Buying Russian oil gives who hard currency? Buying Russian natural gas gave who leverage over European response to Russian foreign adventurism?

The populists will sell Russia the rope that that will hang them. Self interest is sometimes short sighted.

What did the Gods of the Copybook Headings say about the Gods of the Market?

Indeed it is likely that staying put in an entrenched position long enough for the drone operators to find you isn’t a good survival strategy in Ukraine.

If it’s the, ahem, “news” section of the WSJ it has been as wretched as the NYT and WaPoo for a long time now. Absolutely biased and worthless. It’s coverage of Gaza is close to unfiltered Hamas propaganda, replete with unchallenged quotes from the “Gaza Health Ministry”. And similar bias oozing from the headlines on anything having to do with the Trump administration. The opinion section is better but far from perfect. The main thing keeping me subscribing now may be the Saturday number puzzles …

No, what I quoted was not “fake news.” Vance did in fact say that the WSJ had “twisted” his words in the interview. I believe he was talking about the indendiary headline, which I didn’t quote. The WSJ did interview him and they apparently posted the transcript, and the part I quoted was not twisted and there was nothinig fake about it.

The transcript of the relevant portion:

Q: Is there a sense as to what is the stick for Putin? I mean, obviously any kind of deal would have to entail an implicit threat that you have to stick to this or else you have to even sign on the dotted line. Is there any pressure that you’re thinking of?

Vice President Vance: I think certainly look there, there are instruments of pressure, absolutely and again, if you look at President Trump’s approach to this, the range of options is extremely broad, and there are economic tools of leverage. There, of course, military tools of leverage. There’s a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think the President wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with Zelensky.

Q: So just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You’re saying that even though the possibility of an Ukraine NATO accession at the end of this process, or even the presence of U.S. troops in Ukraine is not officially off the table?

Vice President Vance: I think the President has been very clear that he doesn’t like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO. He’s been very clear about that. I also think the President is very clear that whenever he walks in a negotiation, everything is on the table.

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

IIRC the Tsar’s army fell apart in 1917 too. Trench warfare reliant on infantry has its risks to nations.

Infantry warfare is old, but so is maneuver warfare – military campaigns date back to those of Alexander the Great, and probably even earlier.

Russia is unable to get infantry, tanks, helicopters, basic communication, air force, etc to work in unison—together.

There may be modern terms for a newer version of maneuver, but the concept seems to be the same.

mkent – linked to at beginning of the post did a most excellent job of how certain sanctions have helped cause/force Russia into WWI trench fighting…

The only way to avoid paying that high price is to not fight at all. But if you’re going to fight, you’re going to have fight, mainly, with infantry.

No 3D chess needed. It ain’t rocket surgery.