Ukraine, Losing In Donbass...

[Tom Paine 1949]

alexa asked about why I mentioned the Quincy Institute in my earlier comment #191, aimed at a certain breed of unserious extremely partisan “MAGA isolationists.” He seemed to think the Quincy Institute was the usual D.C. Think Tank committed to unilateral U.S. domination of the world. Actually, most D.C. and Atlantic Council - like “Establishment” foundations, and of course lobbyists associated with hard Ukrainian nationalism, hate the Quincy Institute and accuse it of itself being “isolationist.”

Imo, Quincy’s bipartisan expert contributors sometimes offer good realistic perspectives about diplomatic (as opposed to just military) approaches to solving world problems, for example here:

Laying the foundations for a settlement in Ukraine - Responsible Statecraft

Here are some brief Wiki comments:

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft is a U.S. think tank founded in 2019…. It has been described as "realist" and "promot[ing] an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing"….

The Quincy Institute … hosts scholars, participates in debates, publishes … pieces by journalists and academics, and advocates for a "less militarized and more cooperative foreign policy". According to its statement of purpose, it is opposed to the "military-industrial complex" described by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address.

Co-founder Trita Parsi described the Quincy Institute as "transpartisan" and … has described the need for "an alliance of politicians on the left and right who agree on the need for restraint, even if they do so for different reasons". [Co-founder Andrew] Bacevich said: "Our purpose is to promote restraint as a central principle of U.S. foreign policy — fewer wars and more effective diplomatic engagement."

According to The Nation, the Quincy Institute founders believe that the existing foreign policy elite is out of step with the American public, which is "far more skeptical of military adventurism".

P.S. I certainly don’t agree with everything published by the Quincy Institute, but at least some of its articles on the lead-up to the bloody Russian invasion of Ukraine, and its discussions of what the U.S. should do next, have imo been valuable.

 

[ESay]

alexa asked about why I mentioned the Quincy Institute in my earlier comment #191, aimed at a certain breed of unserious extremely partisan “MAGA isolationists.” He seemed to think the Quincy Institute was the usual D.C. Think Tank committed to unilateral U.S. domination of the world. Actually, most D.C. and Atlantic Council - like “Establishment” foundations, and of course lobbyists associated with hard Ukrainian nationalism, hate the Quincy Institute and accuse it of itself being “isolationist.”

Imo, Quincy’s bipartisan expert contributors sometimes offer good realistic perspectives about diplomatic (as opposed to just military) approaches to solving world problems, for example here:

Laying the foundations for a settlement in Ukraine - Responsible Statecraft

Here are some brief Wiki comments:



P.S. I certainly don’t agree with everything published by the Quincy Institute, but at least some of its articles on the lead-up to the bloody Russian invasion of Ukraine, and its discussions of what the U.S. should do next, have imo been valuable.

A quite good article, thank you. It falls almost completely in my perception. The most important questions remains unanswered there, though.

What kind of an agreement that stops active fighting should be signed? It is almost certainly that Russia won't get out of the currently occupied lands. And it is almost certainly that Ukraine won't recognize these areas as part of Russia. So, a full-fledged peace treaty is hardly possible.

Future security guarantees for Ukraine. It is almost certainly that in a current configuration Ukraine won't ever become a NATO member. So, it needs to be not some 'paper' assurances, but guarantees 'on the ground' that would exclude Russian offensive in foreseeable future. And I am not talking about the US or NATO military bases.

 

[beagle9]

I read on a ukrainian website yesterday that the Apache helicopters they received have already destroyed 80 Russian tanks. What do you think is not true in this message?

Let me get this straight so are we to believe that Russia doesn't have the same if not more advanced weaponry to do the exact equal to Ukraine's military on the battlefield ??? That's what I would find hard to believe that it can't, but if true that is truly astonishing with everything things considered.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Let me get this straight so are we to believe that Russia doesn't have the same if not more advanced weaponry to do the exact equal to Ukraine's military on the battlefield ??? That's what I would find hard to believe that it can't, but if true that is truly astonishing with everything things considered.

What he's saying is that there were talks of Apache helicopters that were going to be delivered some time in the future, which were denied the same day, but Hohols managed to destroy 80 Russian tanks with them anyway, in other words that Hohols are lying nonstop, is all.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Ringo]