I made the following comment on the Willy OAM channel earlier today. Thought I better share here also.
“It is not clear to me that either side has the military might to achieve some of the goals absolutely set.” I’m thinking that this is the nutshell quote from Willy’s presentation today. It’s a waffly enough statement in that it does not specify a goal but allows us imagine goals nevertheless “absolutely set.” Let’s say for argument’s sake that the absolutely set goal of the Russian regime is to keep Donbass, Crimea and the Mariupol coastline, and to keep whatever remains of Ukraine out of NATO. If that’s the Russians’ goal, I think most observers will now concede that indeed the Russians have the necessary military might to achieve it, and then some. As for Zelensky’s absolutely set goals, let’s take a two-choice look. First let’s say (idle argument, don’t get upset) that his absolutely set goal is to stay alive and have himself and his friends leave this whole mess in a comfortable level of material luxury. Yes, the Ukrainians have the military might (assuming more ‘western’ support) to give him that. At great sacrifice, but OK, yes, they can give the gift of golden parachute. If for the sake of argument, we say that the absolutely set Ukrainian goal is to take back and keep the coal fields, then only maybe and just barely do the Ukrainians have enough military might, even counting on foreign help. Sadly, much of the conditioning in the current western argument (as Willy honestly presents it — maybe the New York times correctly reports current thinking, I dunno) has the war continuing indefinitely so as to kill as many Russians and destroy as much of Russia as it can until the Russians cry uncle, or an immense and beneficent (and crazy violent) black swan (that looks a lot like the Burninator) sweeps in to decimate the Russian Army; or global warming strikes hard to kill the Russian bear as it did the polar. Or something. It is a classic strategy of hope, a strategy that hopes for the death of another nation, or at least the deaths of tens of thousands of another peoples’ young men. Odd hope, that. It is not without historical precedent. Willy correctly presents the notion of protraction. One side, feeling itself in a position of relative weakness, might protract a war’s duration waiting for better conditions. Including it is a Maoist thought – trading territory and time in a deliberate long-march retreat until the balance of strength changes. It’s not impossible. Let’s let the future be unburdened by what has been. I, for one would be willing to bet another persons’ money on it. If betting with my own money, however, I’d say the Russians are not just attriting, they are dominating, pushing and taking. My bet is that the Russians do have and will have enough military might to eliminate the future existence of a Ukraine. Those marxists will indeed have unburdened us from the past. Let’s keep in mind before we go on hopefully wanting to kill as many Russians as possible, that Ukraine was never part of NATO, it was never essential to US security, the regime there is neither of a higher moral caliber nor political legitimacy than is the regime in Moscow. The United States government has in the past and should have sought alliance with that bear against a greater threat. What the Ukraine war needs is — ended — sooner than later.