23 thoughts on “Ukraine’s Future”

  1. James Bennett, Bio

    James C. Bennett is a entrepreneur who has been active in commercial space transportation and other technology ventures in the USA and UK. He has written extensively on technology, policy, and society, and is the author of The Anglosphere Challenge (2004, Rowman & Littlefield), America 3.0 (With Michael Lotus, 2013, Encounter Books) and numerous articles and papers. He has been a consultant to NASA and has served on several governmental advisory bodies including the US Secretary of Transportation’s Advisory Committee and the UK Spaceplane Regulatory Workshop.

    Ok, he’s a space cadet, works for the MIC. What makes you think he has credentials to be credible on Russian History, or military strategy in Ukraine. Do you know if he has ever been there? He has not prior publications that I can find that gives him any credibility on this subject. Does he speak Russian or Ukranian?

    Maybe you just like his flavor of Kool-Ade

      1. I saw that in his Bio. Is Russia, Ukraine in the Anglosphere at this time? Maybe you could make a case in the time of Queen Victoria, but the’re all dead now. He could write a book about the Deep State, the LibCons and the NeoCons and the billions they have and continue to launder through the Ukraine. That would be relevant.

        1. He could write a book about the Deep State, the LibCons and the NeoCons and the billions they have and continue to launder through the Ukraine. That would be relevant.

          Relevant to what? It has nothing to do with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or historical examples of Russian invasions. Bennett’s writing OTOH does.

    1. You can ignore his resume and just judge him based on what he wrote.

      He didn’t provide an analysis of what is taking place so much as gave a range of possibilities for what things could look like when the war ends with some historical flare for what he thinks Russia and Ukraine would find acceptable.

      It was interesting.

    2. Ok, he’s a space cadet, works for the MIC. What makes you think he has credentials to be credible on Russian History, or military strategy in Ukraine.

      Do you have credentials to make such judgments?

          1. As well as calling someone a “space cadet”…

            I missed that. Reminds me of eight year old level arguments “I’m not touching you!” while waving their hands as close to the other kid as they can. He’s just asking loaded questions of space cadets. No harm in that, right?

      1. People can have credentials and still be wrong, or right, but that doesn’t come from their credentials but from what they were saying at the time.

        A few posts down you lament childish behavior. You can always elevate your discourse and not contribute to it.

  2. It seems to me that Ukraine’s future will depend on when Putin leaves office. The Finland model happened after five years of war and a pressing need for Russian military forces elsewhere. I think it more likely that Putin leaves office than this is duplicated.

    1. Google Translate tells me that St. Petersburg is called Pietari in Finnish. That is the Finland model I support.

      Continuation War II: Continue Harder.

  3. I had to stop reading once I realized every word was making me dumber. It took about 30 words.

      1. I wonder how many more words it would have taken to make him too dumb to breath and type at the same time. We could save the internet with just a few more words.

    1. That tends to be how western diplomats think. I think Putin knows that he always has a way out that leaves him with gains in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are plucky, so maybe they will surprise their allies and Russia.

      1. I wonder what types of “offensive” weapons that the Ukrainians could “deploy” within the borders of Russia would be acceptable to the West? I’m not convinced “let the Wookie die first” is not such a bad strategy after all. In the meantime Sweden and Finland in NATO I still see as a huge win. Thank you Chewbacca.

  4. “using more artillery and larger numbers of troops”
    The only “more troops” are any warm body up to 60+ recruited/impressed from the “liberated” regions, handed a Mosin-Nagant mod. 1891 rifle and put on the front lines. These don’t count as Russian casualties. As far as Russian troops, what you see is what Putin has and fewer every day, some brought from as far away as the Chinese border. That cupboard is bare and recruiting is going even worse there than here.

    They do have lots of artillery and lots of shells. And a good thing too. Lots of duds and breech failures that are hard on the cannoneers. All the better to leave the liberated regions in a condition one would expect from a Russian liberation; depopulated moonscapes.

    Putin is in the process of realizing that he can start a war pretty easily, not so the ending.

Comments are closed.