Promising Ukrainian strategy

Montezuma, Atahualpa, Santa Ana

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Promising Ukrainian strategy

  1. Stefan says:

    Stating the obvious:

    Montezuma: struck dead by a rock. Mexico falls to the Spanish next year

    Atahualpa: strangled with a garrote. The Spanish install a puppet Inca ruler

    Santa Ana: tricked and ousted from power, Mexican Cession follows

    Now, what’s worse than Putin in terms of succession?

  2. ASR says:

    Eliminating Putin? Is that what you are suggesting Professor Cochran?

    If so it’s pure madness, at about the same level of insanity as openly sabotaging Nordstrom 1 and Nordstrom 2. Whether it was the Ukraine, Poland, or the USA that did this–in any case certainly with US collusion–this achieves the immediate goal of preventing Germany from deserting the US/NATO/EU proxy war against Russia, but at the longer term costs of destroying Germany’s economy, permanently alienating the German public, launching a new Great Depression, and bringing Europe one step closer to a nuclear exchange that may be the start of WW III.

    Up to this point, Putin has proven to be the most rational and restrained national leader currently on the world stage. If anyone doubts this, imagine the US response if the Russian Federation orchestrated a coup d’etat against the Mexican government, installed a government hostile to the USA, and that government began installing germ warfare research labs and talking about colluding with the RF to install nuclear armed, intermediate range ballistic missiles. Read some of Putin’s speeches and public policy pronouncements, e.g. his 2007 address to the Munich Security Conference.

    An orchestrated assassination of Putin, besides being a grotesque violation of international law, would be a direct attack on a man who may be the most popular national leader Russia has ever had. He has an 80% approval rating in legitimate polls. Such an attack would unite the Russian people in a way not seen since the Great Patriotic War. Putin would almost undoubtedly be replaced by someone less restrained and rational as he has been. The result would most likely be a full declaration of war against the Ukraine and all that might entail.

    I suggest that readers take a look at a foreign policy expert’s take on the USA/NATO/EU proxy war against the Russian Federation: http://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf. Unfortunately, Mearsheimer’s voice of reason has been drowned out by the insane baying of the neocons who have been in charge of US policy since the early 1990s.

    • Ilya says:

      Don’t expect much sanity from Dr. Cochran, nowadays. Nor, unfortunately, much knowledge about Russian culture and mentality. Small tidbit to illustrate this: he was doubting whether a typical Russian highschooler knows anything about the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. (Which, of course, yes, they do).

      Oh, Dr Cochran so smart, he invented perpetuum mobile. The secret? It’s powered by his farts. No wonder he keeps his head firmly planted in his ass!

    • Pincher Martin says:

      Agreed. Russia’s attachment to Ukraine preceded Putin’s rule. One of the major reasons Yeltsin took on super-presidential powers and bombed his own parliament in the early nineties was because the Russian nationalist leaders at the time were so unhappy with his ongoing settlement with Ukraine that eventually allowed Kiev to keep Crimea and recognized the present-day borders. If Yeltsin hadn’t effectively been a dictator, there’s no way that settlement with Ukraine would have been reached. Even Yeltsin discussed nuclear war options with his generals when Ukraine threatened to keep USSR nukes on its territory.

      So there’s no solid reason other than you just believe chaos works in the West’s favor to believe that a new Russian leader would be less attached to Ukraine than Putin.

    • gcochran9 says:

      You don’t know enough history to even realize what I was suggesting.

      • Your entry here is closer to a haiku than history. You’ve made no historical argument. I have seen no serious historical analysis by you of what is going on in Ukraine, what’s at stake, or why the West should care, which means you are coasting.

    • gcochran9 says:

      You’re nuts. If we were to make bets on various issues, you would often lose, because your worldview is wrong to the point of being ridiculous.

      I, on the other hand, win my bets.

      • Pincher Martin says:

        And what’s the bet to be made here based on this epigram? That the US or someone else should knock off Putin and then everything will return to normal?

        Did you foresee Ukraine bleeding the Russia army to the point of defeat in a few months? If you did, I didn’t see it.

        Did you predict Putin would publicly threaten to use nukes? I haven’t seen any such prediction by you.

        Did you prognosticate Nord Stream getting sabotaged? Russia holding up well against Western sanctions? Putin doubling down? What China will do in the future? You feeling confident on US policymakers managing this risk?

        If you are just trolling for the most obvious bets, then what use are they to anyone wanting to judge a more complicated situation where the setup is not so easy? What bets are you proposing to make here?

      • NonLinear9 says:

        Your record speaks for itself. Few better.

        But I’ve noticed you’ve been loathe to make any specific bets on this conflict, even when pressed, other than the open-ended “Russia will lose.” and it’s still premature to close out that contract.

        Any specific predictions / wagers you’d like to throw out there to put some skin in the game? Plenty of pundits have, and most have been spectacularly wrong, on both sides.

      • Paul Mendez says:

        Which is why you deleted my $100 wager that Putin will outlast Zelensky instead of taking it?

    • gcochran9 says:

      The only way to judge expertise is accuracy. On that, I do just fine.

    • Thomas Galloway says:

      “Up to this point, Putin has proven to be the most rational and restrained national leader currently on the world stage.”

      Like Hitler invading Poland or Stalin invading Poland and Finland?

  3. pyrrhus says:

    Putin is the educated, westernized diplomat, and has peacefully cemented alliances around the world…the guys behind him are hard core Russian patriots, and would make short work of the Ukraine and its allies….

    • gcochran9 says:

      Putin is an idiot: he couldn’t even notice that his army was rotten to the core. Starting a war is like walking into a dark room, as someone once said – so don’t.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Whereas the tranny and female infested US military, led by “woke” officers who would have flunked out of West Point not long ago, is so much better…Sure…Meanwhile, that dimwit Putin somehow tricked the US and NATO countries into imposing suicidal sanctions on Russian energy, resulting in the ruble becoming the strongest currency in the world, and the Russians selling less oil for much more money, while Europe faces economic catastrophe…Pure luck, I guess…

        • Coagulopath says:

          The US is not at war with Russia so this doesn’t seem relevant.

          If they were I bet the trannies and women would have decent gear instead of literal ham radios and walkie-talkies you can buy for $8 on AliExpress. Back in Feb people could tune internet radio to 7933.00 kHz and eavesdrop on Russian comms – I am not joking.

          Putin drove a clown car into the war.

          • gcochran9 says:

            Not commanding UKR forces\, didn’t blow the pipeline.

            • pyrrhus says:

              Hmmm…US promised to destroy the pipelines several times, their destruction conveniently disrupted secret Russia-Germany talks.. Denmark and Norway have sensors and surveillance all over this very shallow part of the Baltic, and know, but aren’t talking about who deposited these huge explosive packages on the pipeline…wonder why?

        • mdap says:

          Humans love explanations that involve moral grandstanding, including for wars.

          The battle of France was not lost because the French were degenerates, but because their military had slow, inflexible decision-making. The US did not beat Germany because its population believed in Jesus nor Germany because of superior morale, but due to industrial capacity.

        • prebellum says:

          Well, ruble being “stronger” is entirely fictional since it is not a freely traded currency. The exchange “rate” has been fixed artificially by Russian government. It could be anything.

      • Paul Mendez says:

        Putin hasn’t brought out his “army” yet. So far, SMO has been conducted mainly by a combination of LPR and DPR militia, Rosgvardia, and military contractors. Russia has been fighting with one hand tied behind its back out of respect for the deep ties between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples.

        Now that the Russophone parts of the Ukraine have been annexed, expect the REAL Russian Army to take the gloves off.

    • J. says:

      “…the guys behind him are hard core Russian patriots, and would make short work of the Ukraine and its allies”

      Will they start soon, say, before what is left of the Russian Army collapses in the war Putin started out of sheer hubris?

  4. Bumping off Nuland would indeed be the logical thing to do, but unfortunately we pretend like we don’t do things like that.

  5. Pincher Martin says:

    When Putin speaks about using nukes to defend Russian interests in Ukraine, I would believe him.

  6. dave chamberlin says:

    Putin, Santa Ana, Montezuma, Atahualpa….what do they have in common? They all went to war having the advantage in quantity of fighting force and a BIG disadvantage in quality of fighting force.

    What happened to Santa Ana, Montezuma and Atahualpa? They got crushed. What is happening to Putin? Getting his ass whooped, that’s what. Could Putin turn it around with his next 300,000 troops? Not a chance. The check list of utter failure by these fuckups is long and legendary. Morale? the worst. Logistics? second to every army ever. Generalship? moronic. Public relations? makes nazis look cuddly.

    Yeah well it will take a while. People always forget how long conventional wars last. Plus general Mud has a big say for the next few months. But then comes a very cold Ukrainian winter and Russians can’t feed their troops much less dress them to not freeze in sub zero weather.

    • Coagulopath says:

      The way he’s trying to recruit an army is cool.

      In at least 3 Moscow police stations, arrested protestors are being served with summonses to appear at enlistment offices.

      Sounds like he’s trying mainly to solve unrest in the streets of Moscow, at the risk of filling the front lines with malcontents and rebels.

    • dave chamberlin says:

      There is a recurrent meme making the rounds that shows a Ukrainian soldier saying “We are very lucky that they are so fucking stupid.” Well, that’s the winning strategy, let the Russians be stupid and exploit it. You can’t believe how often the supposedly feared Russian army does really really stupid stuff. It’s mind boggling. As Groucho Marx once said “military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.” But the Ukrainian army abandoned the corrupt and terrible Russian military system and overhauled it. They have quickly learned the pros and cons of the NATO high tech weapons systems and use the right tool for the job. Russians run away from their tanks 38% of the time. Next week that abandoned tank may very well have Ukrainians in it.

      • Woof says:

        If I was in a tank with an auto loading gun, that required the turret to be a powder magazine, I would bail out the second I saw Ukrainian infantry carrying anything more than an AK-74.

    • James B. Shearer says:

      “What happened to Santa Ana, Montezuma and Atahualpa? ..”

      They were all taken prisoner much to the disadvantage of their side.

      • dave chamberlin says:

        True, but no one dares to try and capture Putin. His military venture into Ukraine is spectacularly failing and the odds of a coup deposing him from power are going up daily. Russia watching has never been better. Might I recommend Julia Davis on twitter. She monitors the wackiest propaganda from Russia supporting Putin. And how did we ever get through a day without Youtube. Best drunken Russian video everhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlgHioT32hg&t=1s.

        • dave chamberlin says:

          1) It’s obvious, to me anyway, that as the Russian military disaster in Ukraine unfolds the chances of Putin being deposed goes up.
          2) Who the fuck are you to say what deal Ukraine should settle for so that you don’t worry so much about nuclear war. Elon Musk rationalizes the same bullshit so you aren’t alone. Ukraine will decide what is best for Ukraine, not Putin, not Musk, not you. And guess what, they will have earned that right.

          • dave chamberlin says:

            Yeah I’m a traitor. OK…. and you’re a patriot. no doubt. Why I’ll bet you’ve never been wrong yet.

          • dave chamberlin says:

            Maybe we can impeach Biden, put Trump back in charge, and then sweeten the deal by buying Greenland and giving it to Russia as a make up present.

            Let’s make a deal. I already know what President Zelensky is going to say so you talk to him. Adios

        • mark rode says:

          Let the old explain: Nuclear Deterrence knows that hardly anything is “worth it”. Short of a serious and winning invasion of the USA – and even that’s debatable. Destruction of the US by first strike is obviously not worth a hit-back to destroy even more of the planet. It won’t rebuild LA or NY. – Still, this train of thought ends nowhere nice: Taiwan not worth it. Korea not. Japan not. Australia not. Europe not. Canada not. Alaska not.
          Thus, there is MAD and there are RED LINES. So there won’t be nukes used. Worked out well. The use of nukes in Ukraine without a serious invasion of Russia in its borders before 2014 (let alone before 22.2.22) is red-flagged. And because there might be a rationale for Putin to “escalate to de-escalate” by nuking, there is a rationale for the US to threat “massive retaliation, maybe massive first strike”. And do it. THIS part is not about Ukraine. This is to keep nukes off the table of options – esp. for the next dictator with nukes and fear of loosing power. Putin’s possible motivation to nuke:
          https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/09/will-putin-use-nuclear-weapons.html There is no military rationale. Everyone knows the US will step in to end this silly little war in Ukraine after a silly little nuke. And not in a way that leaves Putin with any territory ‘won’ in 2022. Really sorry for the people in Moscow if it has to be more. Hopefully, Piter can be spared. I got thyroid blockers for my kids. Worth it. – Minions of Putin: There is a way to safe yourself.

          • dave chamberlin says:

            Putin isn’t crazy enough to use a nuke for the reasons stated above. Even if he ordered one used it’s highly likely the chain of command would not execute the order. For those fearing that the conventional war will escalate further as 300,000 more Russian troops are poured into Ukraine I would answer…not at all likely. Thankfully this war is now a mismatch and a much longer and larger bloody war of attrition won’t happen irrespective of what Putin wishes. It’s a matter of time before Russian troops mutiny and refuse to be sent to Ukraine with their rusty rifles versus a modern army.

  7. zeev zurr says:

    What saddens me is that the West – led by U.S. – abandoned the creative spirit that made western civilization the beacon on the hill in favor of pushing us all to the edge when it belatedly realized that it’s descent.

    • Wookiebookie says:

      “abandoned the creative spirit that made western civilization the beacon on the hill”

      The beacon being nuclear decay?

  8. Coagulopath says:

    The Russian army is crumbling and weak, and Putin is in what chess players call a zugzwang.

    If he’s smart he’ll cut his losses and “tactically reposition” in a way that ends the conflict and stops the bleeding. I assumed he’d annex some minor piece of Ukrainian territory, declare that had been the real objective from the beginning, and pray the Russian public is dumb enough to believe this (and that Ukraine doesn’t take it back).

    I really doubt he’s actually that popular among his people. If he is, it’s probably due to a “rally around the flag” effect which will soon vanish, just as it did for the US in Vietnam and Iraq. Who wants a party of bungling, incompetent warmongers in power?

    He has to end this now.

  9. dearieme says:

    Putin is attempting to be Russia’s President Polk. But if you play that game you really need to win it.

    My wife likes to quote Elizabeth I: “I do not like war. It is costly and the outcome uncertain.”

  10. Guy says:

    Well, 1941 started with a decidedly inferior Russian army that got much better in ’42. So they only need to lose a few million troops and then the Russian army will kick @$$!

  11. prebellum says:

    This is a very, very bad idea.

    Replacement of Putin would be yet another KGB man with the same mentality and imperial goals, and possibly more competent. Actually a replacement would probably more competent since Putin is almost completely inept and has a track record of making very bad decisions. He’s just ruthless, but not smart or knowledgeable. (What can you expect of a former manager of officer’s club in Berlin, which is an interesting parallel to a corporal who’s become a genius strategist in charge of a significant country.) His successor would probably be even more harmful for countries other than Russia.

    Moreover, entire business of the world plus Germans and French and possibly more politicians in other countries would jump at a chance of going back to business as usual on a pretext of “hey this is a new democratic regime!” (yet again), which would let Russia recover instead of being progressively weakened by sanctions (they do bite actually) so that it were less of a threat to Ukraine (and everyone else).

    • dave chamberlin says:

      Putin is inept in how he is running Russia, period. Is he a cunning Machiavellian asshole? Absolutely. But look at the resources of Russia and what it is. Bright people, enough of them anyway, great natural resources, and what did they do with it? It’s a mafia run gas station. Billionaires milk the natural resources and then take the money and run. There is a good reason why they take the money and run. Putin. He’s the mafia overlord to that shitty economy. Could that country have followed the path of Europe or even China and let capitalism flourish at home? Of course they could have but it hasn’t. Why? Putin.

      I have been following the Ukrainian War closely and it was obvious early on that the Russian military is a joke. Russia the supposedly second best military in the world is the second best in the Ukraine. Russia was not outgunned. They were out thought, out organized, and out motivated by a poor country of only 40 million people. Yes Ukraine was provided with NATO weapons but they used them to maximum advantage while Russia clowned around with overwhelming fire power.

      • dave chamberlin says:

        You are correct about the awful economic situation of Russia in the 1990’s. If you look at GDP per capita as a measure of how competent Putin has been he looks great up to 2013 and then Russia started going backwards and hasn’t stopped. But one number doesn’t tell the complex story of how the Russian economy has been managed. It’s a kleptocracy, billionaires exploit the natural resources and then pull their money out of the economy.

        Their military has never truly been tested by a competent foe. Now that it has it has been exposed as incredibly corrupt and incompetent. Supposedly Putin rebuilt the military, he did a terrible job.

    • James B. Shearer says:

      “Replacement of Putin ..”

      I don’t think the idea is to replace him, I think the idea is to capture him. Easier said than done of course.

  12. Paul Mendez says:

    MendezP2014 (at) gmail

  13. pelekesi says:

    Take Putin Hostage?

    • J says:

      Decapitate the Empire?

      • dave chamberlin says:

        What empire? There are only 100 million ethnic Russians and they are poor. There average salary is less than than a Panamanian. They cannot replace the modern weaponry they have already lost and a cold cruel winter is coming to ill equipped Russian troops. The empire is in Putin’s delusional mind.

  14. dearieme says:

    What was he thinking of? (part 94)

    How would a ruined, depopulated Ukraine be any use to a Russia that is already short of citizens, and particularly Slavic citizens? Why would getting lots of Russians killed to gain this feeble prize make any sense?

    So he must have been thinking not of the war he’s got, but of the shock-and-awe, near-bloodless, rapid conquest of Kiev he wanted – which proved to be beyond the competence of his army.

    What a bloody fiasco. From the debacle in Kabul to the stumbling on the Steppes: politicians don’t seem to be very good at war at the moment.

  15. dearieme says:

    What was he thinking of? (part 95)

    Lovely twin bridges of the famed Kerch Strait!
    Your appearance now doth disintegrate!
    Mighty trucks and trailers will have to wait
    While engineers survey your ghastly fate
    And Mr Putin suffers a great bate!

  16. brokenyogi says:

    Cancer, Parkinson’s, Pathological Narcissism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s