No. of Recommendations: 18
OK in response to Russian aggression, we give Ukraine all the guns and money they ask for. But after guns and money, there remains the issue of "dudes" as laid out so well in Dopes recipe for defense.Don't know - any more than I know where the Russians will get their "dudes" either. Or where they'll get their money.
The Russians are
also facing questions about their manpower shortages, only heightened by the reveal that they resorted to using North Korean soldiers last last year. They also are running out of "dudes":
https://cepa.org/article/russias-year-of-truth-1-t...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_penal_milita...Russia's financial position is more acute, because unlike a Ukraine supported by the funding and armaments of the Free World, Russia is running into very acute resource constraints:
For the Kremlin, it thus looks like this year is set to be difficult on the fiscal front. In January, the country’s monthly budget deficit was about 45 percent higher than the full-year target for 2025.
Seen from Moscow, this data probably looks alarming: If fiscal expenses remain at their January levels throughout the remainder of the year, the NWF reserves could vanish in just three months. And even if they don’t — as is more likely — 2025 is probably the last year Moscow will be able to fully cover its fiscal deficit by tapping into those savings.https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-rus...Which is why the correct strategy for opponents of Russia -
if they want to maximize Ukraine's negotiating position - is to signal that Ukraine will be given all the financial and military resources they need on an ongoing basis. Russia then would have some hard choices to make, because they face the very real possibility of creating a financial crisis and/or completely depleting their defensive manpower in the intermediate term.
That type of posture might lead to genuine concessions at the negotiating table - in territory, in prisoner release, in security protections, and other matters. You would
not signal that Ukraine's access to resources is coming to a near-term end or adopt Russia's framing of the Ukrainian government as illegitimate
under any circumstances. Ukraine's strength in negotiations comes from Russia facing down more time at war when they are ill-equipped to continue - take away that risk for Russia, and there's nothing to bargain for.
Trump, IMHO, does
not care about maximizing Ukraine's negotiating position. He wants the war to end as quickly as possible, for a variety of reasons. The easiest way to do that is to sell Ukraine's interests down the river and give Russia everything it wants. It's a bad look to be giving the bad guys the win, especially since they attacked a smaller innocent country without provocation. The only refuge is to try to pretend that this is just accepting hard realities, rather than slinking away from supporting the good guys in a fight that has horrible ramifications for the entire international security system. Which is why Trump
initially tried to reposition Russia as not being the bad guys (they weren't the aggressors, Zelenskyy's a dictator) - and when that was a lead balloon on launch, the Administration's moved on to arguing that Ukraine's toast anyway so there's no point in prolonging Russia's eventually getting every one of their war aims.
Both countries have gone through the meat grinder
because of Russia, and it's critically important that Russia gain
as little as possible at the negotiating table. The only way to do that is to put Ukraine in a position where they can keep fighting as long as they want to, so that Russia has a downside to not negotiating. But Trump doesn't want that outcome (for a variety of reasons), so he's trying to create a context where us abandoning Ukraine can be painted as a "smart" decision rather than slinking away from a brave ally that is fighting to defend themselves from a brutal invader.
