I just read a leader in The Economist about what the likely outcome will be for Ukraine.
As I understood it, it was that Ukraine has no choice but to relinquish permanently its lost territory so trump can look like he has made a deal (part of which will be to leave the balance of Ukraine unoccupied by Russia) and everybody, especially trump's ravening morons will cheer "we win".
Or something.
The Economist further asserts that this will give Ukraine four years of breathing room - assuming donnie doesn't abrogate The Constitution and stay on - and that at the end of four years they will be stronger as a country and stronger as a government structure, or something.
Of course none of this bullshit would ever have been put on paper if it were not for the fact that Putin can incinerate most of the world at a whim with his nuclear arsenal.
Same old game; same old outcome; boring - except for all that fire.
Without that, he never would have been willing to challenge NATO (America) the check-mate nuclear power, with an invasion of Ukraine and with Hitlerian intent to annex.
I have always pondered the nature of that tie-of-terror and have always had one question: What's in it for the winner - if there were to be one - of that long avoided, always feared, nuclear exchange, if there ever is one?
What possible advantage is there to taking possession of a nuke-melted Place Vendome?
Shell Silverstein answered that question with a song he wrote, and Bobby Bare sang.
No comments:
Post a Comment