I decided to make another comment at Willie OAM’s site. Here below is that comment in full:

“Willie, at around the 19- or 20-minute mark you talk about how the US won’t pull out of NATO. You had also talked a bit about how Zelensky has a ten-year dream. Too soon to say, who can tell, but the probability is that we elect Donald Trump as the next President. The US Ship-of-State being large and cumbersome, any new helmsman who might want to radically change directions will find how the ship doesn’t respond thusly. The US especially suffers inertia in policies and in whatever ideology or interests fuel those policies. The deep state is real, durable and jealous. Nevertheless, things will have a different flavor if an anti-Democrat/anti-Uniparty crew gains top-end influence within the 2025 administration. The notion of ‘pulling out of NATO’ is too on-off, but NATO might take a serious demotion in accordance with the lack of respect a Trump crew will accord that gun club and its reasons for being. Money toward the Ukrainian laundromat will likely continue to flow, but at a much slower pace and lower level. Any decade-long vision for the Zelensky war will be moot nonsense. The borders of post-war Ukraine will emerge within two years of the new US inauguration, that is, by January 2027. What will they look like? Entertaining for us to guess, I guess. My guess? Russia keeps everything it has at this moment plus Kharkiv and Odessa. Curious to see if Transdniestria grows. The new Ukrainya will not be in NATO and will be allowed a military only suitable for defending itself against a Slovakian onslaught. In Muhther Ruhsia, peace treaty make YOU.”

Am I wrong?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Ukrainya

  1. Jeffrey Lebowski says:

    I’d say the ultimate freeze to conflict will look something like that. We likely need to argue for EU membership for Ukraine to have some “win” out of this conflict, but that’s mostly to make the Euros send cash in the form of EU transfer payments in order to try to get the US taxpayer off the Ukrainian (in many cases Soviet) pensions and bureaucrats payment hook we are on. Of course, EU membership will mean the bulk of Ukrainians under the age of 45 will flee to Europe for careers as internet influencers and Uber drivers. No Eastern European farmer wants more Ukrainian wheat in their markets, either.

    Don’t accept caps on Ukrainian force structure, but limits to foreign military stationed therein, on the post war Austrian model. Water rights for Crimea. Some kind of power generation arraignment. Oil transit agreements.

    Of course, who exactly is going to broker this is a fine question. The Chinese aren’t going to force it, as barbarians policing other barbarians is the heart of Chinese foreign policy. Indians don’t care…they are playing the role of World War Argentina in this. Israelis? The Russians will pick up the phone, but the Izzies have no real tools to bring the Russians to the table.

    • Holmes Oliver says:

      Some confusion to me here. Why do anything to empower the European Union? It is not pro-US, not democratic, not even pro-liberty. It’s just another obtuse bureaucratic power-concentrator. How about we just ignore the E.U.? Do we really need it to keep US taxpayer monies from going to pensions for which we are “on the hook?” We are not on the hook. Just don’t send them anything. We (as a country, as a nation) owe Ukraine and Ukrainians nothing as far as I can tell. Not even through treaties, since Ukrainya can be seen as an entirely new diplomatic entity. Do we need to stop the CIA from putting us on what the deep staters wants us to think of as hooks? Yup. Who should figure out what to do with Ukrainya? The Ukrainyans.

  2. Jeffrey Lebowski says:

    American Grand Strategy seems to be “defend everything everywhere.” Now, as you note there are Deep State reasons for this, but the reality is one nice thing is we can Big Hand/Small Map the problem to a degree on Combatant Commander lines, and then (very carefully, as financial based analysis is dangerous) look at where we would put proponderances of effort….

    SOUTHCOM- Traditionally ignored, but since we live next to everyone here, we need to be doing better. But, there are lots of resources here, markets that we’d have a inside track in, increasingly common language and shared culture….more investment…

    NORTHCOM- NO FAIL, but its a consequence management issue as long as we continue to have the stupid relationship with Mexico we do. Continue investment.

    STRATCOM- NO FAIL, strategic deterrence is the bedrock of national power.

    TRANSCOM- Everyone likes mail and bananas. Continue investment.

    PACOM- Crowded and congested. The US has been an Asian security power since 1852, or earlier. Maybe 1804. Heart of the global economy, home to major allies. Increase investment.

    AFRICOM- Theater of maneuver, low costs of entry but potentially high pay off on decade+ timelines. Targeted investment.

    CENTCOM- Traditionally the focus of effort since the Carter Doctrine and East of Suez. However, as a oil exporter, the US has more interest in regional instability than stability. Decrease Investment.

    EUCOM- Demographically collapsing, allies of dubious capacity and capability. Economically middling along. A fantastic deployment or PCS, especially over Port Au Prince or Mali. Every dollar we invest the Euros don’t. Decrease investment, targeted engagement to support other theaters.

    SPACECOM- The United States of Space! And Mars, bitches, Mars. Investment to support overwhelming commercial advantages pretty much thanks to Elon Musk. Increase investment.

    SOCOM- A winless record in the three wars it was established to conduct. Candidate for disestablishment.

    So, it seems like if we are looking to moderate our investment in Europe, we need to start by freezing the conflict there.

    • Holmes Oliver says:

      Very glad you brought up the Combatant Commands. When I am king, soon, I will all but eliminate the combatant commands. They are simply organizational Lear jets for four stars. They should not be. We do not have to divvy up the world as though it needed combat unit boundaries. It is a stupid by-product or a World War assumption. Why do they exist? A world without Southern Command would be a world without Southern Command. Or Southern Command could easily be a five-hundred-person group led by a Colonel. No problem. And no airplane. He can fly economy, use frequent flyer miles to upgrade if he wants. Why am I wrong? PACOM? Maybe we keep that for a bit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 512 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here