Not military ones, but economic ones.
Truth is, in 1991 Ukraine was left with the second economy in Europe (after unified Germany) and with a massive Soviet industrial, technological and scientific heritage. Ukraine was supposed to be a massive success. But it didn't happen and a major factor in this utter failure was not just the mutually exclusive cultural mix of the country, but the mentality of people, many of who are still stuck in a village and farm (khutor) paradigm (recall onion and potato "farming" at Maidan in Kiev in 2014). It is the world-view which has been so distorted away from the reality, that the term "ukrainization" begins to sound appropriate when applied even to the American political life both figuratively and literally. Not to mention, of course, as Larry correctly states, 404 becoming both a laundromat and a good "income source" for crooked US politicos and a source of a political machinations for the benefit of primarily (not exclusively, though) Democratic Party. That is why the title of Larry's piece is so correct: Why the West Lusts After Ukraine. Read this excellent write-up by Larry.
But, it seems, it all becomes a moot point because I read somewhere (don't remember where) that even NPR had to admit that Ukraine lied about the real state of the affairs on the fronts of SMO. Well, when you have NPR, which still promotes Russiagate as a factual story, admitting this, it goes without saying that the jury is in for Ukraine and, indeed, Stoltenberg's "formula"--meaning Ukraine ceding territory for peace--begins to preoccupy Western world. But that too is a moot point, because we don't know Russia's plans for Ukraine and something tells me that Russia may not be inclined to let Ukraine exist at all. But we'll see. I could be wrong, because, obviously, I don't have any access to the information Kremlin has about intricacies of present 404's "politics" and if there are enough (if any) political forces in Kiev which could serve as a ruling class for newly reconstituted Ukraine--a fully demilitarized and denazified rump fully dependent on Russia economically. I think we'll know soon enough.
In related news, there is a hilarious article from the Defense News (a rather comical "military" publication) which states:
Apart from Kathleen Hicks being utterly unqualified for her job (and you guessed it, her Ph.D is in a political "science"), she also operates in alternative reality, because she continues to operate with pure BS and, obviously, she never learned real war history and didn't attend this Academy, where they actually teach how to supply modern armed forces in real wars. But then again, whatever it takes to hide oneself from being recognized as a sore loser and incompetent hack. In related news for Hicks, did she write anything on the issue of logistics security in the war with a peer competitor which leverages its advantage in a targeting and stand-off high precision weapons, including long range hypersonic ones, when interdicting lines of communications in the ocean? I talk, of course, about China. Nah, I am being facetious. Those who want to see Hicks' "scientific contribution", you can easily read (if you have a few hours of your life to waste on a steaming pile of pseudo-academic BS) her "dissertation" here:
Change Agents: Who Leads and Why in the Execution of US National Security Policy
With such "specialists", no wonder the US finds itself in present predicament.
No comments:
Post a Comment