I get whiplash from what y'all think are Russia's capabilities. They can simultaneously take Europe and now Alaska but not Ukraine. I think the only likely scenario is that they can take more of Ukraine when the money runs out but not too much as that would incite us to get involved. Ukraine has been a disaster, they don't need more disasters.
There are different people saying different things. Right now it would be suicide for Russia to try and expand the war beyond Ukraine. If they get a respite to rebuild the army, they might pose a threat to the Baltic States. Russia does not have the left capability to operate anything more than a relatively small force outside the reach of the Russian gauge rail system. They could use their landing ships to place a very small force in Alaska, but then they would have to supply that force with the tiny fleet of landing ships in the Pacific fleet. All while fighting the combined arms of at minimum the US and Canada, and probably some help from South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the rest of NATO too. Even if the US went full isolationist it would be strong enough to crush anybody who tried to land forces on the mainland of continental North America. The last time that happened was the War of 1812.
The US is able to conduct military operations so far from home because the US has a staggeringly large and sophisticated logistics chain that no other military on Earth has. China is building the ships to conduct naval invasions now, but they don't know how to use them. The last time China conducted any kind of naval landing was hundreds of years ago.
Russia hasn't conducted a saltwater amphibious operation in hundreds of years either.
Where Russia gets seriously dangerous to other countries than Ukraine is if they get the breathing space to rebuild. Supplying Ukraine for a country like the US is chicken feed compared to what the US spends on its own military. The US military budget for 2024 is over $840 billion and the bill stalled in the Senate would give Ukraine $60 billion in aid. The bulk of that $60 billion would be spent in the US to back fill old stocks sent to Ukraine. For that $60 billion Ukraine could bleed Russia mostly dry, burning up their large reserve of equipment and force them to consume a big chunk of their GDP trying to keep up with the losses.
It's a massive bargain for the US and NATO. For countries that are feeling the pinch of the cost of living crisis, it creates new jobs, and could take a serious adversary off the board for decades.
I am surprised at the level of open support some Americans are giving Russia.
However, I think this comment is a stretch... for many spending US money to aid Russia, is no different to spending it to aid Ukraine.
Unless Putin is going to secure the border with Mexico, an alliance with Russia doesn't solve the border issue.
Europe isn't really standing alone, the UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, Japan, South Korea and a few other places will chip in and help.
What the US really needs to think long and hard about is,:-
- What do they stand for?
- What kind of world do they want to live in?
- How secure will they be without allies against the might of a successful China and Russia?
I think the majority of Americans are with NATO and want to live in a world where the US remains a liberal democracy. The people who want to tear it all down are a very loud minority. A few factoids:
- Since the 1988 presidential election, a Republican has only gotten a majority of the popular vote once. That was in 2004 when George W Bush won re-election after losing the popular vote in 2000. If the US did not have the electoral college, either no Republican would have won the presidency since 1988 or the Republican party would look much more mainstream than it does today (I think the latter would be more likely).
- Exit poll conducted at Republican primary show fairly consistently that 25-30% of Republicans voting in the primaries will not be voting for Trump this fall. This was true even in South Carolina which is very conservative. When a quarter of your own party refuse to vote for you, your chances of winning are essentially nil.
- The polls have been consistently off for 2 years. The actual vote is consistently +7 to 11 points towards the Democrats. All the polls that are considered valid are voice polls that call numbers randomly. People under 40 rarely talk on the phone and definitely don't pick up from unidentified numbers. People under 40 tend to vote about 75/25 Democrat and in the last few elections the turn out from this demographic has been greater than historical trends.
- Political advertising appears to mostly have run its course. There are a number of candidates in recent years who poured massive amounts of money into campaigns trying to win by saturating the ad space only to lose. But campaigns still need money. The things that do cost money but have proven to be extremely powerful in recent years are get out the vote campaigns that use micro targeting. Campaigns can now identify who is likely to vote for their candidate and who is a voter who needs to be prodded. Early voting and vote by mail data bought by campaigns can allow campaigns to cross off voters who have already voted and refine the micro-targeting to those who haven't voted on election day. These voters are contacted with post cards, e-mails, text messages, etc. All that takes money and organization. The Democrats have both and the Republicans have neither.
There is always the possibility of a fluke outcome to the election, which is why anybody who wants government to be sane again can't let up. Plus nothing makes a party sit up and realize they are out of touch than getting a drubbing on election day. This year could turn into a realignment election. We're due for one and looking at the underlying trends it is possible, though by no means certain.
In a realignment election the voting patterns change in some major ways. The last one was 1980 when the Republicans cemented the religious conservative vote, and the shift of white Southerners from the Democratic party to the Republican party became complete. Before that the defense oriented voters and the business people had been solid Republican. Now those two groups are becoming Democratic curious as the Democrats have become the fiscally responsible and the defense hawk party.
There is a lot of speculation about former President Trump being an unreliable ally of Europe which is scaring European leaders...when all he has said is that Europe needs to meet its NATO financial commitments instead of being a burden to US taxpayers...despite dragging their heels the message has (so so) slowly got through. And this in effect is strengthening NATO
The way he talks about NATO meeting its commitments is not in terms of their paying 2% of their GDP on their own defense, but more like they are paying that 2% to the US like its a protection racket. Inviting Russia to do what it wants with any country that doesn't "pay" is like making Russia the enforcer in the protection racket.
Especially after the cold war ended, there was a sense that the big bad wolf was defanged so defense went to the back burner. Defense budgets shrank as many countries focused their resources on other things. And that isn't really such a bad thing if the enemy really is gone.
Ultimately money put into defense is something we really shouldn't need to do. If we could eliminate the sociopaths from the gene pool the world would be a much safer place and countries could work out their issues peacefully. But we have to live in the world as it is and people like Putin exist. He's a dangerous rabid dog and has to be dealt with, but he's a rabid dog with a nuclear arsenal (which may be mostly junk, but testing that possibility could result in terrible consequences for everyone). So we need to proceed with some caution to ensure nuclear war doesn't happen, but Putin is left impotent.
Further than that, Trump
says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills and would "encourage" the aggressors to "do whatever the hell they want".
There is a reason much of Europe do not look kindly on Trump.
There are quite a few of us on this side of the Atlantic who would like to see the back of him too. He's so chaotic and he's out of power now, but if he gets back into power he's promising to go on a vengeance rampage against all his many enemies, and suspend the constitution making himself a dictator. He has allies now who will help him. Check out Project 2025. It's a detailed plan (something like 800 pages) to carry out this dictator's wish list.
www.pravda.com.ua
