"Exit interview," maybe. Another way to read this and to imagine the motives of the sources who talked to the NYT is that Ukraine could have won, and maybe still can, were it not for its leadership. I.e., as with Diem's South Vietnam, our policy would work with different leaders. In that light, Trump's and Vance's vulgar baying at Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, and Trump's subsequent talk of forcing elections, looks like a regime change in the works—but not to accommodate Russia's war aims. Quite the opposite: in this view it would be to get Ukraine ready to fight back more decisively.
Or maybe the sources anticipate a Russia-accommodating regime change by Trump, and are trying to repurpose it by arguing "This will be our big chance!"
It's so dizzying when our leaders obfuscate. The energy expended on trying to figure out what they're up to, instead of forcing them to just tell us...
"Have we over- or under-demonized Vladimir Putin?" Are you implying there is a "correct" degree of demonization?
Per the NY Times, every "good" result was attributable to US advice, every "negative" outcome was due to Ukrainians not listening to their American advisors.Hmmm- wonder who the Times ws talking to?
Please note, never once did Russia fire weapons into the United States, makes one wonder who exactly is the "Evil Empire" in our world. Hate to tell people that it's no great honor being an America!
The "NY Times" article reads like an exit interview. Take credit for the 'successes' and deflect any blame for the failures.
There have been many articles (not appearing in the US or UK) that quote Ukrainian NCO's and field commanders decrying NATO tactics as misguided and lampooning NATO trainers as ignorant of how to engage in real battle.
Much of the ballyhooed munitions provided Ukraine by the US are smoking husks. There is not much more to send.
We, and unfortunately our military tacticians, as well, live with the myth of Patton driving those tanks deep into the German ranks. Sober military analysis prioritizes destroying the capacity of your enemy to conduct armed conflict. Territorial gains will follow in good time.
"Exit interview," maybe. Another way to read this and to imagine the motives of the sources who talked to the NYT is that Ukraine could have won, and maybe still can, were it not for its leadership. I.e., as with Diem's South Vietnam, our policy would work with different leaders. In that light, Trump's and Vance's vulgar baying at Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, and Trump's subsequent talk of forcing elections, looks like a regime change in the works—but not to accommodate Russia's war aims. Quite the opposite: in this view it would be to get Ukraine ready to fight back more decisively.
Or maybe the sources anticipate a Russia-accommodating regime change by Trump, and are trying to repurpose it by arguing "This will be our big chance!"
It's so dizzying when our leaders obfuscate. The energy expended on trying to figure out what they're up to, instead of forcing them to just tell us...
"Have we over- or under-demonized Vladimir Putin?" Are you implying there is a "correct" degree of demonization?
Per the NY Times, every "good" result was attributable to US advice, every "negative" outcome was due to Ukrainians not listening to their American advisors.Hmmm- wonder who the Times ws talking to?
Please note, never once did Russia fire weapons into the United States, makes one wonder who exactly is the "Evil Empire" in our world. Hate to tell people that it's no great honor being an America!
The "NY Times" article reads like an exit interview. Take credit for the 'successes' and deflect any blame for the failures.
There have been many articles (not appearing in the US or UK) that quote Ukrainian NCO's and field commanders decrying NATO tactics as misguided and lampooning NATO trainers as ignorant of how to engage in real battle.
Much of the ballyhooed munitions provided Ukraine by the US are smoking husks. There is not much more to send.
We, and unfortunately our military tacticians, as well, live with the myth of Patton driving those tanks deep into the German ranks. Sober military analysis prioritizes destroying the capacity of your enemy to conduct armed conflict. Territorial gains will follow in good time.
Who looks diminished to you? Ukraine or Russia?