On COI #298, Kyle Anzalone discusses the White House’s commitment to Ukraine’s military ambitions but ignores realities that demand diplomacy.
Subscribe on YouTube and audio-only.
5 thoughts on “Conflicts of Interest: Why the White House Focuses on Weapons Transfers & Ignores Diplomacy”
Comments are closed.
Diplomacy is no longer possible. That ship has sailed back in January when the US ignored Russia’s treaty proposals. The only thing Ukraine can do now is surrender to Russian terms. – which, since the US and UK will not allow it, is also not possible. So Ukraine’s military will be destroyed, its government overthrown. End of story. The only question remaining is will NATO go to war with Russia and be destroyed. NATO can not win against Russia, so then the question becomes do we go to nuclear war and everyone loses. Given the morons in charge in the US and the EU anything is possible.
Wether NATO would loose depends on where they fight, in an offensive land war in Europe it would be a rerun of Barbarossa ’41. Early successes and then stalling as Russia adapts. Since NATO doctrine follows the “Shock & Awe” approach i.e. destroy everything from the air. Since Russia is a lot larger than Iraq, Afghanistan, or Serbia I am not sure wether NATO has enough material to keep up a sustained Air Campaign over the whole country since Russia would probably adopt a ‘Flying Circus’ Strategy similar to Germany in 1917 achieving regional Air superiority and causing NATO painful losses.
Wether NATO would loose depends on where they fight, in an offensive land war in Europe it would be a rerun of Barbarossa ’41. Early successes and then stalling as Russia adapts. Since NATO doctrine follows the “Shock & Awe” approach i.e. destroy everything from the air. Since Russia is a lot larger than Iraq, Afghanistan, or Serbia I am not sure wether NATO has enough material to keep up a sustained Air Campaign over the whole country since Russia would probably adopt a ‘Flying Circus’ Strategy similar to Germany in 1917 achieving regional Air superiority and causing NATO painful losses.
Nope. NATO wouldn’t even get off the ground. Russia would destroy most of NATO’s airfields, aircraft on the ground, jet fuel depots, rail lines, not to mention Brussels HQ and most of the decision centers in Europe. Hypersonic and high supersonic missiles change the game completely. Also NATO and the US have never gone up against a dense layered air defense system like Russia has.
This isn’t WWII and it won’t be fought that way. Thirty NATO war games establish that even given the initial advantage NATO loses to Russia every time.