Neo-Birchers easily get all huffy/frothy, so here's something more soothing from a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council. Ukraine Can Still Win (*) Western Half Measures Have Prolonged the War, but Decisive Action Now Could End It
When U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, many in Washington expected a rapid settlement to the war in Ukraine. On the campaign trail, Trump had boasted he could end the conflict in 24 hours. Although few analysts believed that specific promise, many speculated about the possible terms and timeline of an impending deal. The investment bank JPMorgan Chase, for example, claimed an agreement could be reached by June. (...)
Wow, "growing sentiment"? That settles it, they should definitely surrender. I mean..."growing sentiment" in other countries (however undocumented and nebulously-defined) trumps the actual conditions on the ground, the support of allies, the late but growing support from the US, and the stubborn commitment of the Ukrainians themselves to resistance to the ongoing invasion.
You seem to have a lot invested in Ukraine losing this war. The 20% or so of Ukraine's territory that Russia controls (down from a peak of 27%, and disregarding the portions of Kursk oblast that Ukraine has periodically captured) must be a real disappointment. And wow, Pokrovsk? That mighty metropolis that once housed 67,000 people before Russia shelled it mostly to rubble. That is, capturing Pokrovsk would be like Trump capturing Prince George, BC in his campaign to make Canada the 51st state.
Maybe it's the million-plus casualties Russia has lost attacking its much weaker neighbor. Seems like quite a toll for the meager result, but anything for the tsar, no?
Maybe it's just the frustration of Russia's oft-stated imperial ambitions over the rest of Europe. Putin deserves the Russian empire back! Frustrating that ambition is so unfair.
Anyway, I hope you find a way to cope with this denial of the proper state of the world, with an authoritarian regime in charge of most of Europe. Ah, the good old days. Pine on.
Hiya! Hope you guys are doing ok!
Dunno about you, but I'm feeling increasingly optimistic that Russia's days as an imperialist power are about to come to an end.
Thanks! We are great, really. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union is dying for a very long time, destroying us in the process(
Hiya! Hope you guys are doing ok!
Dunno about you, but I'm feeling increasingly optimistic that Russia's days as an imperialist power are about to come to an end.
So it seems as if Ukraine has destroyed 1/3 of Russia's strategic bomber force for the price of a relatively small investment in drones and munitions. Brilliantly done.
Not only does this compromise Russia's strategic nuclear triad, they now have to be paranoid about every single the truck in the country.
Throwback Saturday "European leaders on a joint visit to Kyiv have issued an ultimatum to Vladimir Putin: sign up to an unconditional ceasefire by Monday, or face increased sanctions and weapons transfers to Ukraine."
(...) Overall, the US approach to the negotiations amounted to a textbook case of strategic and diplomatic incompetence. This is in part due to the inclusion on Trumpâs team of figures like Steve Witkoff and Marco Rubio, who lack diplomatic experience and underestimated the complexity of the conflict.
However, the failure of Trumpâs peace initiative also reflects deeper realities within American foreign policy thinking. While his rhetoric may appear to break with the bipartisan interventionist orthodoxy of the past, his âAmerica Firstâ doctrine remains grounded in a belief in US global supremacy â as evidenced by his aggressive trade tactics. This is why Washington could not engage seriously with Russiaâs broader demands. As noted, Moscow does not merely want recognition of territorial changes; it seeks an acceptance of the multipolar reality of the international landscape. For the US foreign policy establishment â even under Trump â that remains an unacceptable proposition.
Thus, even though Trump may have been genuinely committed, on a rational level, to ending the war in Ukraine, the institutional culture that helped initiate and sustain the conflict remains deeply entrenched. As a result, Trump has not only failed to end the war â he has, to some extent, deepened US entanglement. This leaves him politically exposed. He cannot claim the mantle of peacemaker, yet he clearly has no appetite to serve as Biden 2.0. Walking away entirely might have preserved some consistency. But by staying in, he has made the war his own. Paradoxically, the much-criticised mineral deal may turn out to be more advantageous for Ukraine than the US. It ensures continued American involvement and shields Kyiv from complete abandonment, even if the mineral wealth in question ultimately proves illusory.
But lukewarm US military support will not reverse Ukraineâs battlefield fortunes. A Russian breakthrough remains likely, and with it, a potential Ukrainian collapse. Whether this outcome would force the West back to the negotiating table, or else drive further escalation, is uncertain. In either case, a fundamental problem remains: all parties understand that whatever is agreed on today could be overturned tomorrow. This mutual distrust means that Russia, Ukraine â and by extension, the West â are likely to remain locked in embittered relations for years to come, even if a formal deal is eventually reached.
At the same time, Russia is likely to maintain a robust military posture in the region for the foreseeable future â especially in the context of Europeâs rearmament plans and aggressive rhetoric. This, in turn, will provoke a response from Europe, prompting yet another round of Russian countermeasures. All this will unfold within a deeply toxic political environment, where distrust runs deep and the cycle of escalation remains difficult to break.
For now, then, the most likely scenario remains prolonged conflict, rising costs and deepening divisions â not only between Russia and the West, but within the West itself. The war will not end until Washington and its allies are willing to confront the core issue: the persistence of a hegemonic doctrine that brooks no rivals. Until that happens, peace will remain elusive and the bloodletting will continue. And Donald Trump, whether he likes it or not, risks being remembered not as the man who ended the war â but as the one who inherited it and let it burn.
