Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ukraine’

We Are In The Midst Of A Rupture, Not A Transition (Elections Have Consequences)

Posted in Economics, General Comments, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 21, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Thank you very much, Larry.  I’m going to start in French, and then I’ll switch back to English.
It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry — that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.
And this aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself.  And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along, get along to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.
Well, it won’t.  So what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called “The Power of the Powerless,” and in it he asked a simple question:  how did the communist system sustain itself?
And his answer began with a greengrocer.
Every morning, the shopkeeper places a sign in his window:  “Workers of the world unite.”  He doesn’t believe in it.  No one does.  But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along.  And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists — not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this living within a lie.  The system’s power comes not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true.  And its fragility comes from the same source.  When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack.
Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order.  We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability.  And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigour, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So we placed the sign in the window.  We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works.
Let me be direct.  We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.  But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP, the very architecture of collective problem-solving — are under threat.  As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.  And this impulse is understandable.
A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options.  When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads.  A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.
And there’s another truth:  if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.
Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.  Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty.  They’ll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty — sovereignty that was once grounded in rules but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
This room knows this is classic risk management.  Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared.  Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses.  Shared standards reduce fragmentations.  Complementarities are positive sum.
The question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality — we must.
The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Now, Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.  Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security, that assumption is no longer valid.  And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, has termed value-based realism.
Or, to put it another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic.  Principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.
And pragmatic in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.
So we’re engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes.  We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.
We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values, and we’re prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.
And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.
We are building that strength at home.  Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment.  We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade.  We are fast-tracking $1 trillion of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond.  We’re doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade, and we’re doing so in ways that build our domestic industries.  And we are rapidly diversifying abroad.
We’ve agreed to a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements.  We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.
In the past few days, we’ve concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar.  We’re negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.
We’re doing something else:  to help solve global problems, we’re pursuing variable geometry. In other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests.  So on Ukraine, we’re a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defence and security.
On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.
Our commitment to NATO’s Article 5 is unwavering, so we’re working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic-Baltic Eight, to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through Canada’s unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft, and boots on the ground — boots on the ice.
Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.
On plurilateral trade, we’re championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people.
On critical minerals, we’re forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply.  And on AI, we’re co-operating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won’t ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.
This is not naïve multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions.  It’s building coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together.  In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.  What it’s doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.
Our view is the middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.
But I’d also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone.  They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms.  Middle powers do not.  But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness.  We accept what’s offered.  We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
This is not sovereignty.  It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice:  compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact.  We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.
Which brings me back to Havel.  What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?
First, it means naming reality.  Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised.  Call it what it is:  a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals.  When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored.  It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described, and it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.
That’s building a strong domestic economy.  It should be every government’s immediate priority.
And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence;  it’s a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
So, Canada.  Canada has what the world wants.  We are an energy superpower.  We hold vast reserves of critical minerals.  We have the most educated population in the world.  Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors.  In other words, we have capital talent.  We also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively.  And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works.  Our public square is loud, diverse and free.  Canadians remain committed to sustainability.  We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but, a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
And we have something else:  we have a recognition of what’s happening and determination to act accordingly.  We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation.  It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
We are taking a sign out of the window.
We know the old order is not coming back.  We shouldn’t mourn it.  Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just.  This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine co-operation.
The powerful have their power.  But we have something too:  the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home and to act together.
That is Canada’s path.  We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.
Thank you very much.
    —     Mark Carney
Prime Minister of Canada
Special Address delivered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting 20 January 2026 in Davos, Switzerland
[Text versions of this speech are freely available from multiple news and government sites on the web.  ALL emphasis has been added by me and does not appear in the original text version I copied.  I will, of course, remove or modify this post if requested by P.M. Carney, his staff or the Canadian government.    —    kmab]
.
Click here (21 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Christmas Wishes For 2025

Posted in Faith Family and Friends, Family and Friends, Family History, General Comments, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 25, 2025| 2 Comments »

Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil.  It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness.  But if what is human in human beings has not been destroyed even now, then evil will never conquer.
     —    Vasily Grossman
From his book:  “Life And Fate“
Merry Christmas to all… !!
Once again, I wish I could say the world is a more peaceful and loving planet since last Christmas, but that would (still) just be the optimist in me speaking.  I continue to pray for the lives and freedom of the people of Ukraine and Gaza…
I do hope it (peace and personal safety) is true for anyone reading this and your family / friends (close and extended).
Please reach out to your family and friends.  Share with them the gift which really matters:  your time!  Make memories…
Peace and Namaste to all!!!
[A big shout-out to  http://pacificparatrooper.wordpress.com/  for providing today’s image.  Please visit the site if you have a chance.    —    kmab]
.
Click here (25 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

NO! He IS Peter!

Posted in Faith, Movie Review, Movies, Philosophy, Quotes, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 14, 2025| 4 Comments »

“The Shoes of the Fisherman” (1968) — movie review
Today’s review is for the drama / religious-political-thriller film: “The Shoes of the Fisherman” (1968), starring Anthony Quinn as Kiril Lakota (a Ukrainian archbishop unexpectedly elected Pope), Laurence Olivier as Piotr Ilyich Kamenev (a Soviet Premier and Kiril’s former interrogator), Oskar Werner as Father David Telemond (a controversial theologian), David Janssen as George Faber (an American journalist) and Barbara Jefford as Dr. Ruth Faber (his British wife).
Background:  This is my third review of this film on this blog.  The previous two were the single paragraph review type I favored in most of my first decade of blogging.  I have watched this film a half dozen times in the last two decades (DVD and streaming).  This, along with “The Song of Bernadette,” are two of a handful of “faith” touchstones I come back to when I feel spiritually low.  They “restore” me…  Not my “FAITH”;  my spirit.  This movie explores themes of faith, politics, personal conviction, the yearning for personal liberty to understand the world, institutional demands, and the burden of leadership in daily life as well as during a global crisis.  I am a fan of Quinn’s other work, too.  I am not a “fan” of Olivier.  He has a “presence” in his roles, but I struggle to think “that” role makes him for me.  If any, his role in this film is the closest.
Plot:  Set during the mid-1960s Cold War, the film opens with Bishop Kiril Lakota, a Ukrainian archbishop, being released from decades of imprisonment in a Siberian labor camp.  He’s unexpectedly made a Cardinal and then elevated to the papacy after the death of the sitting Pope — and becomes Pope Kiril I.  While adjusting to his new role, he’s faced first with trying to be a “simple” priest and counselor to individuals and then, after becoming Pope, with a mounting global crisis:  a famine threatens to push China and the world into nuclear conflict.
Kiril finds himself grappling with the immense burden and responsibilities of his new role while facing personal doubts and the complex demands of his conscience.  He attempts to mediate the international crisis, drawing upon his past experiences and unique perspective.  In one of two side threads, he must contend with Father David Telemond, a brilliant but controversial theologian whose writings are under scrutiny by the Holy Office.  Kiril identifies with Telemond’s intellectual struggles, but is bound by his duty (and his personal faith) to uphold Church doctrine which he believes in and has lived by.  We see Kiril must reconcile the personal faith of his friend (Telemond), with Church doctrine, Vatican and international diplomacy, and personal conviction in dealing with the suffering / dying and with a married couple having problems with their marriage.  In the climax, Kiril rejects traditional papal extravagance and instead makes a dramatic offer of economic aid to China, risking Vatican wealth and political backlash to broker peace.  The film culminates in Kiril’s bold and unconventional actions to address both the geopolitical crisis and the internal theological challenges, ultimately seeking to redefine the papacy’s role in a modern world.
So, is this movie any good?  How about the acting?  Filming / effects?  And, did I like it?  The short answers:  Yes;  very good – with Quinn outstanding;  good, but dated (Duh!!);  and, yes, I love this film.
Acting:  Anthony Quinn’s performance is multi-dimensioned — from quiet introspection to fiery conviction and he says as much with his facial expressions as he does with his actual lines.  Quinn delivers gravitas in every scene without posturing – portraying Kiril with profound humility, wisdom, and an underlying sense of weariness from his past internment, yet we see hints of his character’s strong moral compass and revolutionary spirit all through the body of the film.
Olivier too has “gravitas” and is believable as the formidable Soviet Premier, portraying political shrewdness and the complex personal history shared with Kiril (whom he tortured as a prisoner).  I am not absolutely certain, but I believe this was my first exposure to Olivier when I was young and I consider this role as his defining role for me.  Anyway, Olivier, though in a smaller role than Quinn, brings icy resolve as the Soviet Premier, and their quiet standoffs carry the weight of nations and of their personal history.
Similarly, Werner was an unknown actor to me.  His portrayal of Father David Telemond is solid.  He brings an intellectual fire matched against an at-the-surface vulnerability to the role of the theologian-scientist wrestling with his faith and intellect while suffering under the burden of poor health.  The Telemond character adds a personal depth for me.  He is wrestling with modern faith and science in ways that felt a surprisingly fresh discovery when I first viewed this film decades ago – and they remain that way to me.
Filming / FX:  This is a film of conversations — papal corridors, back-alley Doctor’s visits and diplomatic chambers, not action sequences.  In most of my reviews, I’d describe this as:  “Blah, blah, blah…”  In this case, scale is used as the trade-off for action.  The immense crowd at St. Peter’s Square, the frozen void of Siberia and the forced labor in the open-pit mine.  There are none of the special effects we’d find in most modern films.
Other Thoughts:  What makes this film powerful is how it contrasts the symbolic role of the Pope holding institutional wealth against a “modern” world of abject poverty and pervasive starvation.  Films rarely address theological depth or political nuance perfectly, but “The Shoes of the Fisherman” largely succeeds in engaging with complex ideas.  The film’s central “crisis” isn’t just about avoiding war;  it’s about the profound struggle of a leader trying to find his own faith-based path and implement radical solutions in an institution clinging to old paradigms.  The film skillfully blurs the line between spiritual and temporal leadership, leaving us to consider the true meaning of selfless individual service and the costs of institutional change.  What are we willing to sacrifice in exchange for service to others.
Problems:  IF this film has any problems, they are the intermingling of four stories – the man, the institution, the friend and the counselor – into one.  They end up being a Jenga tower under construction which ultimately results in a stable structure only when fully completed.  I didn’t have a problem with any of the threads, but I recognize individually they sometimes slowed the pace of the overall film.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended for viewers interested in applying the Roman Catholic faith to geopolitics, moral leadership, and character-driven drama.  It’s a thoughtful, and at times a bit slow-burn film that asks:  Can one man’s integrity (and faith) sway the arc of history?  Is this a “must-see” film?  For me it has been (several times).  Quinn’s performance alone makes it worth watching, and the film’s exploration of its complex subjects pushes it beyond a simple fictional historical account.  As stated, I’m already a fan of Quinn.  Now, I’ll add Olivier and Werner to the list of actors I want to view more films with.
Title Note:  When Pope Lakota tells the other Vatican Cardinals of his plans, they object strongly and claim he is impulsively threatening the financial basis for the future of the Church.  Lakota says, if they are convinced he is wrong, he will abdicate.  In one of the powerful moments of the film one of the Cardinals who has previously doubted him, turns to the others and affirms – almost proclaiming – the title of this post.
.
Click here (14 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Putin Has Already Lost To Ukraine

Posted in General Comments, History, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »

It is well past time for the Russian people to wake up and smell the coffee…  Three weeks after invading Ukraine (in 2022), Putin had already lost the war.  The West projected the “mighty” Russian military would quickly and decisively overwhelm the far weaker (and fewer in number) Ukrainian forces.  Today, over three years later, Ukraine is still in control of Kyiv and the vast majority of the Ukraine.
A quick history lesson:  in December of 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan.  Within days the Soviets had control of five key cities out of about 20 major population centers (cities).  Although the USSR was able to seize the country, kill the President and install their own Afghan President, they were never able to fully subdue the populace and their army was eventually (February 1989) driven out of Afghanistan.  During the 9+ years of occupation, the USSR forces had 14,453 deaths and approximately 35,000 casualties.
Current day:  As of my recent internet search, since the 2022 “special operation” began, the Russian military has lost (by Western estimates) one million (1,000,000) casualties including one quarter of a million (250,000) dead.  Take a moment for that to sink in…  In roughly one third of the time, Russia has 20 times the casualties and over 15 times as many deaths in its forces as it did in occupying Afghanistan.
Afghanistan and Ukraine are both approximately the size of the State of Texas.  If Russia is able to fully conquer Ukraine, they will need a vast amount of manpower and military resources to maintain their peace.  Ukraine has demonstrated a willingness to fight and there is no reason to believe they will stop resisting even if Russia were to somehow gain control of the entire country.
It is recognized in military experience that it takes a six to one advantage of offensive to defensive forces to have a “high” expectation of offensive victory with three to one being the “bare minimum” to hope to achieve success.  This is not to say it “can’t” happen for an equal or smaller offensive force to defeat a larger defensive force, but it is not generally true.
Current estimates are that Russia has 1.1 million men under arms and approximately 600,000 of that 1.1 million are near Ukraine or currently engaged in the war.  Ukraine has about 800,000 troops in service.  Obviously, not all of the 800K can be committed to the fight with Russia as there are other borders to defend.  But, my point stands…  It is EXTREMELY unlikely Russia will EVER defeat and subdue Ukraine as long as the Ukrainians are willing to resist.
Historically, Russia’s two greatest military assets have been “General Distance” and “General Winter”.  Unfortunately, neither of these can help Russia when it is the Russians who are doing the attacking instead of the defending.  Now, if Russia is willing to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the conflict, then all bets are off.  I would concede Russia could inflict horrendous damage on Ukraine – both populace and land – but at what cost when the prevailing winds will blow any residual effects from West to East and directly back over Russia?
No…  The sooner Putin declares victory and withdrawals from Ukraine and the Crimea, the better off Russia will be.  What started out as an exercise of power has devolved into an exercise in saving face – and Putin will lose that, too.  History and numbers are against him…
.
Click here (24 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Ukraine, Eggs And Tariffs – Time Will Tell…

Posted in Economics, General Comments, History, Politics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 18, 2025| 2 Comments »

It has been 89 days since the inauguration (20 January 2025).
Candidate Trump said he would end the war between Russia and Ukraine within his first twenty-four hours of being in office.  Now, his Administration’s saying (basically) if the Ukraine doesn’t agree to his terms for their capitulation to Russia, he will walk away from all attempts to resolve the conflict.  The U.S. will “move on”.
“Capitulation” is my view of the US proposal for Ukraine.  Trump’s plan called for an initial 30 day cease-fire to allow for further discussion without either side experiencing more loses.  Ukraine agreed to the proposal.  Russia refused.  No, the Administration has not defined what “move on” means…  One (me) hopes it will mean new support for Ukraine since it is Russia which is making Trump look incompetent.  But one (me) really should not expect that to happen as Trump has consistently sided with Putin / Russia since the start of the current invasion and during ALL of his prior four years as President.
Time will tell…
Candidate Trump said the economy would be one of his top priorities and we would see prices come down quickly once he was inaugurated.  On January 20, 2025, the price of a dozen eggs was around $7.09.  In early January 2025, eggs were priced at $5.81, but they surged past $7.50 by the end of the month due to ongoing supply chain issues and the bird flu outbreak.  Today’s price for a dozen eggs in the U.S. averages $6.23, according to the Consumer Price Index.  So, the price of a dozen eggs is still approximately $0.40 more than at the start of the year, but about $0.80 down from Inauguration Day.
Time will tell…
President Trump announced his “Liberation Day” on 2 April 2025, when he imposed a 10% baseline tariff on all imported goods and additional “reciprocal tariffs” on (roughly) 57 other countries.
When the U.S. stock market lost 10% of it’s value and the bond market seemed ready to follow, Trump “caved” to economic pressure and scaled back the tariffs for 90 days to allow countries to “negotiate” with the U.S.
As an aside, this decision resulted in Trump being labeled the United States first “Caveman” President on social media.
Trump claims “everyone” is calling him up seeking to make deals within the 90 days to avoid the increased tariffs.  Further, he claims they are calling to “kiss my ass” because they are desperate to avoid the tariffs.
Generally, it takes months – if not years – of careful negotiations to form a trade agreement between nations – even minor trade agreements.  It is difficult to believe Trump will have ANY signed within 90 days…  The “best” we can expect is there may be some countries which agree to a plan to negotiate within that time frame.
My personal expectation is there almost certainly will be one agreement finalized at the end of 90 days…  The Heard and McDonald Islands (uninhabited territories of Australia) are home to penguins and seals, but no humans.  Their imports currently have a 10% tariff.  They seem to be the best candidate to achieve what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described as the “first mover advantage” in negotiations.
Time will tell…
.
Click here (18 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

So Now We Know…

Posted in General Comments, tagged , , , , , , , , , on March 3, 2025| 2 Comments »

#47:DonTheTraitor has announce he has ordered the “temporary” suspension of military aid to Ukraine pending his being convinced Ukraine is “really” seeking peace and that Ukraine is also willing to sign a mineral “deal” with the United States.
No exact terms for the peace negotiations have been announced, but it looks like the cessation of fighting will be based on a complete return of Russian land currently occupied by Ukrainian forces, the acceptance of the status quo of current Russian occupied Ukraine land, the resignation of President Zelensky and the surrender of future mineral rights from Ukraine to the United States.
It is impossible to definitively say which side is “winning” the Russia v. Ukraine war, but it is clear that the Russian “special military operation” that was supposed to last as long as it took tanks to drive from Russia to Kiev (3 to 7 days) has now passed its three YEAR anniversary.  And, Russia is militarily spent and needs time to rebuild it’s military – personnel, weapons and ammunition stores.
Russia cannot take a break in the war to refit without taking more military losses and risking civil unrest internally.  So, to engineer this “interlude”, Putin has engaged President Trump in staging a dust-up in the Oval Office to feign offense at the insult of President Zelensky not being grateful enough to the United States (aka: King Trump) for aid we have provided to Ukraine.
We (America and our allies) do not know WHY President Trump is aiding Russia, but it is historical fact that Trump has two primary motivators:  his fragile ego and his desire for increased wealth.  Unfortunately, we will have to leave it to history to reveal which is the motivation here.
The bottom line for military aid is the European Union will have to step up and provide weapons and munitions immediately.  They must recognize they can either stop Russia in the Ukraine or they will have a continental conflict within 10 years.  If the leaders of the EU want to know what that will look like in their countries, they can simply visit Eastern Ukraine.
As for Ukraine and a mineral treaty with the United States…  As I’ve stated in prior posts – ANY treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on while this Administration is in office.  Donald Trump does NOT honor contracts and as soon as he feels he has an opportunity to extort additional terms and concessions, he will do so.  President Zelensky would be FAR better off signing a mineral treaty with the EU or some sub-group of the EU.  At least then Ukraine will have some chance of reaching an honest treaty.
From a historic perspective, it should be noted that Ukraine is only about 10% smaller than Afghanistan and both are roughly the size of our State of Texas.  Afghanistan fell to both Russian and American invasions in a relatively short period of time – weeks to months.  The problem both superpowers had was – although the Afghan national army was beaten – the people never gave up fighting.  Eventually, both invading forces were driven from a country who’s people they could not defeat.
.
Click here (3 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

And The Truth Will Set You Free

Posted in History, Other Blogs, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 1, 2025| 7 Comments »

No, the meeting did not go badly for Ukraine.  It exposed in the most undeniable, unequivocal way possible the pro-Putin commitments of the president and vice president.  That was information Americans and allies needed to have clear before them.
9:56 AM · Feb 28, 2025
    –    David Frum
Speechwriter for Former President George W. Bush
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
    –    Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
   –    Edmund Burke (generally attributed to)
I support Ukraine!
art credit:  Lele Saa  (a Spanish illustrator living in England)
The illustration was posted on one of the blog sites I follow:  I Didn’t Have My Glasses On
The specific post was:  Slava Ukraini
Please visit the original site if you have a few spare moments…
[I find it difficult to express the amount of disgust I have for our current American Presidential administration.
Americans and our former allies (NATO and SEATO) should make NO mistake, BOTH Russia and China are authoritarian nuclear superpowers and are intent on supplanting the United States as the world’s dominant national actor – economically and militarily.
President Trump may or may not be a “puppet” of Russian leader Putin, but Trump is not acting in the long term “best” interests of the United States or our allies.  While all three of the superpowers have the ability to destroy the world, none have the ability to unilaterally command the rest of the world’s nations to do their bidding – and, yes, I include the United States under that limitation.
There is no “Pax Americana” without our allies support.
I am opposed to Ukraine signing any mineral treaty with the United States in exchange for “security”.  A U.S. guarantee of security is purely an illusion for the Ukranians (and the rest of the “free” world).  There can be no U.S. backed guarantee of security for any country as long as we have our current convicted criminal in the Oval Office.  Let’s be clear:  President Trump is a man without honor and a contract, which is all a treaty is, means less to him than the paper it is written on.  Trump has a lifetime history of ignoring his side of any contract and he has been responsible for the failure of many businesses which made the mistake of delivering on their side of a contract before full payment has been made by his companies.
All of the NATO allies should take full account of President Trump’s actions and recognize there is NO Article V, guarantee of mutual support and defense by the United States any longer (now or in the future).  When it is possible for an unethical criminal to be elected President of the United States (and then re-elected), all of our allies must assume it will happen again and base their current and on-going security policy free of illusion.
For now, the other NATO countries are fortunate that Ukraine has so weakened Russia over the last three years, that it will take years for Russia to rebuild their conventional forces so that Russia is again a major ground threat to ALL of Europe.  The key for a free Europe is to start developing your security forces NOW, not in two years time when Russia completes their rebuild and finally crushes Ukraine or 3-4 years from now or when Russia invades Poland or the Baltic States.
Unfortunately, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have not had an immovable object (like Ukraine) to blunt / spend the buildup of conventional Chinese forces as Ukraine as done to Russia for the benefit of the rest of Europe and the Middle East.  So, what was true for NATO is now equally valid for SEATO:  you cannot rely on the United States for mutual defense.
Trump’s “America first!” really means “America Alone…” to the rest of the world.
A word to the wise should suffice.
    —    kmab]
.
Click here (1 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Christmas Wishes For 2023

Posted in Faith, Faith Family and Friends, Family and Friends, Other Blogs, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 25, 2023| 2 Comments »

First off:  Merry Christmas to all… !!
Second:  Hug everyone at your table and say a prayer of blessings for absent friends and family.
Third:  Please remember in your thoughts all of the first responders and essential workers who are working each day to maintain the health and the safety of our families.  We may not be in the midst of a  pandemic this year, but they are still showing up for work everyday – where we need them.  Police, firefighters, EMTs, health workers, PPE and vaccine manufacturers, supermarket / food-store / essential services staff, transportation (truck drivers and delivery) staff, our military defending us around the world and our civilian government employees working to keep our water, food and air clean.
Finally:
Offer up your prayers for the Israeli families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attack AND for those innocent Gazans and Palestinians who are now suffering a terrible retribution for terrorist crimes they did not participate in nor support.  The arc of history bends slowly, but inevitably towards justice – which will come for both sides.
Offer up your prayers for the people of Ukraine who are continuing to endure a long and difficult war against an invading Russian force.  Every day you continue to fight foreign oppression brings you one day closer to the freedom you seek and deserve.
[A big shout-out to  http://pacificparatrooper.wordpress.com/  for providing today’s two images.  Please visit the site if you have a chance.    —    kmab]
.
Click here (25 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Prescient (Or Not?)

Posted in Economics, History, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 15, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Russia is still contending with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Russia can meddle in Ukraine at the margins, but threats to fully invade and occupy a country of more than 44 million people aren’t credible.  That big a move would cost too many Russian lives and too many rubles for a chronically weak – and weakening – Russian economy.  In recent months, Belarus provided the latest example of the post-Soviet demand for fundamental change and the need to shoot people to keep protests under control.  In the most recent presidential election in Moldova, a Harvard-educated economist toppled a pro-Kremlin incumbent.  Last year, Turkey’s backing for Azerbaijan dealt a humiliating defeat to Russian ally Armenia in a region that Russia once dominated.  Beijing is increasingly competing for influence with Moscow among the former Soviet Central Asian states.
    —     Ian Bremmer
From his opinion piece:  “The Risk Report:  What game is Putin playing?“
Appearing in:  Time Magazine;  dtd:  21/28 June 2021
[It seems the “threat” of invasion was a little more “credible” than Mr. Bremmer believed (the editorial was from 2021).  IF the West continues to support Ukraine and IF Putin doesn’t resort to tactical nukes, it appears Mr. Bremmer will ultimately be proven correct that Russia bit off it bit more than it could chew (let alone conquer).    —    kmab]
.
Click here (15 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Long Past Time For A “Thorough-going Reappraisal”

Posted in Economics, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 14, 2022| Leave a Comment »

In absolute terms, moreover, the mass and volume (to say nothing of the cost) of all that was required, particularly in fuel and munitions, to maintain an army in field operations at an intensive rate against a similarly equipped opponent, was now very great.  It had taken a quantitative jump since the Second World War.  Warfare in the Middle East in the seventies had shown this very clearly, if on relatively small scale.  It was just no longer possible, at the rate at which stocks could now be exhausted, to sustain intensive operations of war for months on end.  Head – and equipment – counts were no longer the true measure of an army’s capability.  Formation in large numbers could be a liability rather than an advantage unless they could be kept effectively in action.
The Soviet war-fighting philosophy, from whatever origins it may been evolved, was in the circumstances of the 1980s exactly right.  It enjoined the initiation of total and violent offensive action, swiftly followed through to the early attainment of a valuable objective.  The position of military advantage thus secured would then be exploited by political means.  Speed was everything. The corollary was that failure to secure the objective in good time must result in a thorough-going reappraisal, in which to continue to press towards the same end might very well be the least sensible course.
    —     General Sir John Hackett (et al)
From the “future-history” novel:  “The Third World War: August 1985“
.
Click here (14 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

Posted in 2022 Book Review, Book Review, History, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 2, 2022| Leave a Comment »

[Another LONG post…  You’ve been warned!  (LoL)    —    kmab]
The Third World War:  August 1985  (1978©)   —   book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985.  The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results.  The “advisors” were listed as:  John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).
The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978.  It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980.  I initially read the paperback version.  I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore.  In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year.  (review here:  A Novel War).  The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work.  This prompted my re-interest in the original…
During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico.  The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance.  We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming.  This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s.  I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.
Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them).  They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact.  The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France.  The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s.  The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.
In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1)  an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2)  a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3)  resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective;  and,
4)  the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.
When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike.  The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city;  (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation;  the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat;  the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR;  and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order.  The “war” is barely a month old before it is over.  Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).
Is this a “good” book?  Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)?  Is it entertaining or interesting?  Do I recommend this book?  With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are):  yes to so-so…
The book is not a “good” novel.  There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone.  In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel.  It is very much an military style “after-action” report.  If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book.  If you are not, you will not.  I did.  Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war?  Yes!  Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city.  (Very much:  “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”)  Is the book entertaining or interesting?  This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”;  but, I did find the book interesting.  I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight.  There is no China – Japan alliance;  the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985);  South Africa did not fall to external forces;  and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable.  I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too.  For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?).  Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later.  It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed.  At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so.  My reaction to “2034” was reinforced:  this version is much better than the more recent book.  If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
Click here (2 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Prayers For Mariupol

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , on April 25, 2022| 2 Comments »

There is no medicine like hope, no incentive so great, and no tonic so powerful as expectation of something tomorrow.
    —    Orison Swett Marden
.
Click here (25 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Particularly Peaceful Neighbors

Posted in Philosophy, Proverbs, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , on April 22, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Make happy those who are near, and those who are far will come.
    —     Chinese Proverb
[Hopefully, this is what China advised Putin before he invaded Ukraine.  If they did, he should have listened to their advice.  (And, no, I don’t really think they said this to him.)    —    kmab]
.
Click here (22 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Putin’s Objective In Ukraine?

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on March 23, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Management by objective works – if you know the objectives.  Ninety percent of the time you don’t.
 
    —     Peter Drucker
 
.
Click here (23 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.
 
   

Read Full Post »

Somebody Should Have Warned Putin About Ukraine

Posted in Philosophy, Proverbs, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , on March 16, 2022| 2 Comments »

He who licks knives will soon cut his tongue.
    —     Ukrainian proverb
We don’t even know how strong we are until we are forced to bring that hidden strength forward.
    —     Isabel Allende
.
Click here (16 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started