Ukraine….what’s our endgame here

[Bill Lowery]

I've heard similar things from Air Force veterans in the arena.

I think that an attack on a US territory could unite us. The Japanese tried the same thing in Hawaii 1941, thinking they could bully us into trading with them again. Big backfire. China could be in for a surprise if they tried.

But a little known and cared about territory might be different. I understand the strategic importance of it, but does your average American even know what Guam is? Much less be willing to engage China over it?

That's why I think it would be a really smart play to make it a state right now.

I read crossfire sometimes but never post, but for some reason the comment about most Americans don’t know where Guam is just reminded me of our great people in congress.

I believe Hank Johnson knows where Guam is and a lot more.

Congressman's island-capsizing query goes viral​

Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, asked if adding a few thousand people to Guam would make the island "become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize." And then the video appeared online.

Declan McCullagh
http://www.twitter.com/declanm
April 1, 2010 4:05 p.m. PT
4 min read

Only a few years ago, a member of Congress serving up an inane comment in a congressional hearing would have merited a brief gossip column mention, or more likely gone unnoticed.
Unfortunately for Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, his bizarre question about the island of Guam possibly tipping over--he used the word "capsize"--if additional troops were stationed there became a YouTube sensation on Thursday.

It's no April Fools' Day joke: the 55-year-old congressman and member of the House Democratic leadership told a naval officer who was testifying on March 25 that: "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I've heard similar things from Air Force veterans in the arena.

I think that an attack on a US territory could unite us. The Japanese tried the same thing in Hawaii 1941, thinking they could bully us into trading with them again. Big backfire. China could be in for a surprise if they tried.

But a little known and cared about territory might be different. I understand the strategic importance of it, but does your average American even know what Guam is? Much less be willing to engage China over it?

That's why I think it would be a really smart play to make it a state right now.

I'm surprised nobody called me on my sleepy mistake. I edited and pasted Beijing over Taiwan accidentally. You got my meaning though.

Some republicans don't even want to help one of our territories(Puerto Rico) out in the aftermath of a hurricane. Both parties would have to put their differences aside & work together. Heck, Cruz didn't even want to help New Jersey out. And the Republicans would have to come up with a campaign that would change the mind of the party base, that Guam citizens are not furenors. Both parties would also have to be forward thinking enough to see the value of this.

I don't have that much faith in congress at the moment.

 

[astonmartin708]

Am I the only person who thinks we would get our heads kicked in if we went to war with China?

I don’t like fighting a nation that controls most of our manufacturing supply.

Not to mention they have roughly 500 million more people to throw into a meat grinder than NATO, and thats before they call in any Allie’s of their own.

 

[lawpoke87]

Am I the only person who thinks we would get our heads kicked in if we went to war with China?

I don’t like fighting a nation that controls most of our manufacturing supply.

Not to mention they have roughly 500 million more people to throw into a meat grinder than NATO, and thats before they call in any Allie’s of their own.

Depends on the war imo. A ground war of attrition would be a tough go. An air and sea war which would come into play with say the attempted invasion of Guam by the Chinese would be a U.S. route imo. Our ability to project power across a sea is far superior than that of the Chinese.

US lawmakers are fools if they don’t take steps to move production of certain goods away from the Chinese.

 

[astonmartin708]

Depends on the war imo. A ground war of attrition would be a tough go. An air and sea war which would come into play with say the attempted invasion of Guam by the Chinese would be a U.S. route imo. Our ability to project power across a sea is far superior than that of the Chinese.

They may not, at the moment, have the raw assets to put into service like we do, but they have a similar ability as we had in WWII to spin up a lot of war production Very fast…. And they’re very good at stealing western technology…. So I think their technological disadvantage is smaller than many westerners think it is.

 

[Clong83a]

I'm surprised nobody called me on my sleepy mistake. I edited and pasted Beijing over Taiwan accidentally. You got my meaning though.

Some republicans don't even want to help one of our territories(Puerto Rico) out in the aftermath of a hurricane. Both parties would have to put their differences aside & work together. Heck, Cruz didn't even want to help New Jersey out. And the Republicans would have to come up with a campaign that would change the mind of the party base, that Guam citizens are not furenors. Both parties would also have to be forward thinking enough to see the value of this.

I don't have that much faith in congress at the moment.

I think the politics of Guam's Senators and Rep is a bit of a wildcard. I would bet that the GOP can be convinced to overlook these issues if they think there is a chance to secure a voting Rep and two Senators.

It's hard to say what would happen if it were a state. They do vote for a non-voting Representatitve, similar to DC, and they do hold a Presidential "straw poll" election with 0 electoral votes.

The non voting delegate is a Republican, but Biden won the 2020 vote handily.

Given that these elections have no real consequence, the participation might not be very representative. I have no idea which party would come out ahead, and that ambiguity might give it a puncher's chance.

But I agree, the climate in DC isn't very conducive to long-term strategic thinking that might come at a cost of short term political power loss.

 

[Clong83a]

They may not have the raw, assets at the moment, to put into service like we do, but they have a similar ability as we had in WWII to spin up a lot of war production Very fast…. And they’re very good at stealing western technology…. So I think their technological disadvantage is smaller than many westerners think it is.

It's frightening to think about.

The Defense Production Act could help us to spool up as well, but I agree with you that it is not a war that would be "easy" to win. They have some advantages that are hard to hand wave away with American Exceptionalism.

I do think if we fully dedicated ourselves to it, we could keep control of Guam and protect Taiwan. Invading a held island is hard. But it would be a very high cost, and I don't think we would win in a fight on the mainland.


Lawpoke-

Guam has been a US Territory since the Spanish-American War. On the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they also attacked Guam and took it from us. If they had stuck to Guam alone and not bombed Hawaii, do you think we still enter the war at that point? I don't know the answer.

 

[lawpoke87]

It's frightening to think about.

The Defense Production Act could help us to spool up as well, but I agree with you that it is not a war that would be "easy" to win. They have some advantages that are hard to hand wave away with American Exceptionalism.

I do think if we fully dedicated ourselves to it, we could keep control of Guam and protect Taiwan. Invading a held island is hard. But it would be a very high cost, and I don't think we would win in a fight on the mainland.


Lawpoke-

Guam has been a US Territory since the Spanish-American War. On the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they also attacked Guam and took it from us. If they had stuck to Guam alone and not bombed Hawaii, do you think we still enter the war at that point? I don't know the answer.

I don’t know the answer to that question. However, since we’ve apparently drawn a line in the sand as far as Taiwan, I assume the same line would apply to an actual US territory. Of course the President and makeup of Congress will play a significant role in any declaration of war. I simply can’t imagine the US watching a Chinese naval buildup and invasion force around Guam and not respond. Hope we never find out.

 

[Clong83a]

I don’t know the answer to that question. However, since we’ve apparently drawn a line in the sand as far as Taiwan, I assume the same line would apply to an actual US territory. Of course the President and makeup of Congress will play a significant role in any declaration of war. I simply can’t imagine the US watching a Chinese naval buildup and invasion force around Guam and not respond. Hope we never find out.

I hope so too.

And yeah, we would certainly respond. That's not the real question.

As you say, we've drawn a line in the sand on Taiwan. And this is the scenario that I think about sometimes. Tell me if you think it is crazy, maybe I am missing something: If they take our intent to vigorously defend Taiwan seriously, but they still want to make a play for Taiwan, then they've already committed to a war on some scale with the US. Attack Guam or Taiwan, it doesn't matter, you can expect the US to respond in kind.

So then, you have to ask, if you are planning a war against Taiwan AND the US, you might surmise that it makes sense to knock out US defenses first. That's why Guam is important and why I think they would do that first. It's a critical staging area for our Pacific operations. They wouldn't necessarily have to worry about capturing it totally (although they might), as long as they can functionally disable it for a few weeks and maybe briefly enforce a blockade on ships coming in to rebuild/resupply it. If you keep us tied up defending Guam, we can't use Guam to defend Taiwan. They don't even have to win that fight, just not lose too quickly.

If they acted quickly, they could cripple us in Guam and take functional control of Taiwan within a few weeks. Then they could offer us a ceasefire on the condition that we recognize Chinese authority over Taiwan, and offer to let us keep Guam.

And I could see us taking that deal.

So again, the question isn't whether we'd respond. It's how determined we would be to continue fighting after China captures Taiwan.

If they attack Alaska or Hawaii and kill a bunch of civilians and damage infrastructure, I doubt we'd be willing to put down our arms at the first offer of truce. But Guam? Maybe.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I hope so too.

And yeah, we would certainly respond. That's not the real question.

As you say, we've drawn a line in the sand on Taiwan. And this is the scenario that I think about sometimes. Tell me if you think it is crazy, maybe I am missing something: If they take our intent to vigorously defend Taiwan seriously, but they still want to make a play for Taiwan, then they've already committed to a war on some scale with the US. Attack Guam or Taiwan, it doesn't matter, you can expect the US to respond in kind.

So then, you have to ask, if you are planning a war against Taiwan AND the US, you might surmise that it makes sense to knock out US defenses first. That's why Guam is important and why I think they would do that first. It's a critical staging area for our Pacific operations. They wouldn't necessarily have to worry about capturing it totally (although they might), as long as they can functionally disable it for a few weeks and maybe briefly enforce a blockade on ships coming in to rebuild/resupply it. If you keep us tied up defending Guam, we can't use Guam to defend Taiwan. They don't even have to win that fight, just not lose too quickly.

If they acted quickly, they could cripple us in Guam and take functional control of Taiwan within a few weeks. Then they could offer us a ceasefire on the condition that we recognize Chinese authority over Taiwan, and offer to let us keep Guam.

And I could see us taking that deal.

So again, the question isn't whether we'd respond. It's how determined we would be to continue fighting after China captures Taiwan.

If they attack Alaska or Hawaii and kill a bunch of civilians and damage infrastructure, I doubt we'd be willing to put down our arms at the first offer of truce. But Guam? Maybe.

Would our bases in Japan, Korea, and the newly acquired Philippines help us to distract China. I wonder how much damage we could do from those bases to let us reenable and reequipped Guam after it was hit. We'd need to take out that artificial island base as well. We should probably be building up those bases gradually.

 

[lawpoke87]

I hope so too.

And yeah, we would certainly respond. That's not the real question.

As you say, we've drawn a line in the sand on Taiwan. And this is the scenario that I think about sometimes. Tell me if you think it is crazy, maybe I am missing something: If they take our intent to vigorously defend Taiwan seriously, but they still want to make a play for Taiwan, then they've already committed to a war on some scale with the US. Attack Guam or Taiwan, it doesn't matter, you can expect the US to respond in kind.

So then, you have to ask, if you are planning a war against Taiwan AND the US, you might surmise that it makes sense to knock out US defenses first. That's why Guam is important and why I think they would do that first. It's a critical staging area for our Pacific operations. They wouldn't necessarily have to worry about capturing it totally (although they might), as long as they can functionally disable it for a few weeks and maybe briefly enforce a blockade on ships coming in to rebuild/resupply it. If you keep us tied up defending Guam, we can't use Guam to defend Taiwan. They don't even have to win that fight, just not lose too quickly.

If they acted quickly, they could cripple us in Guam and take functional control of Taiwan within a few weeks. Then they could offer us a ceasefire on the condition that we recognize Chinese authority over Taiwan, and offer to let us keep Guam.

And I could see us taking that deal.

So again, the question isn't whether we'd respond. It's how determined we would be to continue fighting after China captures Taiwan.

If they attack Alaska or Hawaii and kill a bunch of civilians and damage infrastructure, I doubt we'd be willing to put down our arms at the first offer of truce. But Guam? Maybe.

Interesting discussion. The problem with an attack on Guam as I see it centers around the country being a U.S. territory. My reading of Article 5 of NATO’s charter as requiring NATO to join in the defense on an attack on any NATO members territory. I assume an attack on a U.S. territory would trigger Article 5? An attack on Taiwan would not by charter. Is China really ready to start a third World War?

Im still skeptical of China ability to transport a sufficient number of troops and hardware 2000 miles to capture Guam. I believe our air and naval forces would cut them to shreds. One thing is certain, anyone who still views China as a friend of the US is misguided.

 

[watu05]

Getting back to Ukraine for a minute, from what I've read that are two distinct camps of thought on Ukraine: negotiate with Russia or defeat Russia. The defeat Russia argument rests mainly on the concept that anything short of total victory will only encourage Russia by convincing Putin that the West is weak-kneed and he can continue to invade his neighbors. So far Putin's is relatively free from political accountability and his nuclear arsenal is a fact. Then there's the question how long the US will continue it's Ukraine support. The negotiation challenge is whether Putin is really interested or only wants time to regroup. Even if Putin is serious, it's not clear that a deal could be reached for reasons listed in a post above. Russia has invited the negotiations with the US (not Ukraine) and apparently offered no deal other than what it will not accept: a war crimes tribunal. All that would seem to portend that Putin sees his best course of action is to stick it out until the West backs out.

Apart rom taking advantage of the opportunity to buy cheap Russian oil, China doesn't seem to have done much to support Russia. Letting things drag out likely favors China. as the war uses up both Russian and Western resources. Russia becomes more dependent on China for support, and the West spends more money on a long war that saps its funding of more productive areas.

 

[lawpoke87]

Every Ukraine scenario I read leaves out the most important party…the Ukrainian people. The millions who are now living in a war zone. This war needs to be won or a peace brokered. Are we really willing to subject the Ukrainian people to an endless war on their soil? Furthermore, with China now taking more aggressive positions toward the West do we want to be spending resources and focus in Europe?

 

[noble cane]

Would our bases in Japan, Korea, and the newly acquired Philippines help us to distract China. I wonder how much damage we could do from those bases to let us reenable and reequipped Guam after it was hit. We'd need to take out that artificial island base as well. We should probably be building up those bases gradually.

Re-acquired Phillipines...moving back into Subic bay and others now that the socialists are out and the Marcos family is back on power

 

[lawpoke87]

Putin is giving a much publicized speech tomorrow on the continuing Russia - Ukraine conflict. I expect him to double down and officially declare war. Also expect him to commit significantly more troops and armor to the theater. More Russians and Ukrainians are about to die.

Hope I’m wrong re Putin’s speech.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Putin is giving a much publicized speech tomorrow on the continuing Russia - Ukraine conflict. I expect him to double down and officially declare war. Also expect him to commit significantly more troops and armor to the theater. More Russians and Ukrainians are about to die.

Hope I’m wrong re Putin’s speech.

He seems to be having trouble finding troops as it is. How will he find more troops, through conscription? More will leave the country, and the country will get angrier with him. A risky move.

 

[watu05]

Russian hardliners are calling Biden’s trip to Kyiv ‘a demonstrative humiliation to Putin’. Meanwhile MTG is claiming the same trip calls for Biden’s impeachment. Quite an impact for one visit.

 

[noble cane]

Russian hardliners are calling Biden’s trip to Kyiv ‘a demonstrative humiliation to Putin’. Meanwhile MTG is claiming the same trip calls for Biden’s impeachment. Quite an impact for one visit.

Is he humiliated because his propaganda machine doesnt work as well?

Geez air raid sirens going off and no one appeared to even look up at the sky, move to protect Biden, or even get under cover.. soon the legend will grow of how Sleepy Joe calmly walked the streets of Kiev protecting Zelensky from the falling bombs and missiles with his Captain America shield..

 

[lawpoke87]

Is he humiliated because his propaganda machine doesnt work as well?

Geez air raid sirens going off and no one appeared to even look up at the sky, move to protect Biden, or even get under cover.. soon the legend will grow of how Sleepy Joe calmly walked the streets of Kiev protecting Zelensky from the falling bombs and missiles with his Captain America shield..

To be fair, Joe probably thought he was in Jersey.

Back on topic, what’s our objective here and what is our plan to achieve the same? Feel like I’ve been asking this question for most of the past year.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

To be fair, Joe probably thought he was in Jersey.

Back on topic, what’s our objective here and what is our plan to achieve the same? Feel like I’ve been asking this question for most of the past year.

And you felt that question was answered with providing tanks and air defenses.

Guess what, the tanks & all of the air defenses haven't even arrived yet, and you are going back to that question.

Give it a little time for everything to get there and everybody to get trained.

 

[lawpoke87]

And you felt that question was answered with providing tanks and air defenses.

Guess what, the tanks & all of the air defenses haven't even arrived yet, and you are going back to that question.

Give it a little time for everything to get there and everybody to get trained.

Air defenses aren’t going to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Tanks on the other hand….

Do we know which tanks and how many Ukraine is getting ?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Air defenses aren’t going to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Tanks on the other hand….

Do we know which tanks and how many Ukraine is getting ?

31 by us, initially. 100 Leopards from 12 countries.(initially) Some of the leopards are already there. I was commenting on the package which is what the air defenses are, part of a package. You reacted to the package in a former post.

 

[lawpoke87]

31 by us, initially. 100 Leopards from 12 countries.(initially) Some of the leopards are already there. I was commenting on the package which is what the air defenses are, part of a package. You reacted to the package in a former post.

Those arms will certainly help. Wonder how long until Ukraine mounts a major offensive to take back those eastern territories? Wonder what Putin’s reaction will be? Nervous times ahead.

 

[noble cane]

To be fair, Joe probably thought he was in Jersey.

Back on topic, what’s our objective here and what is our plan to achieve the same? Feel like I’ve been asking this question for most of the past year.

Our objective at this point is war..

Biden is trying to goad Putin into a Lusitania moment that will reset the world order. The modern Fabians want their shot at building the future.

 

[lawpoke87]

Our objective at this point is war..

Biden is trying to goad Putin into a Lusitania moment that will reset the world order. The modern Fabians want their shot at building the future.

Quite the contrast from the same people who refused to provide Ukraine defensive weapons at the onset of this war out of fear of a direct NATO Russia conflict.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Quite the contrast from the same people who refused to provide Ukraine defensive weapons at the onset of this war out of fear of a direct NATO Russia conflict.

I've felt like the plan almost from the start was to get into it gradually, until Putin didn't realize the water was boiling.

 

[lawpoke87]

I've felt like the plan almost from the start was to get into it gradually, until Putin didn't realize the water was boiling.

Allowing Putin to capture those eastern territories almost uncontested makes zero sense. So you believe we allowed Russia to destroy Ukraine as part of a plan to draw Putin into an extended war? Suppose I’m one of the few who believes a war of attrition benefits Putin? Look at history.

We’re so concentrated on Putin we’re ignoring China and their global ambitions. The chances of us facing a war on two fronts in increasing daily. The relationship between Russia and China is growing closer. We’re viewing Ukraine and the world for that matter with a myopic lense imo.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Allowing Putin to capture those eastern territories almost uncontested makes zero sense. So you believe we allowed Russia to destroy Ukraine as part of a plan to draw Putin into an extended war? Suppose I’m one of the few who believes a war of attrition benefits Putin? Look at history.

We’re so concentrated on Putin we’re ignoring China and their global ambitions. The chances of us facing a war on two fronts in increasing daily. The relationship between Russia and China is growing closer. We’re viewing Ukraine and the world for that matter with a myopic lense imo.

The plan was not to give Putin reason to think about using nuclear weapons, or getting into a world war. You act as if their would be no consequences, or that we knew beforehand how miserably Putin would fail.

 

[lawpoke87]

The plan was not to give Putin reason to think about using nuclear weapons, or getting into a world war. You act as if their would be no consequences, or that we knew beforehand how miserably Putin would fail.

If that was the plan then why at this point are we throwing an arsenal of offensive weapons into the arena to drive Putin back into Russia? There’s no greater trigger for him to use nuclear or start a world war than imminent defeat. Our actions today make zero sense imo if those are our concerns and reasons for allowing Putin to invade Ukraine in the first place.

Putin will be fine with a stalemate imo. A war of attrition. I can’t see him being fine with being humiliated and driven back to Russia. Things will get dicey. Especially with China lying in wait.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If that was the plan then why at this point are we throwing an arsenal of offensive weapons into the arena to drive Putin back into Russia? There’s no greater trigger for him to use nuclear or start a world war than imminent defeat. Our actions today make zero sense imo if those are our concerns and reasons for allowing Putin to invade Ukraine in the first place.

Much less of a chance with his situation and his military failures. He is feeling the heat at home for his failures. Has been a risky game, but one we have succeeded at so far. You act as if the Ukrainians don't want to fight for their independence, or you wish to act paternally for them. Many of the people of Ukraine would be more distressed to give up their country without the support of the West. So far they feel it is a necessary sacrifice.

 

[lawpoke87]

Much less of a chance with his situation and his military failures. He is feeling the heat at home for his failures. Has been a risky game, but one we have succeeded at so far. You act as if the Ukrainians don't want to fight for their independence, or you wish to act paternally for them. Many of the people of Ukraine would be more distressed to give up their country without the support of the West. So far they feel it is a necessary sacrifice.

If you recall I was one of the few posters advocating arming Ukraine prior to the invasion. I was told we couldn’t provoke Putin due to him being unstable, etc.. Disagree 100% that there’s less of a chance of him acting irrationally now with the prospect of being humiliated and forced out of Ukraine than a failed invasion from the outset. The fact remains the reasons for arming Ukraine to prevent the invasion appear to have disappeared now the invasion has occurred. Backwards thinking imo.

Furthermore, Russia and China appear to be getting closer while we sit back and watch. This is an alliance which poses a very dangerous situation for the US. We need a long range plan. China isn’t bluffing imo.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Furthermore, Russia and China appear to be getting closer while we sit back and watch. This is an alliance which poses a very dangerous situation for the US. We need a long range plan. China isn’t bluffing imo.

Yep severe danger. China isn't bluffing as long as it sees an easy advantageous entry into the situation.

 

[noble cane]

Furthermore, Russia and China appear to be getting closer while we sit back and watch. This is an alliance which poses a very dangerous situation for the US. We need a long range plan. China isn’t bluffing imo.

what would China rather have? Taiwan? Or mineral rich Siberia with access to the Arctic shelf?

Taiwan isnt the prize.. its a distraction. The organ grinder's monkey.

 

[lawpoke87]

what would China rather have? Taiwan? Or mineral rich Siberia with access to the Arctic shelf?

Taiwan isnt the prize.. its a distraction. The organ grinder's monkey.

Zero doubt in my mind China will use the Russia - Ukraine war to further its interests in Russia as well as around the world. Buckle up.

 

[watu05]

The WSJ has gone all in on arming Ukraine today. I don't usually follow their opinion pieces, so don't know if that is change, but it is at odds with MTG's gang in the House and rightwing websites such as this group.

There is at least an argument that the US should have framed its issues with Ukraine in the same terms as we framed the Cuban missile crisis. The US was not going allow offensive Russian weapons 90 miles off it coast full stop. IOW the issue was a super power issue, not a democracy issue. Prof John Mearshiemer at University of Chicago makes that argument here. Had we viewed the situation through that lens, there might have been a stronger focus on negotiations offering Russia guarantees about not arming Ukraine, not allowing in NATO, etc. that would have left Ukraine more independent. Who knows? We didn't chose that path. Trump is likely correct in that he would have given Russia whatever it wanted and called it a victory for peace. Later Russia would have reasserted its will over Ukraine, while the US would be distracted by something else. Zelenski has proved to be a fine wartime President, but his record as a peacetime President was poor.

That's all past, and it appears that the US will back Ukraine strongly until it won't. The divisions with the Republican party tell Putin that he can outlast the west. China doesn't want nuclear war, but also doesn't want Russia to lose nor to waste its own resources. It would prefer a negotiated settlement at some point. Ukrainians have already paid such a high price that they won't back down and would have to be forced to accept terms that Putin would accept.

It's lot easier think about different parties' interests that it is to figure out how it will play out.

 

[lawpoke87]

If we would have framed this in a similar manner as the Cuban missile crisis we likely wouldn’t have Russians in the Ukraine. Again….some of us supported this approach.

 

[watu05]

One of the polls that Putin watches?

Western public support for Ukraine is falling

On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion, Western leaders have been working to demonstrate their unwavering commitment to the Ukrainian cause. As part of a surprise visit to Kyiv today, US President Joe Biden announced new military assistance and further sanctions on...

unherd.com

 

[watu05]

That the US/European view of the Russian invasion is not universally shared by many key countries likely persuades Putin that Russia will outlast the West.

The West Tried to Isolate Russia. It Didn’t Work. (Published 2023)

The West never won over as much of the world as it initially seemed. Here’s how Russia is taking advantage of a fragmented world.

www.nytimes.com

 

[lawpoke87]

The never ending war?

Why the War Will Continue

One year in, the war in Ukraine shows no sign of ending.

www.cfr.org

 

[astonmartin708]

The never ending war?

Why the War Will Continue

One year in, the war in Ukraine shows no sign of ending.

www.cfr.org

Can’t stand a 1 year war? Just think about how the Europeans felt after 7 years…. Or 30…. or 100