Friends, way back in 1943 the biggest tank battle of all time was fought in the Kursk region of Russia, as the Soviets defeated the Germans and solidified the Allies' increasingly irresistible momentum in WWII. Now, as we speak, the Ukrainians have advanced 30-35 kilometers into the Kursk region in a bold move designed to put their Russian adversaries on their back foot (or feet, as the case may be). It's working, too: Russia has been flummoxed by the lightning offensive. This puts the West in a bind. We've told our Ukrainian clients all along that they can defend their homeland all they like, but they shouldn't escalate the war by attacking deep into Russia -- and they certainly shouldn't use our weapons and training and intel and money to do it. Well, so much for those caveats! Time and again, the West has said "To heck with prudence!" and allowed the Ukrainians to cross Russia's red lines. How will this story end? Will the Russians gird themselves and neutralize the offensive, using only conventional means? That's very possible. Will the Russians reply instead with some form of escalation of their own -- up to and including the use of nuclear weapons? That's possible too, especially if the Ukrainian spearhead continues to plunge deeper into Mother Russia. Will any of this change the ultimate outcome of the war? Your guess is as good as mine... One thing is for sure: the Russian military has proven itself to be far less capable than most of us assumed before hostilities commenced. Putin and his generals ought to be ashamed of their country's palpable weakness, and one assumes they're hard at work trying to correct it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cql365ld002o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qgwvjj9d1o
In other news, we will definitely get a rhetorical clash between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz -- that is to say, there's a Vice-Presidential debate a-brewin'! Good. That should be fun to watch.
https://apnews.com/article/vice-presidential-debate-walz-vance-60650c0480e132342880c35a1d29f539
And, in a development of potentially decisive importance in November, the appeal of third party candidates seems to be waning, and RFK, Jr., in particular, seems to be questioning the wisdom of continuing with his presidential campaign. As someone who has thought seriously about voting for Kennedy, I find his dithering quite off-putting. I mean, can he really be surprised by the fact that he's not likely to be the next president? If he had a definite and substantial reason for running for president in the first place, then what's changed to make him willing to trade a measly government job for his presidential ambitions? Be all this as it may, I think the Dems are pretty dumb to frisk aside his entreaties. In my view, Biden could have neutralized Kennedy long, long ago, simply by treating him with a little respect. Now, Kamala could win Kennedy's endorsement, and settle a schism on the Left, simply by promising RFK, Jr. a minor position in her administration (which she might or might not give him, in the final analysis). Why not bite the bullet? If I were Trump, by contrast, I would probably be willing to make common cause with Kennedy, although it frankly isn't clear whether Kennedy's endorsement of Trump, or the continuation of his campaign, with a special emphasis on attracting the votes of progressives and young people, would be more helpful to Trump's chances. If you want my opinion, words of support from RFK, Jr. aren't likely to be worth a great deal. People would see a Kennedy endorsement as a cynical move -- which it would be. Dividing up the electoral pie by keeping as many viable third party candidates in the race as possible, on the other hand, has real appeal for a candidate like Trump, who isn't liked by most voters, and who thus isn't likely to win 50% of the vote. Kennedy is looking increasingly like the embodiment of ambivalence, rather like Ross Perot back in 1992, but that doesn't mean he still can't have a crucial impact on the outcome. Sad to say, but so many of the dynamics of this race, and in many ways the determinants of the fate of our nation, come down to personal vanity and ego -- of Trump, of Biden, of Harris, and of Kennedy. What a farce democracy can turn out to be at times. Oy vey!
https://news.yahoo.com/news/rfk-jr-reached-harris-campaign-012142563.html
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Suppose we were to invade Mexico to destroy the cartels: how would we react to Mexican manned Russian tanks crossing the Rio Grande? Worse, much worse, how would we regard Migs over the US? Yes, we have faced Russian equipment, in the Middle East, Vietnam and Korea. But not in our country!How would Russia view F16s over Russia ?!To ask this is not to sympathize with Russia but rather to necessarily and objectively try to discern what Russia is thinking now, FOR OUR OWN GOOD! If one were facing an infuriated grizzly sow with cubs one would have to think very clearly.
ReplyDeleteRussia is very sentimental about the "Great Patriotic War" against the Nazis, to the extent that a visit to war memorial in every town and city is customary on wedding day in Russia. They are terribly proud of how they stood up to the monster and pounded it into the ground. Had it not been for Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk would have been their Gettyburg . Imagine Spetnasz commandos vertically enveloping Gettysburg. Surely Ukraine had tactical reasons for invading the Kursk region; their fortitude is enviable. But Kursk?! They have to know how raw a nerve that is; is it possible they mean such emotional offense?
Russia has never attacked Nato; because they probably had no choice they endured Nato's astonishing advance to their borders, including that ideal tank country in Poland. Is it possible though that they may be pushed by the West to a point where they will consider fighting Nato? Could Putin's tenure or his very life be at hazard from hard liners in his military?
We have acted with disastrous hubris in enabling things to come to this head. We should never have even broached the subject of Ukrainian membership in Nato, a prospect absolutely unendurable for the ALWAYS hard, hard Russian nation (nuclear armed!), a land brutalized by its climate and history. Wars have ways of taking on unintended natures and generating unimagined results. We'd better start imagining now and so should the Brits.
We have proceeded
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Another factor which is relevant, I think: Finland and Sweden. For obvious geographical and historical reasons both of them know Russia very well. In the current situation both thought it necessary to abandon "neutrality" and join Nato. Why? Did they think Russia would be emboldened by expected success in Ukraine to pursue expansion (eg. Finland, which once was theirs). OR, did fear that a Russia stung to its very quick by material support of Ukraine by several Nato countries would finally lash out for relief from what Russia sees as a longstanding , ultimately unendurable affront and threat? We should pay very close attention to whatever these two countries might advise.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I still think RFK Jr. is a reflexive eccentric, a crank. Best, I would suggest, to just let him be; no telling what he might do. Heck, he's been willing to endure his public disapprobation by his exalted clan. Hard times in Hyannisport.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I remember when (I think) Lloyd Bentsen, Dukakis's running mate , found an opening in a debate when Dan Quayle appeared to compare himself to JFK. "I knew JFK well" (and you didn't , you young punk) "and you are NO JFK, Dan". It flustered Dan . I fully expect Walz to play the homespun wise 'ol boy to a JD he will try to portray as a no 'count whippersnapper. Walz will of course talk down to JD as do all Dems to their by definition insolent and discredited opponents. JD is no Paul Ryan, there will be no puppyish cringing and wetting from him. Walz will try to steal the independents in fly over country but I think a very oratorically skilled JD will show him up for what he is: that is a thoroughgoing leftist in reality and inimical to the America JD has championed.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: British made tanks have entered Russia. That ain't good. Planes, tanks and ships are very visible manifestations of invasion. I wonder, would Russia think to test Nato's resolve by attacking a Nato country and daring the U.S. to actually pick up the glove? Russian "patience" is being sorely tried. Their apparent relative conventional weakness could lead them to use tactical nukes, both for their possible destructive capability and as a final warning. I'm still not completely convinced that Ukraine doesn't have a few of them.
ReplyDeleteJack, I couldn't agree more about Ukraine. Poking the bear seems to be all the rage in Brussels these days, but surely ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! Sooner or later, the Russians are going to take vengeance on someone. Most likely the Ukrainians -- who have already suffered plenty -- but possibly us. Would the Russians go to war with NATO? I can't see that, but they must have other options to stir up trouble, and, as you say, things could easily spiral out of control from there.
ReplyDeleteYes, RFK, Jr. is a bit of a crank. Like it or not, though, he's a very consequential crank in '24. Almost every poll shows that the addition of the third party candidates changes the overall outcome, and none command more support than he does, by a big margin. You know, I read that West and Stein are both running on fumes, financially. A single visionary donor, even if all he had in mind was mischief-making, could vastly increase their viability and visibility, and possibly change the course of world history. Am I the only one who sees this???
Yes, Walz may land a few punches, but I have every confidence that J.D. will give as good as he gets!
Yes, the use of Russian tactical nukes against the Ukrainian "invaders" is a real possibility -- assuming Russia can even reliably deliver them on the battlefield. A lot of planes and missiles get shot down nowadays... In the end, therefore, ICBMs or SLBMs might be the only surefire way to get Ukraine's attention. Politically, the use of nukes on Russian soil, against aggressors, would make a certain amount of sense -- who could object to a country using every weapon in its arsenal to guard its own sovereign territory? Russia would be, purely geographically, nuking itself!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re RFK Jr. and third party possibilities: You are not the only one who sees it now! You made a well founded point.
ReplyDeleteA very creditable point concerning possible Russian use of nukes; to use one in Kursk itself: chances are that would be unthinkable for them but perhaps they might reluctantly consider it. The presence of an invader in Russia itself must be terribly disturbing for them , as it would be for any country; but THEM!? Still, out of reluctance to tangle with a yet hubris infected West they might take what for them would be a devastatingly shameful and disheartening act.
Russsia has, since the fall of the USSR, shown a no doubt painful acceptance of onerous realities. They could not fight Nato to keep it from advancing; they could not prevent the reunification of an independent Germany, (as terrible a manifestation as could be imagined for them). But
surely their national pride must have a point beyond which it cannot be driven! Is it possible they are holding out in hope of a restored DJT who might give and take with them for what they hold to be justice and their security upheld: a US guarantee of no US vote for Ukrainian membership in Nato? Are they playing for time in that consideration? Perhaps as long as Ukraine does not annex the Kursk region or drive on Moscow, they may be able to hold themselves back until after our election(?) This would be high history were it not so tragic .
Dr. Waddy from Jack:Having lived the period, I(for what it is worth) I do not see RFK Jr. approaching the significance Perot manifested in '93. But it may not take much to work a result which sends the radical left to the side yards.
ReplyDeleteYes, Jack, my guess would be that Russia will stay the course until the election, and probably beyond that too. In Ukraine itself, they are slowly, slowly winning. Regardless of who wins the presidency in the U.S., Russia might feel that the West will eventually lose focus and let Ukraine down. They might also feel that, as a country, they can outlast Ukraine in terms of military and demographic and economic and industrial muscle. If I were Russia, I would only use nukes if I sensed that defeat was looming. Russia is a long way from that.
ReplyDeleteRFK, Jr. certainly won't get as big a share of the vote as Perot, but that doesn't necessarily make him any less significant. A spoiler is significant if he...spoils it for someone. I honestly don't think Perot did that. RFK, Jr. might. Frankly, he might even manage it if he dropped out. A few diehards might vote for him anyway, and a mere handful could be enough to tilt the scales.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Apparently, blasphemous and presumptuous limitation of an unfettered , celebrated "right" to scald, dismember and crush the heads of unborn children, in some of our "diverse" states,has the antiamerican left in a right old snit. So now they bleat that DJT will similarly TAKE AWAY in vitro fertilization. To qualify ANY right cherished by the radicals is to commit unbearable offense. But to them Constitutional rights such the 2nd amendments are simply grants which may be rescinded without pretext by the elect, the sage grave judges of political correctness.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: A certainty irony to that ehh? Hoisted on their own petards in a sense. Bottom line for them is heads we win, tails you lose and when it doesn't go that way they go bugs.
ReplyDelete