Patterico's Pontifications

1/22/2025

Trump To Putin

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:23 pm



[guest post by Dana]

President Trump issued his first official “warning” to Putin regarding the war in Ukraine:

I’m not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people, and always had a very good relationship with President Putin – and this despite the Radical Left’s Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. We must never forget that Russia helped us win the Second World War, losing almost 60,000,000 lives in the process. All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. If we don’t make a “deal,” and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries. Let’s get this war, which never would have started if I were President, over with! We can do it the easy way, or the hard way – and the easy way is always better. It’s time to “MAKE A DEAL.” NO MORE LIVES SHOULD BE LOST!!!

While Putin is shaking in his boots laughing his ass off, there is really only one way that this war can end with the best interests of freedom-loving countries being met: Ukraine must be provided with the weapons and monetary aide that their experts have deemed necessary for Ukraine to completely push out Russian troops. This must be done with such a show of power that it will be a very, very long time before Putin tries to start an unprovoked war again with Ukraine. He must know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that illegally attacking Ukraine inside of its borders, with a goal of subsuming the sovereign nation, is an absolute non-starter because Western allies stand united against such aggression, not just in word, but also in unified action to eliminate the invaders. One hopes that Ukraine will be admitted to NATO, sooner rather than later, which would ensure that Putin would have second thoughts about his dreams of domination.

I hope President Trump has more in his toolbox to aid Ukraine than just words that sound like they’re from an old black and white mobster movie. I hope that those with whom he has charged to oversee all matters concerning Ukraine are on the ball. We already know, from previous administrations, that appeasing the enemy and incremental steps in aiding Ukraine aren’t the answer. So why try. Why make idle threats, or threats about tariffs, taxes, and sanctions when we already know that those actions won’t end the war. Let’s hope something substantive and effective is put into place. Such as, “pushing for $300bn. . . of frozen Russian assets to be used to fund Kyiv’s military,” and “promising more made in USA weapons and aid until Russia leaves.” Because the fact of the matter is: “looking for common ground with a war criminal leading a terrorist regime invading Europe,” Will. Not. Work. Fortunately, what we do know about Trump, is that he doesn’t want to look like a squishy loser, appear faint of heart, or as if he is afraid to pull the trigger. So there’s that. Ultimately, though, I just really hope that President Trump actually wants Ukraine to win this war. Western Europe as well.

—Dana

77 Responses to “Trump To Putin”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (5a07e7)

  2. Every bit, Dana.
    Before Putin’s Big Escalation, Russia was our 30th largest trading partner, so tariffs are pointless.
    Sanctions are better, but they don’t change a dictator’s behavior.
    If Trump really wants to end Putin’s invasion (no, this is not the “Ukraine War”), give Ukraine the weapons they’re requesting so they’ll have an honest shot at pushing back the mobiks.

    Paul Montagu (074d4e)

  3. Thanks, Paul Montagu. I just don’t think this will be a priority for Trump. I suppose only because Russia has nukes… at least one hopes.

    Dana (ef8b43)

  4. That is so well-stated, Dana. I hope Trump does what you suggest.

    norcal (a72384)

  5. Thx, norcal. How do you suppose Trump will act re this?

    Dana (610bd2)

  6. I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States,

    How did Biden not stop all items from being sold from Russia to the US?

    I guess Biden loved him some Putin. There is no other explanation for a continued financial relationship with that dictator.

    BuDuh (2e2fb6)

  7. Maybe trump will have better luck then nevile chamberlin.

    asset (c6b5c7)

  8. Russia’s economy is ready to topple, so it doesn’t hurt to see if economic threats can bring peace talks at this point in the war. I don’t think Trump sounds optimistic they will.
    Classic Trump threat- open with flattery.
    I think the Trump Doctrine is going to be to use economic muscle before the military, and if it comes to the military, he’d like to see European lives, European weapons put on the line first.
    My personal feeling is that economics alone won’t work, but I’ll give it a try (along with maintaining currently promised weapons to Ukraine) for 4-6 months.

    Europe could handle this on its own in a year. And they should. Europe would like us to take over and carry the whole load.

    steveg (cdf9e5)

  9. So what exactly would be the cost of that funding. Are you saying we send troops? Or just money.
    We have given them lots, and they are still loosing.
    War to the last Ukraine.

    Joe (584b3d)

  10. Thx, norcal. How do you suppose Trump will act re this?

    Dana (610bd2) — 1/22/2025 @ 3:11 pm

    I suppose Trump will push for a deal where Russia makes a token concession that will be far short of returning to the pre-invasion borders. Trump will call it the best deal ever, when in fact it will be a U.S.-approved reward for invading Ukraine.

    norcal (a72384)

  11. Let’s believe it when we see it. If the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize results in a net savings of one life –Ukrainian, Russian, Israeli, Palestinian — I will not begrudge him.

    nk (cb4a5f)

  12. Any additional sanctions or tariffs on Russia will just be scraping the bottom of the barrel. US imports from Russia fell from $34B in 2011 to $2.8B in 2024, or approximately -91%. Imports during the Biden administration fell from $29.6B in 2021 to $2.8B in 2024, or -80.5%.

    Trump has been carrying Putin’s water since his first administration, and there is no reason to expect his second term will be any different.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  13. Food price inflation in Russia

    https://meduza.io/en/short/2025/01/22/sticker-shock

    “Data from Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) shows that the food item with the biggest price jump in 2024 was potatoes, which saw a nearly 92 percent increase from December 2023 to December 2024, according to RBC. Prices for onions, cabbage, and red caviar also rose significantly. Butter, which received widespread attention in Russian media last year for its rising cost, comes in fifth on the list, with a 36 percent increase. To address the soaring prices, Russia started importing butter from Turkey and the UAE. Overall, vegetables and fruits grew more expensive by 22 percent year-on-year. On the other hand, some products became cheaper in 2024, with buckwheat dropping by 6.4 percent and eggs by 11.2 percent, according to Rosstat.”

    Butter imported from the UAE? They must be brokering and/or repackaging

    steveg (cdf9e5)

  14. https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1882180801573392671

    “Today’s rather sharp statement from Trump has been interpreted by Russian radicals not only as an ultimatum but also as a direct insult. They are convinced that their patron Putin would never agree to any concessions, which in their eyes means Trump is deliberately sabotaging the negotiations. As a result, Russians are furious, since they’ve been unable to achieve a breakthrough on the frontlines. Even the full occupation of the four claimed regions remains a distant and uncertain goal, if it’s even achievable at all.

    “Trump didn’t bother to outline a plausible scenario for such a deal. Surely, he must understand that Putin cannot simply stop the war—his hordes have no alternative but to keep going forward. No one wants them back in russia.”

    steveg (cdf9e5)

  15. Here’s the paradox: it’s essential that Russia be militarily forced out of Ukraine, but that’s probably impossible. IMO a deal allowing Russia to keep part of Ukraine is the best we can hope for. But, the deal must be somehow structured to prevent Russia from invading again and grabbing more land.

    David in Cal (486a85)

  16. #13 Some Arab states, presumably the UAE among them, import hay from the United States to feed their animals.

    (The Saudis even “mine” water in Arizona to grow alfalfa there, to be shipped to the Gulf states. I don’t know how that came about, but think we should end it.)

    Does it make economic sense to ship hay half way around the world, rather than shipping the milk and butter it produces? Probably not.)

    Jim Miller (7c3d63)

  17. The Russian’s like to forget that without western weapons, they’d not have been able to mount a counter-offensive in WWII

    Russia’s idea of combined arms is two one armed amputee laborers unloading ammunition from a “Loaf” by hand

    That slight aside, the Russians do have good FPV drone warfare teams. They’ll kill a lot of French Foreign Legionnaires with drones if Europe chooses to fight.
    (I pick the FFL and the Poles as most likely to die for Europe because Europeans are soft. Russia can’t handle newer European stand off weapons- they struggle with decertified 1980s and 1990s tech now)

    steveg (cdf9e5)

  18. 5. Well since Trump sent real weapons to Ukraine when Obama did not; opposed Nordstream 2 pipeline while Biden let it proceed; and urged NATO to beef up its military forces – -whereas everyone else –the “Smart People–were too “polite” to do that – -I’d say he is a real deal and not a platitude man. But a deal may be the best way to stop the killing. Unfortunate, but once war starts, it can be shut down or grind on. The latter is not always the best idea.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (2d275d)

  19. Trump is a vindictive, thin-skinned assh0le. This could work in Ukraine’s favor here.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  20. Trump is a vindictive, thin-skinned assh0le. This could work in Ukraine’s favor here.

    I agree, and Trump put the ball in Putin’s court, not Zelenskyy’s, which was the right thing to do.
    The risk is that Putin will offer a meaningless concession that add nothing, and Trump will declare victory, and will then pressure Zelenskyy to drop his drawers.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  21. The risk is that Putin will offer a meaningless concession that add nothing, and Trump will declare victory, and will then pressure Zelenskyy to drop his drawers.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6) — 1/22/2025 @ 7:42 pm

    I think that’s exactly right.

    Rip Murdock (8907f7)

  22. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was completed in September 2021, so when Biden took office it was virtually finished; and has never entered service. Pipe A was damaged when the Ukrainians blew up Nord Stream I, and Pipe B is inactive.

    I’m unable to find any actions that Trump took to stop Nord Stream during his first term, like sanctions against Russia or other countries.

    Rip Murdock (8907f7)

  23. I suppose Trump will push for a deal where Russia makes a token concession that will be far short of returning to the pre-invasion borders. Trump will call it the best deal ever, when in fact it will be a U.S.-approved reward for invading Ukraine.

    norcal (a72384) — 1/22/2025 @ 4:43 pm

    I totally agree. 👍

    Rip Murdock (8907f7)

  24. Rip Murdock (8907f7) — 1/22/2025 @ 8:08 pm

    In fact , the Trump Administration I grandfathered the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in such a way that Gazprom and other companies avoided Congressionally-mandated sanctions.

    In 2017, (Congress) passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which included a section specifically targeting Russian energy export pipelines. Sanctions against the pipelines were to be imposed at the discretion of the secretary of State in consultation with the secretary of Treasury and in coordination with U.S. allies.
    …………
    ………… (Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) issued the fateful public guidance to energy companies that CAATSA sanctions would only apply to new Russian export pipelines — those contracted after August 2017. Contrary to the will of Congress, Nord Stream 2 was thus grandfathered in and outside the scope of sanctions.

    Under the Tillerson guidance, the five EU companies participating in Nord Stream 2 with Gazprom had no legal grounds to declare force majeure, and the project went forward at a rapid pace.
    ………..
    Finally, in late 2019 — with the project 90 percent completed — a frustrated Congress, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), inserted a provision into the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act mandating that the administration apply targeted sanctions against ships involved in the laying of undersea pipe for the project.

    These mandatory sanctions were effective. The Dutch-Swiss pipelaying company Allseas immediately ceased operation on Nord Stream to avoid sanctions. This suggests that the five EU energy companies that provided half the financing for the project would also have backed out had U.S. sanctions been applied in 2017.
    …………
    …………While U.S. sanctions in 2017 would have killed the project, by 2021 it was a fait accompli. ………

    Rip Murdock (8907f7)

  25. I’m unable to find any actions that Trump took to stop Nord Stream during his first term, like sanctions against Russia or other countries.

    Trump sanctioned the main contractor, when the pipeline was 90% complete. The practical effect is that it slowed construction a bit, until Russia took over and finished.

    Biden’s lifting the sanction was pointless and stupid, a pointless nod to outgoing lame-duck Angela Merkel, who did nothing to help Ukraine and who sabotaged German nuclear energy.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  26. 25. Not so fast: Germany had protested since 2017 against any sanctions on the pipeline, warning of consequences because it really wanted that gas. I’ll bet you even recall the stories about the Germans “smirking” at the UN as Trump warned them in a speech there that they were becoming dependent on Russian gas. Right?

    The “Smart people” in the world ridiculed Trump’s claims, “smirked” at him and the media here along with Trump detractors, loved it. They thought it was just politics–missed the real urgency of the issue.

    But Trump did sanction the Nordstream pipeline as you admit, late or not, he did. Despite Germany’s objections. So he did take action, and despite Germany’s objections and the howls of the Literati politicians who claimed Trump was being “rude” to our allies.

    Who waived those sanctions? Biden. Not Trump. Biden.

    And Trump did send real weapons to Ukraine which you don’t deny, and which Obama never did.

    Trump saw Putin as a danger when others blinded by partisan outlook, could see Trump as a buffoon: and could only tout Merkel as a genius. But Trump was right: Putin was a danger. Merkel was wrong. The Literati chattering classes here were wrong.

    So let’s not worry overly much about the man who was right; who took action when others only thought he was being rude to our allies.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (c0c5dd)

  27. I am going to do a Rip Murdock here, as I think the points made by (trigger alert) Matthew Yglesias are relevant here:

    But what is Trump’s actual policy here? Or, frankly, anywhere?

    He was the original “ban TikTok” guy, but then after a TikTok ban passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, he flip-flopped and decided it’s great for America to be programmed by the Chinese Communist Party. More broadly, he owns the tough on China brand, but he’s appointed the straightforwardly pro-CCP, anti-Taiwan Elon Musk as his shadow president. He criticized aid to Ukraine, which was consistent with what he said when he was president. Except when he was president, the US actually delivered more aid to Ukraine, not less. Now some parts of his team are talking about getting tougher on sanctioning Russia — Sebastian Gorka says they’re going to give Ukraine more weapons than ever. His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is an old-school GOP national security hawk. But on the other hand, he is very insistent on installing the under-qualified Pete Hegseth at the Department of Defense, and he’s standing behind Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.

    I have no idea what’s actually going on here. In my darker moments, I think America has already lost the New Cold War, because Trump and Musk are on the other side.

    I worry that over the next four years, we’ll abandon Biden’s nascent efforts to rebuild manufacturing, abandon Ukraine, abandon Taiwan, and implement a tariff policy that hammers American exporters, all while the president spends his time gleefully shitposting about Canada and picking fights with Latin American countries over deportations.

    Other times, I think super-hawk nationalist warmongers are in the driver’s seat.

    Or maybe it’s both. Or neither. One of the big frustrations of journalism is you write the stories about what you do think you know, not what you know you don’t know. And yet, I find that almost across the board, Trump, despite being incredibly famous forever and ever, is irreducibly enigmatic. Being a liar is core to his brand. It’s something that his supporters like about him, so you can’t take anything he says literally or ever predict what he’s going to do — which, in his books, he says is a reason it’s good to be a liar.

    My own thought is that it is impossible to predict Trump and it is easy to over-emphasize the buffoonery. Best assume that the man know what he wants to accomplish and that you don’t. Just remember that he is a criminal, a racist, wants revenge and does not want to be opposed.

    The ironic thing is that while Trump is an enigma, he is also very easy to trigger and he can be flattered. As a super-villain, he is endlessly fascinating, and would be a worthy opponent to Batman. As a real person — well, we are living in the “interesting times” of that old Chinese curse.

    Appalled (6579a1)

  28. Hi Dana —

    I would love to know what just put my comment in moderation…

    Appalled (6579a1)

  29. And Trump did send real weapons to Ukraine which you don’t deny, and which Obama never did.

    The problem is that Trump sent weapons with strings attached, specifically that they be kept in western Ukraine, hundreds of miles from the front, where they would do exactly no good while they were at war in Donbas during Trump’s entire single term.

    But while there is evidence that the Javelin sale has been a powerful gesture of support for Kyiv, the missiles’ military application has been far more limited. Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine—hundreds of miles from the battlefield.

    “I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless in the event of a sustained low-level assault—the kind of attack Ukraine is most likely to face from Russia.

    Bottom line, it was a political gesture that gave MAGAs a talking point and didn’t actually help Ukraine defend itself from Putin’s aggression.

    We agree that Biden was a fool wrt Merkel, and Merkel is her own kind of fool, increasing German dependence on fossil fuels and Russian oil.
    Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroder, was just as bad or worse, advocating for Nord Stream I, managing Nord Stream II, and sitting on the board of Kremlin-owned Rosneft, Putin’s biggest oil producer. He was going to join the board of Gazprom, but withdrew after Putin’s Big Escalation.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  30. I am going to do a Rip Murdock here, as I think the points made by (trigger alert) Matthew Yglesias are relevant here:

    But what is Trump’s actual policy here? Or, frankly, anywhere?

    He was the original “ban TikTok” guy, but then after a TikTok ban passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, he flip-flopped and decided it’s great for America to be programmed by the Chinese Communist Party. More broadly, he owns the tough on China brand, but he’s appointed the straightforwardly pro-CCP, anti-Taiwan Elon Musk as his shadow president. He criticized aid to Ukraine, which was consistent with what he said when he was president. Except when he was president, the US actually delivered more aid to Ukraine, not less. Now some parts of his team are talking about getting tougher on sanctioning Russia — Sebastian Gorka says they’re going to give Ukraine more weapons than ever. His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is an old-school GOP national security hawk. But on the other hand, he is very insistent on installing the under-qualified Pete Hegseth at the Department of Defense, and he’s standing behind Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.

    I have no idea what’s actually going on here. In my darker moments, I think America has already lost the New Cold War, because Trump and Musk are on the other side.

    I worry that over the next four years, we’ll abandon Biden’s nascent efforts to rebuild manufacturing, abandon Ukraine, abandon Taiwan, and implement a tariff policy that hammers American exporters, all while the president spends his time gleefully s—posting about Canada and picking fights with Latin American countries over deportations.

    Other times, I think super-hawk nationalist warmongers are in the driver’s seat.

    Or maybe it’s both. Or neither. One of the big frustrations of journalism is you write the stories about what you do think you know, not what you know you don’t know. And yet, I find that almost across the board, Trump, despite being incredibly famous forever and ever, is irreducibly enigmatic. Being a liar is core to his brand. It’s something that his supporters like about him, so you can’t take anything he says literally or ever predict what he’s going to do — which, in his books, he says is a reason it’s good to be a liar.

    https://www.slowboring.com/p/nobody-knows-what-trump-is-going

    My own thought is that it is impossible to predict Trump and it is easy to over-emphasize the buffoonery. Best assume that the man know what he wants to accomplish and that you don’t. Just remember that he is a criminal, a racist, wants revenge and does not want to be opposed.

    The ironic thing is that while Trump is an enigma, he is also very easy to trigger and he can be flattered. As a super-villain, he is endlessly fascinating, and would be a worthy opponent to Batman. As a real person — well, we are living in the “interesting times” of that old Chinese curse.

    (I think I saw the word that put this in moderation. Hoping this works this time)

    Appalled (6579a1)

  31. And the other shoe drops. Trump just canceled Pompeo’s Secret Service protection, so he’s not a hypocrite, just contemptible, cruel and selfish, because Trump is the only who stays protected by dint of his office.

    President Trump revoked security protection for his former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and a former top aide, Brian Hook, despite warnings from the Biden administration that both men faced ongoing threats from Iran because of actions they took on Mr. Trump’s behalf, four people with knowledge of the matter said on Thursday.

    Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Hook had been part of an aggressive posture against Iran during the first Trump presidency, most notably the drone strike that killed the powerful Iranian general Qassim Suleimani in early 2020.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  32. Paul Montagu (3bccc6) — 1/23/2025 @ 8:07 am

    Exactly. While the Obama Administration (sadly) didn’t provide lethal aid, it did provide more than $100M in security assistance to Ukraine, prior to President Zylensky’s election:

    Today (March 15, 2015) the first 10 armored Humvees for Ukraine arrived from the United States! In a ceremony at Boryspil Airport with U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Bruce Donahue, President Poroshenko thanked the United States for its ongoing assistance and promised that Ukrainian soldiers would make good use of the vehicles. In the next week, two more shipments of armored Humvees from the United States, for a total of 30, will arrive in Ukraine. The United States has committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine to date, and has additionally promised 230 Humvees in total, as well as $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and medical supplies.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  33. Zelensky’s bottom line is NATO accession. Given that, other things are possible. Without that, any agreement with Putin is just as worthless as all their other agreements with Russia.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  34. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.

    –O’Brien to Winston Smith

    Trump has always been at war with Putin.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  35. Zelensky’s bottom line is NATO accession.

    If that is true, then Putin will never stop fighting. The raison d’être of Putin’s invasion was to stop the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders.

    From the outset, Putin has embedded his issues regarding Ukraine in the larger question of NATO’s role in Europe. He has long railed against the alliance’s expansion and potential Ukrainian membership as a grave threat to Russia’s security, as well as a betrayal of promises at the end of the Cold War not to extend NATO “an inch” eastward. Russian draft treaties on security guarantees released in the run-up to the invasion focused on NATO, not Ukraine. The three key demands in these treaties were an end to NATO expansion, a prohibition on the deployment of offensive weapons along Russia’s borders, and the withdrawal of NATO infrastructure back to the lines of 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed two years before the first post-Cold War wave of expansion.

    Putin’s concerns about NATO overlapped with the two goals he identified as essential to Russia’s security when he launched the “special military operation”: the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. A hint of the content of those two processes came in the negotiations Russian and Ukrainian officials held in the first weeks after the invasion in an effort to produce a framework for a settlement. With regard to demilitarization, the Russians insisted on Ukrainian neutrality, while proposing a peacetime military force capped at eighty-five thousand troops, as well as strict limits on heavy weaponry and the range of missile systems.

    Even if Putin retains the conquered portions of Ukraine in any peace agreement, a NATO member Ukraine will still be on Russia’s borders.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  36. If that is true, then Putin will never stop fighting.

    Putin cannot win militarily without using nukes.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  37. Putin cannot win militarily without using nukes.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/23/2025 @ 10:35 am

    How so? Putin can win just by grinding down the Ukrainian Army; and there is no evidence that the UA is making any real progress against the Russian offensive campaign. The only reason to use nuclear weapons would be if the West intervened with ground and air forces, and politically across European and the US there is no support for that.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  38. 29: Paul M: I always am impressed with your comments, which are very reasoned. But as to the Javelins, it turns out they were incredibly useful, despite the airy wave off opinion of some bureaucrat at Rand. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-made-javelin-missiles-are-vital-ukraines-fight-russia-experts-say-rcna20878

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  39. Putin can win just by grinding down the Ukrainian Army

    He’s grinding down the Russian Army just as fast. By the time he defeats Ukraine, he’ll have no army left. All he is proving is that Russia’s armed forces would be a pushover for NATO. Or China.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  40. Appreciated, Harc. When the Javelins are at the front, they’re very useful at knocking out tanks as such.

    Putin cannot win militarily without using nukes.

    I’d say that Putin can’t win with nukes because, if he tries a tactical or strategic atomic bomb, he’d kill thousands–maybe hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians–a mass war crime that would make himself a worldwide pariah, thus losing his top benefactor, China.

    His only course is to grind, IMO, which can be repulsed with sufficient military aid, keeping him in quagmire long enough bankrupt his sheethole country. As I see it, it’s a race between which holds out the longest, the military aid or Putin’s economy. As long as Ukraine has the will, I support sending the aid and making Putin pay. The prime question is whether Trump can see it that way, and I’m not optimistic.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  41. Putin needs to worry more about Xi. That “Northern Resource Zone” could be mighty tempting if Russian has no army left.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  42. 40: Agree 100%: bleed him as long as Ukraine can hold out. But I think Trump sees the war as something that can only get worse – -nukes, germ warefare, a Ukrainian collapse, an erosion of US patience- and wants to end it. Hopefully on good terms.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  43. Trump is the only [one] who stays protected by dint of his office.

    If Trump is succeeded by someone other than Vance, he might come to regret this.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  44. Hopefully on good terms.

    “Hope” isn’t a strategy. And it matters. The war has to end with Putin losing, pour encourager les autres.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  45. (Putin’s) only course is to grind, IMO, which can be repulsed with sufficient military aid, keeping him in quagmire long enough bankrupt his sheethole country. As I see it, it’s a race between which holds out the longest, the military aid or Putin’s economy.

    My bet is on the Russian economy, as I expect by this time next year the US will stop providing military aid to Ukraine, as part of a deal with Trump.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  46. (Putin is) grinding down the Russian Army just as fast.

    Russia has a much larger population that can be deployed against Ukraine, which has a manpower shortage. And Russia’s capacity to produce weapons has grown despite sanctions, while Ukraine’s capacity to do so is minuscule.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  47. Correction to post 45:

    the US will stop providing military aid to Ukraine, as part of a deal with Putin.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  48. Russia has a much larger population that can be deployed against Ukraine, which has a manpower shortage.

    Russia is fighting a war of oppression, and has largely exhausted the supply of young men from the sticks. Now they have to try drafting kids from Moscow and other big cities, with parents who can be heard. With the economy failing, Putin is eventually going to run out of room.

    Ukraine is fighting an existential war of desperation. That has deeper reserves.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  49. Russia has a much larger population that can be deployed against Ukraine, which has a manpower shortage.

    Putin is stuck with the manpower he has, which includes getting North Korean cannon fodder and trawling prisons and nightclubs.

    He can’t do a full mobilization and force a conscription without changing his Special Military Operation to a declaration of war, and there’s a reason Putin hasn’t done that because of the political blowback. He’s stuck with financial incentives for soldiers in a country where the ruble isn’t worth a penny and his inflation rate is pushing 20%.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  50. (Putin is) grinding down the Russian Army just as fast.

    Then I guess he will need to use nuclear weapons. An interesting question is what NATO would do in retaliation. If nuclear weapons were used during the Biden administration, I have no doubt NATO would respond in some way. I’m not so sure what NATO would do under the Trump administration, if anything. Without the backing of the US, I doubt any group of European countries would do retaliate on their own.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  51. Ukraine is fighting an existential war of desperation. That has deeper reserves.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/23/2025 @ 1:11 pm

    Apparently not everyone feels that way, as Ukraine has a draft dodger problem.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  52. Paul Montagu (3bccc6) — 1/23/2025 @ 1:13 pm

    Even if true, Russia’s industrial capacity is overwhelming Ukraine. I don’t see the Trump administration continuing aid at the same levels as the Biden administration.

    Rip Murdock (dda1b5)

  53. Even if true, Russia’s industrial capacity is overwhelming Ukraine.

    Industrial capacity with what money? With what imports?

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  54. Russia isn’t producing enough military equipment to replace losses.
    They are short of trucks and are using civilian vehicles. They are dredging reserves for armored vehicles, field artillery from the 1950’s.
    What Russia is doing is throwing men into meat assaults- it’s not military equipment, it’s the large unemployed or underemployed male population.

    steveg (cdf9e5)

  55. It is said that Trump likes to “weaponize uncertainty,” which I say is true. He likes to make sweeping statements that are interpreted according to the predispositions of the ear owner.

    steveg (cdf9e5)

  56. Industrial capacity with what money? With what imports?

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6) — 1/23/2025 @ 1:35 pm

    Russia isn’t producing enough military equipment to replace losses.

    steveg (cdf9e5) — 1/23/2025 @ 1:59 pm

    Maybe, maybe not:

    ………..
    Although the U.S. and its partners have touted an array of sanctions over the past two years to choke off Moscow’s access to key parts needed to build weapons, Russia has dramatically increased the production of artillery rounds, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to the report (by the Royal United Services Institute).

    In 2021, before Russian forces invaded, Moscow produced 56 Kh-101 cruise missiles a year. By last year, it had manufactured 460 cruise missiles, according to the report. Russia’s stock of Iskander ballistic missiles also has increased dramatically, from about 50 before the invasion to 180, even though Russia has launched large numbers of the missiles on the battlefield, it said.

    To make munitions for missiles and drones, Russia depends on micro-electronics imported from abroad, but U.S. and European measures have failed to block Moscow’s access to those electronic components. Russia has maintained an ample supply of antennas manufactured by an Irish company that are used in glide kits for bombs, according to the report.

    The expansion of Russia’s weapons production offers clear evidence that thousands of Western sanctions have proved ineffective, the report said. “In summary, despite the diligent efforts of many civil servants, backed by the political will to disrupt Russia’s military–industrial output, there is little to show for it,” it said.
    ………..

    And

    Russia’s current reserves of foreign currency and gold, which stand at about $580 billion, provide considerable freedom of maneuver. As a result of sanctions, Moscow surely has written off roughly $300 billion that was frozen in Western bank accounts at the start of the fighting, but the ratio of remaining gold and foreign currency reserves to GDP is a good one. (Note: Russian GDP in 2023 was about $2 trillion.) That ratio is roughly equivalent to that of Canada, France, or Mexico, and significantly better than Australia’s.

    It is a similar story with other parts of the Russian government’s balance sheet. Russia’s rainy day fund (the National Wealth Fund, or NWF) stood at about 12 trillion rubles ($130 billion) at the start of 2024. Roughly 5 trillion rubles of the NWF is liquid, with the rest invested in long-term bonds, company shares, and infrastructure projects.1 Those 5 trillion rubles are managed by the Finance Ministry, not the central bank. In addition, about $170 billion worth of foreign currency was held in individual and company accounts in December 2023. The foreign currency debts of the nonfinance sector totaled $220 billion.

    And

    Russia is engaged in what US officials describe as the ‘most ambitious expansion in military manufacturing since the Soviet era’. Satellite imagery suggests that solid-propellant rocket motor-production capacity appears to be one focus of this effort.
    ……….
    Solid-propellant missile systems are central to Russia’s strategic arsenal and to its tactical ground-launched shorter-range weapons. Russia has used short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) widely in its war against Ukraine. The Russian Armed Forces have deployed multiple types of surface-to-surface missiles, including the 9K720 Iskander-M (RS-SS-26 Stone) SRBM and rockets fired by the Tornado-S multiple rocket launcher system (MRL), targeting both high-value Ukrainian military assets and critical infrastructure. Additionally, surface-to-air missile systems, such as the S-300P(RS-SA-20 Gargoyle) and S-400 (RS-SA-21 Growler), are central elements of Russia’s ground-based air-defence architecture, which it has also utilised in secondary ground-attack roles. Larger composite solid-propellant motors are also utilised in a large proportion of Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and its newer submarine-launched ballistic missiles that form the central pillar of Moscow’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
    ………..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  57. Here is the Royal United Services Institute report on Russian military production.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  58. Paul Montagu (3bccc6) — 1/23/2025 @ 1:35 pm

    steveg (cdf9e5) — 1/23/2025 @ 1:59 pm

    From the RUSI report:

    An assessment of Russian production demonstrates that, despite all the above measures, efforts to curtail the Russian defence industry have thus far in aggregate failed.

    Russian artillery – the backbone of its battlefield successes – consumes vast quantities of ammunition. Nevertheless, at the beginning of 2022, Russian industry was producing a mere 250,000 rounds of 152 mm ammunition per year. By the beginning of 2023, it had increased production to 1 million rounds per year. Over the course of 2023, Russian production of 152 mm shells rose further, so that the country expects to manufacture 1.325 million rounds in 2024. Meanwhile, 122 mm artillery ammunition increased to an expected output of 800,000 rounds over 2024. The production of multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) started from a much lower base, but has increased at a faster rate. In 2023, Russian 122 mm Grad production was just 33,000 rounds, but in 2024, production is on track to exceed 500,000 rounds. Similarly, 220 mm Uragan rocket production was just 2,800 rounds in 2023, but is on track to reach 17,000 rounds in 2024, with a similar rate of increase anticipated into 2025. This prioritisation of MLRS production is intended to compensate for shortages of replacement barrels in 2025.
    ……….
    A similar story can be told about Russia’s manufacture of long-range missiles. One of the cruise missiles most widely employed by Russian forces during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been the Kh-101. In 2021, prior to the fullscale invasion, the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) had a target of producing 350 of these missiles per year. Actual production was just 56 missiles. In 2022, the Russian MoD set a target of producing 460 Kh-101s per year. By 2023, actual production had reached 420 Kh-101s per year, not only dwarfing pre-war production, but also closing the gap between Russia’s ambitions and its outputs. At the beginning of 2023, Russia had approximately 50 9M723 ballistic missiles left in stock. Before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia produced approximately six of these missiles per month. Production has since more than tripled, such that, despite using Iskanders throughout 2023, Russia began 2024 with 180 9M723 and 9M727 in stock.

    ……… Given that all these munitions are critically dependent on US- and foreign-origin microelectronics, these figures clearly demonstrate that sanctions and other measures have entirely failed to slow production. Indeed, in some instances, access to specific components has increased. When the Russian military began to drop aerial bombs with UMPK glide kits, they were guided by Kometa-M satellite navigation modules using antennae from the Irish company Taoglas………
    ………
    The picture of Russian armoured vehicle production is distorted by the volume of equipment that the Russians can withdraw from storage and refurbish. For example, Russia is producing approximately 1,500 tanks and 3,000 other armoured fighting vehicles in 2024 and is set to produce a similar number in 2025. Approximately 85% of these are vehicles refurbished from storage……..
    ……….

    Footnotes omitted.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  59. 44: “Hope isn’t a strategy,” yet you want to “bet the country” on Ukraine’s deep “existential” strength.

    As Rip M notes, Ukraine has a daft dodger problem, and Russia has more manpower. Lots of people fled Ukraine rather than fight.

    And you say Putin has to lose: a noble aim, but men fighting and dying may not want to hold out for that, and may not be able to do so.

    Just saying: that a deal may be best for all involved.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  60. Just saying: that a deal may be best for all involved.

    Unless Ukraine accedes to NATO, there is no deal because Russia has torn up the last few deals. Putin speaks with forked tongue.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  61. > Putin speaks with forked tongue

    So does America,now.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  62. Also, Russia may have more men, but they are having massive problems with conscription, and have several times tightened the laws there. Further, they are not sending conscripts into Ukraine but instead using larger and larger inducements for their cannon fodder.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  63. MOSCOW, July 31 (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin doubled upfront payments for volunteers to fight in Ukraine on Wednesday, a move aimed at facilitating military recruitment but likely to create imbalances in the overheated economy.
    All Russians who sign a contract with the army will now receive an upfront payment of 400,000 roubles ($4,651). The decree also recommends that regional authorities match this payment from their budgets with at least the same amount.
    With the minimum monthly payment for a private participating in what Russia calls a “special military operation” set at 204,000 roubles, the new decree raises the minimum annual wage in the first year of service to 3.25 million roubles ($37,791).
    Monthly wages for officers are higher and depend on their rank. All recruits also receive additional money for participating in offensives or destroying enemy tanks and other machinery.
    Earlier this month, the mayor of Moscow set an upfront payment for city residents signing up to fight in Ukraine at 1.9 million roubles ($21,777) from the city budget, bringing their annual pay in their first year of service to 5.2 million roubles.
    The latest increases mean that the minimum annual pay for Russian contract soldiers fighting in Ukraine will exceed the average wage in Russia by more than threefold, with the minimum pay for Muscovites exceeding the average wage by more than fivefold.
    Such payments have helped Russia avoid a new nationwide mobilization after a troubled campaign in 2022 led to a mass exodus of people to neighbouring countries. However, some economists argue that the payments are creating a wage spiral in the economy.
    The wage increases are also supported by an array of other measures, such as exemptions on monthly interest payments on consumer loans for volunteers and state guarantees on such loans in the case of death.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-doubles-signing-bonuses-volunteers-fight-ukraine-2024-07-31/

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  64. So does America,now

    How so? Have we (lately) signed a treaty then reneged?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  65. RUSI is right about this, too, Rip.

    Instead of fully committing to helping Kyiv repel Russian aggression, the West chose to pursue ‘escalation management’, enabling Moscow to wreak havoc in Ukraine and largely protecting Russia from the war.

    The limited support for Ukraine makes clear that the West never truly had a strategy for Russia’s defeat – which would entail complete unconditional withdrawal of Russian military formations from all of Ukraine, the renunciation of Moscow’s territorial claims, justice for war criminals, and reparations. Without Russia’s defeat, there cannot be a Ukrainian victory, only de facto or de jure concessions by Kyiv.

    A defeated Russia is an infinitely lesser threat than an undefeated Russia. Sacrificing Ukraine will not solve the problem of the aggressive, revanchist, totalitarian Russian state. If the black hole of Putin’s Russia swallows Ukraine, it will increase its gravitational pull. The West will face the consequences of the new global power re-alignment, consisting first and foremost of Sino-Russian domination in Europe.

    In fact, by refusing to shoot down Russian missiles and drones in NATO airspace; by refusing to implement a humanitarian military mission to protect Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, especially its nuclear power plants; by drip-feeding military aid to Kyiv, withholding critically needed weapons and imposing restrictions on Ukrainian strikes against Russia; by stalling on NATO membership for Ukraine; and by accepting China’s say on the security of Europe, the West – and the US in particular – has already manifestly relinquished its leadership role in international relations.

    The self-defeating policy of risk aversion has also severely damaged the credibility of NATO’s own deterrence. NATO is projecting the image of a panic room, not that of an actionable force capable of providing security – even for its own members.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  66. > How so? Have we (lately) signed a treaty then reneged?

    We’re imposing tariffs on ourneighbors in violation of NAFTA, and we’re threatening to violate both the Canal Treaty and NATO.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  67. Our disagreement lies in the fact that two very different things can be true simultaneously.

    Russia is not replacing the losses of newer model equipment with next-generation weapons.
    They are instead digging (deep) into reserve. If you take a minute and look around x, you will see drone videos of the destruction of WWII era 57mm cannons on the front lines.
    T-90M tanks are not being replaced with new ones; they are being replaced with refurbished T-55 and T-62 tanks. Given the nature of the conflict, I think this is a wise use of resources, but this war is not a triumph of Russian industry.
    Russia’s newest stand off weapons are still not very accurate, their equipment used in the mano a mano battlefield (APC, IFV, ARV, Tanks, field artillery) is increasingly older. The logistics has gone from Kamaz truck down to Loaf vans.
    Russia is winning ground by spending the lives of its undereducated, unemployed, rural minorities.

    steveg (cdf9e5)

  68. steveg (cdf9e5) — 1/23/2025 @ 5:48 pm

    Whatever the source of weapons, Russia will outgun and outlast Ukraine in the end.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  69. Paul Montagu (3bccc6) — 1/23/2025 @ 5:17 pm

    You won’t get any argument from me on that point.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  70. The limited support for Ukraine makes clear that the West never truly had a strategy for Russia’s defeat – which would entail complete unconditional withdrawal of Russian military formations from all of Ukraine, the renunciation of Moscow’s territorial claims, justice for war criminals, and reparations.

    That would require direct intervention with ground troops and air support by NATO, an unlikely prospect from the start.

    Rip Murdock (c222c5)

  71. Unless Ukraine accedes to NATO, there is no deal because Russia has torn up the last few deals. Putin speaks with forked tongue.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/23/2025 @ 3:49 pm

    There at least two NATO members, possibly three, would oppose Ukraine in NATO: Turkey, Hungary, and possibly the United States.

    Rip Murdock (dda1b5)

  72. Add Slovakia to that list, Rip. The US would add Ukraine to NATO, as long as Trump-Vance aren’t in the picture. I think Erdogan might be amenable but certainly not a jerkoff like Orban.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  73. This is where Trump is a f-cking liar and idjit.

    “He shouldn’t have allowed this to happen either. He’s no angel. He shouldn’t have allowed this war to happen.”

    Zelenskyy had no power to prevent Putin from his unprovoked, unjustified unlawful invasion. Zelenskyy has every right to defend his country from Putin, who had no right to invade, in 2014 and 2022.

    That Trump still doesn’t get this, that he’s still a Putin suck-up, is why things could go very badly for us.

    Paul Montagu (3bccc6)

  74. Turkey, Hungary, and possibly the United States.

    There is no deal if the US (e.g. Trump) opposes. If either of the other two crosses Trump, well, good luck.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  75. “He shouldn’t have allowed this to happen either”

    It’s really hard to defend that. Anyone want to try?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  76. so you can’t take anything he says literally or ever predict what he’s going to do

    But after the fact, you can explain it. Provided that you were right about what the possibilities were.

    I think Trump is really sincere about ending the fighting (just out of ego – he’d love to do what everybody said was impossible) and he knows it won’t end unless Russia (Putin) gives up.

    How he gets from here to there, he doesn’t know, but first he wants to try economic measures – he’s going to try to bankrupt the Russian government, or rather threaten it with bankruptcy if Putin continues the war. Remember, this is supposedly what caused the Soviet Union to give up the Cold War.

    In the 18th century, and also even in the time of Napoleon, nations stopped wars when they ran out of money. They didn’t want inflation.

    Even Stalin believed in the 1920s that he had to end the ars for financial reasons.

    Trump’s going to go a bit slow, just to get European sign in. Marco RUbio will help devise the strategy.

    Sammy Finkelman (93572e)

  77. Trump also believes that, somehow, some way, if he just thinks hard enough or tasks other people to do it, he can knock some sense into Putin.

    Sammy Finkelman (93572e)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0883 secs.