lets not forget him in all the scrum about the bum that the Secret Service let slip through their fingers

also Max Boot’s wife, has been charged for lobbying violations on behalf of South Korea,

I don’t see where it obligates the US to do anything but engage with the Security Council to provide aid should Ukraine be attacked.

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/failed-chicago-mayor-brandon-johnson-backs-down-plans/

One doesn’t have to be “Pro-Russia” or “Anti-Ukraine” to believe that Biden’s quixotic (at best) policy of arming Ukraine just prolongs war at great human cost, without changing the inevitable result, and that a negotiated solution is the best approach.

For the sake of the argument Jimmy, I’ll agree with you that one doesn’t have to be “Pro-Russia” or “Anti-Ukraine” to believe those things. I do, however, think one has to be rather gullible or naive.

Let’s walk through this.

Firstly: “Inevitable Result.” There are basically no inevitable results, and certainly not in this conflict. The Russian military is not and never has been an all-consuming juggernaut. Indeed, the closest the Russian military was to that was in 2022 – when it was fattened by both long term, experienced troops and auxiliaries as well as the new intakes of conscripts with the chance to “bloody” them productively in places like Georgia and Syria. And that military isn’t coming again, it got torn up in the abortive escalade on Kyiv and in the trenches in places like Bakhmut and Kherson.

We’ve seen serious losses and political instability force Russia to retreat from this battle space (and indeed, in many cases this EXACT battle space, such as a bunch of tactical drubbings the Poles and Lithuanians gave them in the mid 1600s and the Poles and Ukrainians gave them in 1919-1920). The Kremlin is obsessed with trying to play up the idea that its victory over Ukraine is militarily inevitable, but that simply isn’t the case.

B: Correspondingly, even if I bought the idea that the result was “inevitable”, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’d believe that the US’s interests were best served by a quick end to the war since that might encourage the Kremlin to try something else and double down on its ties with Iran and the PRC. In particular I don’t see a real benefit to the US (beyond minimizing the risk of the Left using emergency measures against us, but that’s more of a domestic problem) in rolling up the war before the rest of the Russian Black Sea Fleet goes the way of the Moskva, precisely so that the Kremlin can’t easily do nonsense like threaten to starve much of the Middle East by mining around the Hellespont or intercepting food shipments. In particular w-e need to remember the Kremlin’s war hawks have blathered A LOT about widening the war into Transnistria/Moldova, and Poland. That’s unacceptable and in the case of the latter would result in a world war. So I’d much rather them run out of steam in Ukraine and be forced to admit it than not.

Secondly: “Negotiated Settlement.”

Ok Jimmy, the floor is yours. WHAT KIND of Negotiated Settlement should be offered to the Kremlin in reward for violating their previous negotiated settlements at Budapest, Astana, and Minsk (Twice Over)?

A: How do we force the Kremlin to keep its word this time?

B: Is the negotiated settlement you propose something the Kremlin is ACTUALLY WILLING TO ACCEPT? Considering how Putin has repeatedly demanded maximalist conditions such as Ukrainian withdrawal from the contested areas and a pledge to not join NATO in exchange for *MERELY STARTED NEGOTIATIONS*?

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/why-putin-remains-uninterested-meaningful-negotiations-ukraine

C: This ignores an important factor. The Ukrainian factor. What the Ukrainians wish to do. What people tending to cite the cost of war forget is that frankly the war is more popular among the Ukrainian electorate than any one politician or political party, and especially after 2022 Dovish sentiment has dropped off a cliff. They don’t trust Putin or any Russian regime likely to succeed him to honor their terms (and I can’t blame them, given what I’ve seen in this space), they justifiably fear the plight of their people under the Kremlin’s occupation (complete with theft, mass “struggle snuggles”, ‘executions, and so on) and fear a resumption of the conflict will hit them next when they are even less equipped to fight this out.

I think Vance goes further and says it’s Europe’s problem, not ours, but it amounts to the same thing.

IF that were true, I would majorly disagree with Vance on this issue, even while supporting Trump or would respect Vance’s other stances (and gifts, like BTFOing leftists in debate or ambush interviews) willingness to change his previous views like with Trump. Admittedly part of this is being a loyalist Neo-Con who didn’t abandon the party or Trump when the likes of Kristol did, but it also comes down to having worked a modest amount in former Soviet space.

And the idea that it is Europe’s problem but not ours goes out the window when you read the Budapest Memorandum (where we and the Brits joined with the Russians to expressly protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for denuclearization) and Minsk I and II.

And even if we hadn’t, I fail to see how the US would benefit from allowing Putin’s thugs and Kadyrov’s Diet IS to expand their influence and possibly start new wars while we are dealing with our problems here.

Yep, the Russian way of warfare is to keep tossing soldiers (and probably poorly trained as well) into the meat grinder.

Among other things.

Putin is not deterred by the magnitude of Russian casualties; he will just keep sending more and more until Ukraine runs out of soldiers.

There are a couple problems with this.

Firstly: We have clear indications that he obviously IS being deterred by the magnitude of Russian casualties, as shown by his desire to continue “clandestine mobilization”, refusing an open declaration of war (That would let him send non-Contractniki Conscripts to Ukraine), and his desire to “offshore” a lot of casualties onto North Korean and Venezuelan and Syrian “volunteers.”

Secondly: The blunt fact is that he can’t send “more and more” when there aren’t “more and more” to send. The Russian military had probably the best conventional military it is going to have when it openly went in in 2022, and that got torn up due to the problems in the campaign. We’ve seen units from as far afield as Kamchatka and the White Sea being thrown into the meat grinder and getting torn up. That’s not just legacy equipment, but also relatively trained and high quality troops (especially by Russian standards). This is particularly jarring in the Navy with losses like the landing ships and the Moskva, because they flat out are not going to be able to produce those kinds of ships again.

That doesn’t mean Ukraine isn’t in a manpower crunch (it clearly is) or that Russia will inevitably lose, but the idea that Russia has an infinite amount of soldiers to throw at problems is and always has been a myth.

Incorrect. He will keep sending more and more until Russia runs out of tanks.

I was reminded of the quote: “There are decades when nothing happens, and weeks when decades happen.” I wondered who said it. It turns out it was Lenin, but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?536895-1/republican-national-convention-day-1-afternoon-session

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzoZwoU_RY

This aligns with what forms his policies. The head of the Teamsters pointed out that Vance helped the union with several issues affecting his union. He worked with Warren on issues with interest rates.

Vance takes his “common man” theme very seriously. Circumstances (and Trump’s coalition) have moved the Republican party to representing the interests of the working man/woman and Vance is there to represent them.

The populism of the new Republicans puts the party at odds with Wall St in some instances, but we have experienced the limitations of “free trade” butting up against strategic needs. It’s up to the Trump administration to figure out where the limits should be.

Listen to Vance would be the best way to form your own opinion on the nominee.