Iraq invasion are in the Democrat camp now.
Both the Realists and Neocons are anti-China. The Realists are the ones that took down the USSR and think the Neocons are blowing it.