Ukrainians today are divided now into those who fight and who actively help the army, those in the rear who try to make ends meet between anxiety attacks, people who live as if nothing has happened and those involved in war profiteering.
Mykhailo Tkach published an investigation involving my nextdoor neighbor Oleksiy, titled “Volunteer with a Lamborghini.” The 64-minute report examines how he is contributing to the war effort. Kind of. In his spare time. Maybe.
The story reminds me of Ukraine’s Spherical Cow, a pre-total war post about a resource allocation puzzle involving non-cooperating agents where, if everyone uses the same pure strategy, it is guaranteed to fail, no matter what it is. Political upheaval - like a war - just adds another layer of complexity1.
Just read Niall’s Trump, Vance’s doctrine of military realism a sign of hope for Ukraine — and not isolationist op-ed appearing in the New York Post.
Thus the biggest debate on foreign policy we have seen in recent years is the debate within the Republican Party over the wisdom of supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia.
There are few truths more widely acknowledged in Europe today than that the Ukrainian government of Volodymyr Zelensky would be among the biggest losers if Donald Trump were to be reelected president on Nov. 5.
I heard it said at the World Economic Forum and I heard it again at the Munich Security Conference.
The military realism doctrine Niall ascribes to Trump and Vance — to prevent Russia from rolling through Ukraine — sounds a lot like the Biden administration doctrine.
Concludes Niall:
A second Trump administration will represent not a revival of the isolationism that failed in the 1910s and failed again in the 1930s, bit[sic] a long-needed return to foreign policy realism.
Former commander-in-chief turned UK ambassador Valeriy Zaluzhny made a speech at a RUSI gig the other day.
First of all, wars should be avoided! But if war does come, you must be prepared for it.
Preparedness for war should be viewed as a huge set of measures that covers not only purely military aspects, but also all areas of state activity. Perhaps the most complicated and important component is the readiness of society, based on honest and transparent communication between the government and people.
Society must agree to temporarily give up a number of freedoms for the sake of survival.
Unfortunately, modern wars are total wars. They require the efforts of not only the army but also society as a whole.
Politicians can and should mobilise society. For this purpose, the military and other resources of the state are comprehensively involved.
These resources include the economy, finance, population, and allies. Of course, such actions will affect the country's political processes.
Thus, the readiness for war will be determined not only by the readiness of the army to repel aggression but also by the readiness of society to confront the enemy. (emphasis not added)
Starting in the fall of 2021, Team USA began sharing with Kyiv Putin’s plans for a total invasion, yet Ukraine’s leaders refused to prepare for it. This explains why Z is a political corpse. He and Ukraine are among the biggest losers no matter who wins the 2024 US presidential election.
Listened to Z’s morning pep talk about targeting invaders behind the front lines, regurgitating arguments from Zaluzhny’s Shwerpunkt essay. That was two years ago2.
It would be disingenuous to claim that Z's universal magnetism is down to vibe alone. But it's difficult to remember the last time I witnessed a vibe so giganticly stale.
Ukraine’s Spherical Cow. Oh, that place is so crowded. No one goes there anymore (October 16, 2021)