Quote:
My main question is two fold. First, why the veiled sense of satisfaction over the prospect of Ukraine losing? That seems odd from an emotional sense as an American. Second, I get you may not agree with the war, but I just can't grasp why anyone would want them to lose and see that as anything but a significant strategic setback for the West.
The Ukrainians are a pawn in the sense they are a geographical buffer zone, there's no debate there. I get hating that it's the case and wanting it to end. Losing ground and negotiating a stalemate just invites future conflict. The Russians have have made it pretty clear that their ambitions reach to Moldova and likely beyond. If 2008, 2014, 2018 and 2022's incursions along Russia's border territories are any indication for the future, they'll keep going until they are defeated. That means more leveled cities, more displaced people, and more mine-laden territory to reconstruct.
First, the Ukrainians are the side that our ruling class wants to use to loot our treasury further, enriching the folks like Blackrock at our expense. They are equally complicit in the war as Joe Biden and Vlad Putin are, and absolutely as corrupt as well, though I don't think Biden has ever ordered the shelling of civilians. Russia winning ultimately would save us money, and lower the risk that Ukraine with a CIA-sponsored government (Nuland style) will lead to a nuclear/broader war.
Second, the Russian incursions as you laid out are not indicia of anything portentious toward central Europe/Poland/Hungary etc., but part of a trend of the corrupt, violent nature of Ukraine expecially since 2014's Nuland "**** the EU" coup. 2008 would warrant a separate discussion/links, sorry, no time right now.
Third, more leveled cities sounds like a problem but the goal would be stability ultimately. The Russians clearly want to rebuild the areas/cities/towns they take, and if they fund it (or BRICS) that is a win, to me. Ukraine has just this weekend declared that they will not extend/negotiate past Dec 31 gas transmission agreements with Gazprom so in order to support Europe from a certain economic collapse it would be best if Russia operates those transmission lines directly (this firstly impacts Hungary/Germany but the entirety of the eurozone in truth).
Quote:
I guess the long/short of it is that I don't see this cycle stopping until:
1) The Russians are comprehensively pushed back by one of these independent states.
2) WW3 starts and East or West unconditionally surrenders.
I would suggest you listen to the Tucker interview with Putin. You may see an inexorable Russian offensive into the fulda gap after taking Ukraine but I don't. The "west" broadly is not served by this war, but rather the BRICS countries are profiting and becoming stronger. If the CIA/State stop trying to incite coups in countries that border Russia and putting in place puppet states I think a stasis can and will be re-established.
By any metric the mullahs, CCP, and Russian billionaires are much more wealthy today than in early 2022, while "western" economies are functionally in recession/facing massive inflation (greater than Carter era). This is not obviated or even ameliorated by arguments such as "well, Europe is trying to spend more on defense now, and 400K Russians are dead."
Finally, if the real goal is to take down/handicap/hurt Putin and Xi, it's illogical to support a commander in chief's attempts toward that when he is (a) on their payroll as a long time business partner, (b) demented, and (c) incompetent at very best, while this war has already demographically devastated the 'nominal' "good guys" as many see it.