Streetwise Professor

The annual UN poseurfest is currently underway in New York. The main event is various Lilliputian leaders like Macron and Starmer announcing that their nations will recognize a “Palestinian state.”

Just what are they recognizing, exactly? Usually, recognition refers to a government. For example, in 1979 the US recognized the PRC as “the sole legal Government of China.” In the 1930s the US recognized the government of the Soviet Union.

So what government are these diplomatic giants bravely recognizing? The Palestinian Authority (PA), a corrupt, terrorist-adjacent (at least), autocracy? Hamas, about which nothing need be said?

And what are the borders of this “state”?

Details, details.

These initiatives are a direct response to the war in Gaza. If Manny and Two Tier Keir are recognizing the PA, it is utterly irrelevant–because the PA holds no sway in Gaza, having been eliminated from it by Hamas with extreme prejudice years ago. If the latter, they are recognizing a murderous terrorist regime.

Meaning that these stunning and brave initiatives are actually stupid and bullshit gestures.

For his part, Starmer adamantly denies that Britain’s recognition extends to Hamas. How principled!

Well, as the saying goes, possession is nine tenths of the law. And Hamas possesses Gaza–unless and until Israel extirpates them, that is. So what, exactly, will Britain’s recognition do to end the war in Gaza, which is supposedly the point of this political onanism?

For his part, Macron says that it is imperative to end “Israel’s war in Gaza.” Last time I checked, it takes at least two sides to have a war. Just whom are the Israeli’s fighting, exactly? Hamas could have ended the war they started months ago. By surrendering, thereby saving all those Gazan lives that Macron supposedly cares so much for.

They didn’t. So the beat goes on.

Macron has proposed that France will lead a multi-national effort that will disarm Hamas “gradually.”

I have read idiotic things before, but this is in the running for the most idiotic. Given their conduct in the last decades, who could possibly believe that Hamas would agree to be disarmed, and even if they did so in taqiyya fashion, they would actually follow through? And what is the point of disarming them if they are not combatants, meaning it is not “Israel’s war”? And doesn’t the necessity of disarming them imply they are not a legitimate government, and are in fact the cause of the war? Who is going to rule Gaza after they are disarmed? Islamic Jihad? And if they should be disarmed, why gradually? Is this like military methadone, slowly weaning Hamas off murder? And are we supposed to believe that France would follow through after the inevitable attacks, suicide and otherwise, on its “peacekeepers”?

The fact is that the only way that Hamas is going to be disarmed is when the Israelis pry Hamas’s weapons from their cold dead fingers.

The reality here is that Macron and Starmer et al are political eunuchs domestically who, unable to do anything at home, are strutting about the world stage. It is particularly pathetic in Macron’s case. France is a basket case right now, and his popularity ranks right up there with chlamydia. The chutzpah of this political Munchkin (who imagines himself to be Jupiter) lecturing the world on its moral duties is off the charts.

The other reality is that both Macron and Starmer are afraid of their restive Muslim populations. Better to throw a bone to les banlieues than deal with riots in them, eh, Manny?

Telling indeed was Manny’s meltdown over US ambassador Charles Kushner’s letter criticizing France’s feckless efforts to combat anti-semitism in the country. Just who are the most dangerous anti-semites in France? Its Arab Muslim population, obviously. Kushner (and hence Rubio and Trump) was essentially accusing Macron of cowardice for failing to address the source of the problem. Which hit Macron where it hurts.

Meaning that you cannot understand any action Macron takes with respect to the Muslim and Arab worlds without acknowledging its roots in one of Thucydides’ drivers of human behavior–fear.

Against the background of Macron’s posing and his hissy fit directed at the US, this is hilarious:

Priceless: Police in New York stops Macron's car, because the street is closed for Trump's convoy.

Macron calls Trump to allow him to pass, but Trump humiliates Macron and tells him to walk instead, which he does ?

pic.twitter.com/K1cnWUOBrB

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) September 23, 2025

Maybe this was just a SNAFU due to a miscommunication between Macron, the US government, and the NYPD. But maybe it was Trump trolling:

(Macron is Henery Hawk to a “T”).

Regardless, it demonstrates just what standing Macron has in the US. Which, in turn, demonstrates that all his posing will get him nowhere, and earn him even more ridicule.

So go home, Manny. You might need to choose another prime minister.

The Rest is History podcast is enjoyable, informative, and entertaining. Of the two co-hosts, I much prefer Dominic Sandbrook to Tom Holland. More of a personal reaction to personalities than anything substantive.

My opinion of Sandbrook grew even more after watching this episode of Triggernometry featuring him:

It’s basically a broad discussion of history, or more exactly, historiography. His views align very closely with mine, views I’ve expressed many times in conversations with my daughter in particular.

The most basic stand that Sandbrook takes is on the side of the tragic view of history. It’s also a view that (one of the few conservative public historians) Victor Davis Hanson takes. As do I.

It is in many respects a Christian view. People are fallen, sinful, and flawed, and the ways that they are fallen, sinful, and flawed haven’t changed that much over time. Thus, Sandbrook is somewhat pessimistic about the future. In brief, due to human nature we are condemned to repeat history, even if we bother to study it properly. In fact, pace Spinoza, the proper study of history leads to Sandbrook’s gloomy conclusion that we are doomed to repeat it.

One thing that the discussion brought to mind, and which I was surprised neither Sandbrook nor hosts Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster mentioned, was Thucydides. He famously wrote that fear, honor, and interest drive the decisions of people and states. The tragic view states that was true in the 5th century BC, was true before, remains true to the present, and will remain true in the future. Sandbrook mentions fear, honor, and interest throughout his answers, but doesn’t tie them back to Thucydides, who very much pioneered the human nature-based practice of history. This is unfortunate, as I think it would have emphasized the deep roots of the tragic view.

Sandbrook’s basic point is that modern historical discussions ignore human nature, or have a warped view of it. When one acknowledges that essential aspects of human nature (“fear, honor, interest”) are enduring, such an oversight necessarily leads to the grotesque misunderstandings and misuses of history that pervade modern life. Such history is nothing more than just-so stories that just aren’t so.

In essence, Sandbrook trenchantly criticizes the progressive view of history, and it would have been great if he made that explicit rather than implicit in his discussion.

One of his criticisms of progressive history includes the narcissism of those who criticize historical figures for violating current progressive mores with nary a thought that future generations will judge them and find them wanting. Such arrogant critics of historical figures imagine themselves to be at the end of a historical process, standing in judgment, Christ-like, of all who came before, and that no one will come after them.

Another is his rejection of the utopianism of the great killers of the 20th century–Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. They all viewed themselves as agents in “scientific” historical processes that progressed inevitably to utopia–as long as they helped it along. Different utopias in each case, but utopias nonetheless.

These are all essentially variants on Hegelian dialectics, which is at the root of progressive theories of history.

As an aside, Obama’s frequent statement “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” also embodies the progressive view of history. And Sandbrook would say–no, it doesn’t.

And all of these utopianisms rejected the tragic view of an immutable human nature, in favor of one in which human nature is malleable and plastic; that it had been misshapen in the past by bad institutions (capitalism, mainly and most recently); and could be reshaped into new, and perfected, forms by the application of (usually lethal) force wielded by the enlightened to overthrow these institutions. If some die–hell, if tens of millions die–that is the price of progress, and one well worth paying.

Sandbrook laments the failure of historians, and in particular academic historians, to fight against the errors of progressive history. He attributes this to their failure to engage with the broader populace, and their talking mainly with one another about arcane issues that don’t penetrate the popular consciousness.

I think this is a naive view. The biggest problem, by far, is that the modern academic history profession is itself overwhelmingly progressive. And the self-reproducing nature of academic disciplines means it is unlikely to change anytime soon. An ancillary problem is that progressive history has also been obsessively focused not on broad historical narratives, but on increasingly narrow topics with a disproportionate emphasis on various sorts of social history and identity-tinged history. It is those obsessions which drive the adverse judgments of historical figures: they were racist, sexist, classist, blah blah blah.

I definitely recommend that you listen. I can’t say you’ll come away full of hope. But that’s the ultimate lesson of the tragic view, isn’t it?

Land acknowledgements are my candidate for the most precise signal of idiocy. Case in point was that the Democratic National Committee meeting in the Peoples’ Republic of Minnesota began with one.

It was idiotic even measured against the genre generally:

The DNC acknowledges and honors the Dakota Oyate, the Dakota people, who are the original stewards of the lands and waters of Minneapolis. The Dakota cared for the lands, lakes, and the Wakpa Tanka, the ‘Great River,’ the Mississippi River, for thousands of years before colonization.

The Dakota were in that area for “thousands of years before colonization”? Uhm, not really. General Nelson Miles’ dialogue with Sitting Bull in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is far more accurate:

The Sioux were ejected from Wisconsin by the Chippewa (as were the Fox, who were later led by Blackhawk) and then proceeded to terrorize and conquer the people of the lands to which they fled.

Pretty sure the Sioux never gave a heartfelt land acknowledgement. Nor the Chippewa. Nor did any of the myriad tribes that ejected another from its lands (sometimes to be kicked out themselves later).

I recollect someone writing that land acknowledgements merely honor the penultimate conquerer in order to condemn the ultimate one. And this is true. Inter-tribal warfare, conquest, settling and colonization–in other words, all the sins that the land acknowledgers assign solely to whites–were the norm in North America (including the southern reaches thereof–the Aztecs were colonizers who originated further north from Mexico).

I always laugh when people express admiration for Indian warriors and the warrior spirit. Uhm, how did they develop a warrior ethos before the arrival of the whites? Whom were they warring against, exactly? Martians? Or did the mere presence of whites instantaneously transform them from peaceful stewards of the land into fierce fighters?

Land acknowledgements are ahistorical acts of self-flagellation. In other words, idiotic.

Which means it’s not surprising that the DNC embraces them.

The Russo-Ukrainian War grinds on, with Russia making extremely marginal territorial gains at exorbitant human and materiel cost. But the Russians are inflicting heavy casualties on Ukraine as well. And for the first time in, well, forever, there appears to be at least a glimmer of a possibility of some sort of negotiated settlement. I’ll first discuss the military situation, then the political/diplomatic one, as the last is contingent on the first.

As I’ve written often before, the tactical aspects of the Russian campaign are beyond grotesque. The indiscriminate waste of lives for meager gains and the brutal treatment of Russian soldiers (who now include female criminals released from prisons) transcend even the worst historical precedents, at least in Europe. The senseless slaughters, the callousness of the officers, and the material deprivation the soldiers suffer go far, far beyond the conditions that caused the French army to mutiny in 1917. But no such thing appears in prospect in the Russian army. National mindset/character does matter.

This last week I saw two articles that present an interesting contrast. A WSJ article describes Ukraine’s (very belated) efforts to fortify. Appealing to Clauswitz and the experience of the American Civil War, Naval War College professor James Holmes argues that fixed defensive lines are futile, and hence the odds of victory favor Russia.

On balance, I think the pro-fortification side has the best of the argument. This is primarily because the technological considerations overwhelm the abstract advantage of the attacker identified by Clauswitz, and the inappositeness of the ACW analogy.

“The Offensive” is one of the Clauswitzian principles of war. Indeed, it is usually given pride of place. As Holmes emphasizes, the attacker can choose where to attack and can concentrate his forces, whereas the defender does not know where the attack will come, and must spread out his forces. This imbalance of concentration is most acute when the battlefront is large, as is the case in Ukraine. Hence, Holmes concludes, the advantage lies heavily with Russia.

However, technological conditions can decisively shift the advantage to the defender, even given his ignorance of where a blow will fall. Of course, the Western Front in WWI is the primary example of this.

In that conflict, the extreme limitations on the pace of an advance, the vulnerability of the attackers to fires, and the distance that an attacker could advance dictated by the reliance on infantry (and later, the primitive armor) combined to make breakthroughs almost impossible to achieve. Firepower (artillery and machine guns) attrited an attacking infantry force heavily before it made contact. Even if it was able to take a line of trenches, or even two, exhaustion brought them to a halt. Primitive communications prevented coordination of adjacent units, and made it almost impossible to bring up reserves to the right place to continue an initially successful assault. So at best, an attacker could dent but never break an enemy’s lines.

Even operational surprises, like Verdun in 1916 or the Kaiserschlacht in Flanders and Artois in 1918 eventually petered out far short of their objectives. Only where troop and fortification density was much lower, as on the Eastern Front in say the Gorlice–Tarnów offensive in Poland in 1915, or the Brusilov Offensive in 1916, or Romania in 1916, was it possible for foot and horse-drawn forces to make sustained advances over long distances. And even the first two of those culminated short of achieving victory.

Conditions similar to the Western Front prevail in Ukraine, and indeed, many factors are even more disadvantageous to the attacker. First anti-tank missiles, and then drones and deep strike munitions, have made it impossible for armored and motorized forces to advance to contact without suffering near annihilation. Drones, and especially satellite and electronic intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets provided by the US, make operational and tactical surprise almost impossible. Artillery is more precise and more deadly.

So foot soldiers must advance under continuous enemy observation and fire at a walking pace, and suffer catastrophically as a result.

The only thing that has allowed Russia to advance as much as it has, little though that be and at what cost, is the fact that Ukrainian lines are very thinly manned. Fortifications are the best way to compensate for that lack of manpower.

Since the outset of the war Ukraine as eschewed the construction of dense fortifications throughout the front–something I have criticized since the outset. Indeed, the Ukrainian resistance to fortification persisted even after its 2023 “offensive” failed because it could not penetrate the Surovkin Lines. One should learn from one’s enemy: Ukraine hasn’t.

This is just one item, albeit an important one, in the bill of particulars against Syrsky and Zelensky and their operational conduct of the war.

(As for the ACW analogy, Holmes overlooks the fact that the Union offensive stalled for 10 months at Richmond-Petersburg due to Confederate fortifications there. Also, the Federal’s multiple simultaneous attacks were conducted at the strategic level, a totally different situation from the operational level -situation in Ukraine. Thus, at the operational level–e.g., Petersburg-Richmond–the fortified defensive prevailed despite a huge numerical imbalance between the two sides. That’s a better analogy for eastern Ukraine today).

Is it too late for Ukraine to fortify as it should have years ago? Perhaps. And regardless, until it does, the Russians will continue to advance meter by meter in the bite and hold fashion they’ve employed for the past three campaign season, because Putin has clearly shown he is willing to pay the price that approach entails.

Which brings us to the political/diplomatic situation. Putin has agreed to meet Trump, who is attempting to broker some form of cessation of the conflict. Trump promises to meet Zelensky immediately afterwards.

Now of course, both sides have made irreconcilable demands. Putin demands complete control over Ukraine’s eastern provinces (which they have almost, but not completely, captured). Zelensky says not one bit of Ukrainian soil will pass to Russia.

But of course they are going to say that. The question is how willing–and able–they are to adhere to those positions. This depends crucially on their assessments of what will happen if the war drags on.

Putin has consistently expressed bravado and a certainty of victory. He has wagered that the disproportionate populations and economies of the two combatants give him a decisive advantage. He claims the Russian economy has withstood sanctions, and can withstand anything more the west throws at him.

The reality is somewhat different. The rate of losses is not sustainable. This will be especially true if, finally throwing up his hands at Putin’s obstinacy, Trump increases the flow of military equipment to Ukraine. As for the economy, it has become extremely unbalanced, with likely unsustainable expenditures on the war. Russia’s fiscal situation is extremely parlous. The civilian economy is suffering, and although the aforementioned national character may cause Russians to bear these privations more stoically than other nationalities would, war weariness will inevitably grow (as it did in Russia in 1917). Russian industry, particularly its oil refining industry–a vital prop to the war effort and the economy generally–has suffered considerable damage from Ukrainian drone strikes.

Russia and those who believe in the inevitability of Russian victory point to GDP figures. Even overlooking the dubious nature of official Russian statistics (not that US official statistics are that great these days), hyperactive military production combined with a suffocating civilian economy cannot go on forever. The example of War Socialism under Ludendorff and Hindenberg in WWI Germany comes to mind. It achieved prodigies, then collapsed in social chaos.

For his part, Zelensky has to consider the fraught military situation. Yes, Ukraine is holding on, but the personnel issues in particular are also not sustainable.

The war of attrition has continued because each side thinks it can hold out one more day and one soldier longer. As long as they continue to think that way, Trump will not succeed.

It ultimately comes down to what leverage Trump has. The very fact that Putin is willing to meet suggests that he has some with the Russian. The meeting has come to pass only after an exasperated Trump threatened to impose far more draconian sanctions on Russia, most notably efforts to throttle oil sales to India and China. That Trump is deadly serious about this is demonstrated by the fact that relations with India have been severely ruptured due to Modi’s refusal to accede to Trump’s demands.

If the conditions of the Russian economy and fisc are as shaky as I believe, Putin has to be seriously concerned that Trump getting serious about sanctions would collapse his ability to sustain the war.

Trump obviously has much more leverage over Zelensky. Ukraine survives at the sufferance of the US.

So I conclude that Trump has considerable leverage over both sides, and that this makes a deal possible, if not highly likely. Putin has to know that the US will bear little cost from imposing large costs on Russia, and again, the hardball with India (“oh, you don’t like 25 percent tariffs? Well, here’s 50 percent then, asshole”) demonstrates that Trump is deadly serious now, whereas I don’t think Putin thought he was prior to now. Unless Putin is living in Dictator Dreamland (which is not inconceivable) he knows that his current strategy and tactics are not sustainable for very long, especially if the US ramps up military support for Ukraine. And further, he has to know that every human and materiel casualty in Ukraine weakens him against whom he claims is his real enemy–Nato.

So although I don’t believe that Trump will achieve a miracle next week, or even in the following weeks, I think that next Friday could well represent the beginning of the end. And what will that end look like?

Well, with neither side getting what they are demanding now. Putin will have de facto control over most of eastern Ukraine, and perhaps de jure control over some of it, but he will not have de jure control over all of it as he is demanding. Which means that Ukraine will make territorial concessions. That is, as is the case in every conflict not ended by unconditional surrender, each side will find the outcome distateful.

And what follows? A hot peace/frozen conflict. Korea redux, perhaps.

The victory of Zohran Madmani–excuse me, Mamdani–in New York City’s Democratic primary has unleashed a torrent of commentary. In particular, it has sparked euphoria on the left, who see it as the harbinger of a successful “resistance” to Trump and the dawning of an overthrow of American capitalism.

Much of this is overwrought, and wishcasting rather than forecasting. Matt Taibbi called it socialism’s “American Normandy”: It is more likely socialism’s Anzio, an initial success that will wind up being a strategic and tactical dead end.

Most importantly, New York City generally, and its Democratic Party electorate in particular, are hardly representative of the country at large. Indeed, outside the media bubble and other urban socialist outposts this Mamdani is largely viewed as the winner of a Best of Freak contest. He and his ilk are political pustules concentrated in small enclaves of major cities–many of which are dying, in large part because of them. The perverse rank choice–excuse me, ranked choice–voting system also exaggerates his appeal. Furthermore, his main opponent was Me Too poster boy and grannie killer Andrew Cuomo, who is about as popular as chlamydia.

Mamdani’s win, and the exaggeration of its importance in the media, is attributable to a particular social class that dominates certain precincts in big cities and most of the media. You know the type. Identitarians. Wokies. Highly credentialed “elites” who are inveterately anti-American, anti-Western, anti-freedom (except for the freedom of perversion), and anti-capitalist.

These attitudes are largely a consequence of “elite overproduction,” combined with the technology that now produces the “elite.” The basic idea is that the production of “educated,” credentialed individuals in excess of the career opportunities that provide the financial remuneration and status that these people believe is their due because of their innate superiority creates a class of resentful people who conclude that the system is inherently unjust and should be overthrown.

The concept of elite overproduction was recently popularized by Peter Turchin, but Joseph Schumpeter had it figured out way before–decades in fact. In his seminal Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter posed the question: “Can capitalism survive?” He answered in the negative, but not for the classic Marxist reason that the internal contradictions of capitalism produced an immiserated proletarian class that would overthrow it. Instead, the internal contradiction was that capitalism produced a class of decidedly non-proletarians who were hostile to it and who would undermine it from within.

Schumpeter struggled with finding the right label for this class, finally settling on “intellectuals.” He also struggled with identifying its defining characteristics, but it’s a you-know-it-when-you-see-it kind of thing. And when you see Mamdani fan<insert gender identity here>s, you know they are the type Schumpeter had in mind.

In particular, look at Chapters XIII (especially section II) and XIV of CSD. They read like a crystal ball for the Era of Woke generally and Mamdani specifically. There is too much to quote so I’ll just pull out a few.

But in the case of capitalist society there is a further fact to be noted: unlike any other type of society, capitalism inevitably and by virtue of the very logic of its civilization creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest.

“The very logic of its civilization” means that because of its incredible fecundity, capitalism can support a large number of individuals who can pursue intellectual pursuits rather than toil for subsistence through the production of goods or services.

That is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for this group–which Schumpeter believed can be characterized as a social class–to be inherently oppositional to capitalism and the bourgeoisie. In addition, the internal logic of capitalism incorporates open inquiry and criticism (parts of “creative destruction”) and a belief in freedom (especially freedom of expression), and therefore finds it difficult to fend off its intellectual critics:

From this follows both the unwillingness and the inability of the capitalist order to control its intellectual sector effectively. The unwillingness in question is unwillingness to use methods consistently that are uncongenial to the mentality shaped by the capitalist process; the inability is the inability to do so within the frame of institutions shaped the capitalist process and without submitting to non-bourgeois rule. Thus, on the one hand, freedom of public discussion involving freedom to nibble at the foundations of capitalist society is inevitable in the long run. On the other hand, the intellectual group cannot help nibbling, because it lives on criticism and its whole position depends on criticism that stings; and criticism of persons and of current events will, in a situation in which nothing is sacrosanct, fatally issue in criticism of classes and institutions.

Furthermore, and crucially, there is a mismatch between the attributes (I hesitate to say “skills” or “abilities”) of the members of this class and their expectations regarding income and status:

Third, it may create unemployability of a particularly disconcerting type. The man [an anachronism!–see below] who has gone through a college or university easily becomes psychically unemployable in manual occupations without necessarily acquiring employability in, say, professional work. His failure to do so may be due either to lack of natural ability—perfectly compatible with passing academic tests—or to inadequate teaching; and both cases will, absolutely and relatively, occur more frequently as ever larger numbers are drafted into higher education and as the required amount of teaching increases irrespective of how many teachers and scholars nature chooses to turn out. The results of neglecting this and of acting on the theory that schools, colleges and universities are just a matter of money, are too obvious to insist upon. Cases in which among a dozen applicants for a job, all formally qualified, there is not one who can fill it satisfactorily, are known to everyone who has anything to do with appointments—to everyone, that is, who is himself qualified to judge.

I say anachronism because today women are far more likely to fit this description than men.

He continues:

All those who are unemployed or unsatisfactorily employed or unemployable drift into the vocations in which standards are least definite or in which aptitudes and acquirements of a different order count. They swell the host of intellectuals in the strict sense of the term whose numbers hence increase disproportionately. They enter it in a thoroughly discontented frame of mind. Discontent breeds resentment. And it often rationalizes itself into that social criticism which as we have seen before is in any case the intellectual spectator’s typical attitude toward men, classes and institutions especially in a rationalist and utilitarian civilization. Well, here we have numbers; a well-defined group situation of proletarian hue; and a group interest shaping a group attitude that will much more realistically account for hostility to the capitalist order than could the theory—itself a rationalization in the psychological sense—according to which the intellectual’s righteous indignation about the wrongs of capitalism simply represents the logical inference from outrageous facts and which is no better than the theory of lovers that their feelings represent nothing but the logical inference from the virtues of the beloved.1 Moreover our theory als accounts for the fact that this hostility increases, instead of diminishing, with every achievement of capitalist evolution.

I could quote further, but that gets at the gist of it. Elite overproduction, avant la lettre. (It is rather discreditable that Peter Turchin’s book on elite overproduction, End Times, does not mention or cite Schumpeter. The Austrian was obviously decades ahead of him).

Relatively recent developments in the “elite” production technology have only exacerbated these tendencies. An especially important one is the superabundance of student loans. This has had three perverse effects. The first is simply that it subsidizes the production of the credentialed. The second is that it has caused an increase in the output of those with “unemployability of a particularly disconcerting type.” Namely, all those with expensive but useless degrees, “studies” degrees most especially. (Note that Mamdani has a degree in African Studies. No wonder he has never held a job. Never). Third, those who cannot get employment with compensation or status that they believe their credentials entitle them too are saddled with a crushing debt burden that reminds them daily of the fundamental injustice of society.

Student loans are not the only issue regarding “elite” production technology. Another is its self-reinforcing, reflexive nature. Academia has become infested with oppositional intellectuals who through their control of their institutions indoctrinate students with their resentful ideologies. Resentful intellectuals produce more resentful intellectuals who cannot achieve income and status commensurate with their inflated self-worth. It is the academic version of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice:

Another factor is the feminization of higher education. (Apropos my comment regarding the anachronism in Schumpeter’s analysis). Women tend to be disproportionately represented in the “intellectuals” produced in studies, humanities, and soft social sciences programs that contribute most heavily to the discontented intellectual class. Moreover, women are more likely to be hostile to the competitive, not to say Darwinian, features of capitalism.

It is amusing that Richard Swedberg’s introduction to the version of Schumpeter I have at hand dismisses Schumpeter’s negative answer to “can capitalism survive?”

In short, in areas where Schumpeter perceived a threat to capitalism, there is no apparent threat at all or, alternatively, a very minor one. To illustrate this, let us look at two of the alleged causes for the demise of capitalism: the role of intellectuals in capitalist society and the relationship of property owners to their property. According to Schumpeter, as capitalism develops it gives rise to an increasing number of intellectuals who are basically resentful and hostile to capitalism. The argument, however, does not accord well with our observations; rather, most intellectuals appear fairly well integrated into the various institutions in which they work, and the vocal intelligentsia changes its political opinions at regular intervals, usually oscillating between pro-capitalism and indifference to economic questions, and only rarely lapsing into anti-capitalism. In any case, it is simply not correct to state that Western intellectuals in general have been hostile to capitalism and that they are likely to be hostile also in the future.

Dude. How wrong can you be? This judgment was a dubious characterization of conditions when written (in 1976). It is utterly delusional now.

Consider “most intellectuals appear fairly well integrated into the various institutions in which they work.” Uhm, yes, they are, but not in the way Swedberg meant. As a result of the march through the “various institutions”–especially academia, journalism, and government–they have reshaped those institutions into anti-capitalist bastions. It is pro-capitalists like me that are not well-integrated, to the extent we are tolerated or even exist. (Don’t bother to look in English departments, etc.). Or “the vocal intelligentsia changes its political opinions at regular intervals, usually oscillating between pro-capitalism and indifference to economic questions, and only rarely lapsing into anti-capitalism.” I agree that the vocal intelligentsia changes its positions at regular intervals, from left to more left to even more left. And rather than oscillating between “pro-capitalism and indifference to economic questions,” anti-capitalism has been trending strongly. Yes, there is sometimes “indifference to economic questions” in the sense that modern leftist intellectuals are not obsessively focused on them like 20th century classical Marxists were, but their ostensibly non-economic critiques about race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., identify inequities on these dimensions as the inevitable consequences of capitalism.

That’s the essence of the Gramscian, Frankfurt School turn from traditional Marxism. The proletariat did not behave as Marx predicted, so the critique of capitalism, and the strategy to overturn it, pivoted to race, gender, sexual orientation, and most lately to transgenderism.

Schumpeter did not predict the exact manifestation of the intelligentsia’s non-classical-Marxist attack on capitalism, but he predicted the hostility and coherently explained why it would–and alas has–happen.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is much richer and more expansive than an exposition on elite overproduction, its causes, and its consequences. But that section was especially prescient, and resonates 82 years after it was written. No more so than when witnessing New York City’s recent election.

In the years after Vietnam, many (and arguably most) Americans suffered from a form of PTSD, Post-Vietnam Syndrome (“PVS”). The main symptom of PVS was to respond to each possibility of an American use of military force with the cry “It will be another Vietnam!”

Gulf War I largely cured the nation of this syndrome. In large part precisely because the US military had learned lessons from Vietnam. The Weinberger-Powell doctrine was formulated with the Vietnam experience specifically in mind. Go in with overwhelming force and with clear, well-defined, and somewhat limited objectives.

In the past few weeks, as the prospect of a US attack on Iran became increasingly likely, PIS–Post-Iraq Syndrome–was clearly in evidence. “An attack on Iran will result in another debacle like Iraq!” Ironically, this syndrome was particularly evident in a few corners of the right. Those corners which almost certainly not coincidentally give off a pungent odor of anti-semitism.

I heavily discount these fears, and for similar reasons that PVS was unfounded and largely neurotic: the military and the civilian leadership are intent on not repeating the same mistakes.

The methods are different (so far). Trump (like Israel) looks to exploit the US’s overwhelming advantages: hurling thunderbolts from the heavens, a la Zeus, and to avoid mud wrestling with the pigs on the ground. The objectives may seem somewhat similar (eliminate a perceived WMD threat) but the evidence of the threat, and the imminence of the threat, is far greater that it was 22 years ago: no debates about yellowcake or aluminum tubes with respect to Iran. And today Trump clearly eschews any dreams (or delusions) of nation building: note that is rhetoric is completely devoid of George W. Bush’s gauzy fantasies of turning a dysfunctional Middle Eastern nation into a freedom loving Jeffersonian republic.

That is, whereas Bush was internationalist and Wilsonian, Trump is being Jacksonian. You do you, until you threaten us. At which time we will tell you to stop. And if you don’t stop, we will respond with overwhelming force to eliminate the threat you pose.

The mullahs were warned. They blew it off. So Trump blew them up, or their prize toys anyways. If they keep it up, he just might blow them up as well.

Stories circulating right up to the launch of Midnight Hammer reported that Trump was fretting about “another Libya.” In retrospect that appears to be another part of the information operation. But even if not, those fears apparently disappeared. And with good reason.

Yes, Libya has been a violent basket case since 2011, and the country has descended into brutal civil war, but what has happened in Libya has stayed in Libya. If Iran descends into civil war (which will have an ethnic component, given that Iranians/Persians represent a bare majority of the population) it will likely remain largely an Iranian affair. Which, ironically, would reduce the threat that country poses to peace and stability elsewhere.

And it is something that would not cost a Jacksonian a single night’s sleep. Indeed, a Jacksonian would probably sleep better knowing that potential enemies are tearing themselves to bits.

The biggest concern would be the emergence of a Shia analog to ISIS. But that would be a less dangerous adversary than a somewhat coherent clerical regime with considerable state capacity and equally murderous intentions.

The biggest issue is not the possibility of repeating past mistakes, but being so intent on not doing so that you make different ones. Being so focused on not stepping in the same hole again may blind you from another hole into which you fall.

Indeed, Iraq provides an example of that. Post-WWII American and European leaders were so intent on avoiding “another Munich” that they have rushed into fights against tyrants (like Saddam) who are far less dangerous than Germany/Hitler.

Iraq was a carnival of errors. But that in itself provides valuable lessons in what not to do. Those with PIS assume that mistakes will be repeated, that past will become prologue. It usually isn’t. The US/Trump may commit errors going forward, but they will be different ones. It is more constructive to try to anticipate, identify, and warn about those, than obsess about the past.

Last Tuesday I saw an Iranian born former student at a conference. He asked me what I thought would happen. I responded “Trump will demand Iran immediately agree to dismantle all of its nuclear facilities under US supervision, and if they don’t agree immediately, he will hit Fordow with MOPs.” A couple of days later Trump’s press secretary announced that Trump would decide “within two weeks” whether to order the bombers into the air. At the time, I thought “within” was doing a lot of work, and that was clearly part of the deception operation, for the wheels were already in motion to launch the attack, and had been for weeks.

This operation featured ruses within ruses. Among them were leaks claiming B-2s were headed west towards a staging base in Guam, suggesting preparations were still underway and an attack was some ways off. In the event, the Spirits that dropped the bombs flew east from Whiteman AFB in Missouri.

NB: There were no real leaks about this operation.

Initial indications are that the strikes were overwhelmingly successful, and have demolished Fordow, the most secure of the Iranian sites.

If not, no biggie. We’ll just go back until the job is finished. Iran is defenseless against American and Israeli air power.

Multiple Massive Ordnance Penetrators were deployed against Fordow, as was widely understood to be necessary given the depth of the facility. But marvel at the precision required to put multiple bombs down the same hole

Iran is of course uttering blood curdling threats of retaliation. Yawn.

Mullahs right now be like pic.twitter.com/o0fUtv8c4o

— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) June 22, 2025

As I said in a previous post (which had prompted my student’s question), their main real threat is to attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz. But as Trump made crystal clear in his statement last night, any retaliatory response by Iran will result in a massive US response that will make Operation Praying Mantis look like a pillow fight. The main threat would be from mines–so the US will take out every vessel capable of sowing them. The next threat would be from Silkworm antiship missiles. As if the US doesn’t know where every one is and is monitoring (via satellite and UAVs) every time one of the crew manning them so much as scratches his balls.

Note that OPM was conducted before precision munitions. Although the US Navy is smaller now, its productivity is far greater due to its arsenal of PGMs. OPM was also undertaken with considerable restraint. Gloves are off now.

And note that China won’t appreciate a cutoff of oil from the Gulf.

Another potential retaliation vector is terrorism. However, the dismantling of Iranian proxies has reduced this threat in the ME especially. My biggest concern in this regard is that Biden’s open borders policy let in God knows how many Iranian agents.

Which reminds me . . . the Iranians obviously knew the danger they faced when they dispatched teams to assassinate Trump.

The bedwetting epidemic in the US specifically and the west generally is something to behold.

The Iranians removed all the nuclear material before the bombing, so it was useless!!! Uhm, if they knew they couldn’t protect these materials 300 feet underground, they won’t be able to do so wherever they’ve moved them. And if they moved them, we watched them do it. Kicking the enriched uranium down the road will not alter the ultimate outcome.

This will just make Iran more intent on getting nukes!!! Uhm, they were pretty hell bent on it before, so added motivation is gilding the lily. Moreover, intent without capability is irrelevant. Iran spent decades and tens of billions to build the bomb, and they saw it go up in smoke in minutes. If they try to restart, it will go up in smoke again.

There’s no proof the ayatollah gave the final order to build a bomb!!!

I Don't Really Care Margaret, take 100.

She keeps trying to play gotcha & gets her head handed to her over and over again. https://t.co/jtL34Wb9Vs

— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) June 22, 2025

Irrelevant. The issue was that they had to prove that they would not. Trump gave them ample opportunity to do so. They refused. That is more than sufficient to prove the requisite intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

I further note that divining intent is far less certain than evaluating capability. Intent without capability is far less dangerous than capability with unknown intent. (Although there is in fact little doubt about intent). Eliminate the capability and uncertainty about intent becomes irrelevant.

What has Iran ever done to us??? This is Israel’s fight!!!

Where the fuck have you people been the last 46 fucking years? Tell it to the Marines . . . whom Iranian proxies killed in the hundreds in Beirut. Tell it to the Americans who fought and died in Sadr City in Iraq. Or those killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I could go on (and on) but if I have to tell you this history you are hopeless and IDGAF about your opinion.

One fascinating thing is the muted international response–there has even been praise from some European quarters. The Saudis issued a statement that gives new meaning to the phrase crocodile tears. The Russians left their response to the narcoleptic drunk Dmitri Medvedev. China issued a boilerplate “international law blah blah blah we call on both sides to reach a ceasefire blah blah blah.”

A related fascinating thing is the fact that multiple Arab countries let Israel, and now the US, use their airspace with impunity and without a peep.

Yes there will be some volatility over the coming days. How much depends on how stupid the Iranians are. Past experience shows that they can pretty damned stupid. But they’ll be the ones who will pay the price for their stupidity. They keep finding out, but keep fucking around nonetheless. So be it.

The latest installment of the Friday the 13th horror franchise is in limited release, available only in Iran.

In the early hours of Friday 13 June 2025 local time, the Israeli Air Force launched a series of devastating strikes against a wide range of targets in Iran. These were supplemented by another horror movie trope: the drones are coming from inside the house! The Israelis had special forces units operating within Iran that launched drones that mainly targeted what’s left of Iran’s air defenses and its ballistic missile launchers.

It all started with what is arguably the most devastating and comprehensive decapitation strike in history. Virtually the entire Iranian high command was wiped out. Apparently they had gathered at a single location, lured there by an Israeli operation. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander General Hossein Salami was among those sliced thin.

They're going to need a bigger wall. Much bigger. pic.twitter.com/6kBb6HNrdk

— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) June 14, 2025

The intelligence necessary to pull off this simultaneous whacking of virtually the entire Iranian command echelon is beyond amazing.

And NB: no mullahs were apparently targeted. This had to have been a deliberate choice.

The lack of any coherent response for hours no doubt reflected, as intended, the chaos that occurs when a military’s “brain” is hit. (JFC Fuller, one of the pioneers of mobile warfare, included going after the enemy’s “brain” in his Plan 1919, the progenitor of the indirect approach in offensive warfare).

The Israeli AF focused on Iran’s nuclear assets, starting with Natanz and then proceeding to Fordow and others. Natanz and Fordow are buried deep below the earth, and it is widely believed that Israel does not possess the deep penetrators necessary to destroy them. Who knows? We have no idea what the rather ingenious Israelis have developed on their own, or what the US gave them.

Furthermore, Israel also whacked many of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists. Going after both the nuclear hardware and meatware that the mullahs dream of deploying against Israel.

Last night Iran struck back with a ballistic missile and drone assault on Israel, specifically Tel Aviv. The Israeli MoD building was hit, as were multiple civilian sites. Iron Dome, supplemented by US sea-based and ground-based anti-missile weapons, destroyed most of the incoming missiles. US aircraft assisted in shooting down drones.

The scale of the Iranian barrage was relatively muted. They had threatened to launch 1000, but only 200 or so showed up. This presumably was due to the Israeli targeting of Iranian missile infrastructure and equipment.

No loss of Israeli manned aircraft has been reported. Iran’s air defenses were scourged last year, and weakened further in the latest assault. Israel has unchallenged air supremacy and can strike whenever and wherever it wants, for as long as it wants.

All demonstrating the utter futility of attempting to build an expensive offensive capability (nukes) without the ability to defend it.

The Mossad operation within Iran was pretty amazing, and would have seemed even more so if Ukraine had not done something similar a few weeks back. I wonder if Israel was concerned/pissed to be pipped by Operation Spider Web.

How did Mossad do it? Well, it helped that the head of Iran’s anti-Mossad counterintel force was . . . an operative of Mossad. Said individual has been exfiltrated to Israel.

Those crafty Jews!

It is endlessly amusing that people (notably the Iranians) who go on and on about the Jews being evil geniuses who control the world with their diabolical plots are thunderstruck when the Jews pull off one of those diabolical plots.

The US is not involved in kinetic operations in Iran. Yet. (Intel–who knows?) But events have set off massive speculation about American involvement, knowledge, and approval.

Trump says he knew. Well of course he did. And of course he approved–Israel would never have dared to do this behind the US’s back. The withdrawal of non-essential personnel from US Middle East diplomatic posts immediately prior to the strikes indicates clearly that we knew the shit was about to hit the fan. The remarkable thing is that the Iranians apparently failed take the hint.

The entire history of the last two months also looks very different in the aftermath of this operation. Trump was engaged in negotiations, and saying nice things about their progress. But he gave the Iranians warnings that there was the easy way (come to a deal) or the hard way (the way we are seeing now). He told the Iranians that production of weapons grade nuclear material would not be permitted: the Iranians said that it was their right to produce them. He gave them two months.

But Iran chose to listen to the idiots in the US and Europe dismissing Trump’s credibility, and put on the TACO trade, thinking that Trump would not push the issue.

Very bad idea.

The entire narrative about Trump supposedly losing patience with Netanyahu, distancing himself from Israel, etc., now looks very different in retrospect. Now it looks like part of a massive deception operation.

The Iranians believed what they wanted to believe. They ignored what Trump said point blank would happen if they persisted in their obduracy.

Hopium is apparently not haram. They played a stupid game, and this is their parting gift–quite literally, for many of them.

One other interesting angle here is that Israel required (and continues to require) extensive use of Arab airspace. Arab nations are tut-tutting about the strikes, but actions speak far louder than words.

What next? Well, the smart play would be for Iran to capitulate to American and Israeli demands. They have no viable military option. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. And the longer they wait, the worse it will get for them.

But we’re talking about the Mullahs here, and they will probably think that they are Eisenhower, and faced with an unsolvable problem will expand it. How? Attempting to do something in the Straits of Hormuz is about their only option.

That would be unlikely to have a lasting effect. And it would be an engraved invitation for US involvement to destroy the Iranian Navy (can you say Operation Praying Mantis? I knew you could!) and all anti-ship missile installations along the Straits and in the Gulf. Another battle the Iranians can’t win. Not to mention it would piss of the Chinese, who get most of their oil via the Straits.

The Iranian missile response brought an Israeli strike on Iranian energy assets, namely the Pars gas field and some oil refineries. Fucking around in the Gulf would just lead to a major ramp up in such attacks, and not just by Israel.

Oh, and the mullahs would likely be put on the target list.

Iran is checkmated. It should have realized the state of the board was decisively against it when its proxies were largely dismantled. It should have taken the deal that was on the table and resigned.

But in their monomaniacal obsession with destroying Israel with nuclear weapons, they sowed the wind. They are now reaping the whirlwind.

Happy Birthday to the United States Army! 250 years of distinguished service and sacrifice at home and in every corner of the globe.

My familial connection to the United States Army goes back almost to the very beginning of its history. My 5th great-grandfather, Peter Bonham, enlisted in the 3rd Virginia Continental Line on 8 February 1776 and was mustered out on 2 February 1778. He was promoted to sergeant and eventually ensign. During his enlistment, the 3rd participated in the New York Campaign, and the battles of Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, and Germantown, and experienced the deprivations of Valley Forge. Perhaps the latter convinced him not to re-enlist.

I have no way of knowing which of these engagements Bonham participated in, given the sketchiness of the records and the fact that there was considerable leakage of manpower from Continental regiments while on campaign. For example, at Trenton the 3rd was down to under 300 men. He was listed as sick in June and July of 1777, but was on the rolls for the rest of the year (when Germantown and Brandywine were fought), and his promotions suggest he was a dependable soldier. The absence of evidence of absence during those battles is consistent with, but not proof of, his participation therein.

Another 5th great grandfather, Edward Hatfield, served in the 3rd Maryland in 1778-9.

Other direct ancestors served in the Army in the War of 1812, the Civil War, and World War I. My aunt’s husband served in World War II, and was horribly wounded at the Battle of the Bulge.

The country is marking the anniversary with a large military parade in DC. I emphasize “country” because pathological partisans think that because the anniversary falls on Trump’s birthday, the parade is an unprecedented exercise in vanity and an act of monarchical excess meant to honor him. Hence the moronic “No Kings Day” protests occurring throughout the country.

Many of the usual suspects are wailing that the parade is something out of a totalitarian state, like Russia, North Korea, or China.

(I can’t embed McFaul’s post because the wuss blocked me almost 10 years ago after I smacked him around. And I’m not surprised that an academic bedwetter like him wouldn’t “like” military display, whatever the country putting it on).

Then there are the pedo and pedo adjacent types at The Lincoln Project:

No, this isn't North Korea you're seeing.pic.twitter.com/WXkCtk6Trt

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) June 13, 2025

I could go on. And on. And on.

The only question is whether these people are historical retards, or their partisanship blinds them.

This wasn’t North Korea, etc.:

Nor was this:

Nope, not this either:

Those were parades post-Civil War (the Grand Review of the Armies in DC), WWI (in NYC), and WWII (ditt) respectively. And here’s from the First Gulf War in DC (ironically in front of the Lincoln Memorial):

The last three images are from a Mother Jones (“a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs“–good to know!) piece which at least–unlike the McFauls and TLP groomers of the world–recognizes that the US does have a tradition of military parades but carps that “normally they are after military victories and such.”

For one thing, their own photo gallery gives the lie to that. This is from the Army Day parade in 1939:

Army Day. Not that different from the Army’s birthday. But actually way less significant than the Army’s 250th birthday.

The piece also includes several photos from inaugural parades. Were those displays of monarchical vanity?

No, the vanity on display here is that of the pompous No Kings Day posers (most of whom appear to be boomers, making the demonstrations look more like an AARP gathering).

By making this about their political obsessions, they are disrespecting the United States Army, the millions of Americans who have served in it, and the million plus who died serving in it during its illustrious history.

So screw them, and all hail to the United States Army!

And mark your calendars:

13 October 2025: 250th Birthday of the United States Navy.

10 November 1775: 250th Birthday of the United States Marine Corps.

I hope there are parades for them too.

The first new development in the Groundhog Day-esque Russo-Ukrainian War occurred Saturday, when Ukrainian operatives launched numerous FPV drones from within Russia to attack Russian air bases. Ukraine claims that 41 long range bombers and other large aircraft (e.g., an A-50 radar plane) were destroyed. The Russians admit some losses, but not so many.

As in war generally, and this war in particular, all assertions must be treated with deep skepticism. It is clear from video evidence, however, that multiple planes were hit at multiple airports.

What are the consequences?

Operationally they are modest, though material. Russia uses these rather antiquated and maintenance-hungry planes to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine. Many are pooh-poohing these losses because their utility vs. the US is highly limited, and because Russia relies on other means (drones and MiG-31s) for most of its strikes. But the fact that Russia has been shuttling these planes all over the country–from SIberia to the Kola Peninsula–evidently in an effort to make a Ukrainian strike difficult, and despite the wear and tear that puts on these temperamental beasts indicates that it considers them a useful military asset.

The biggest consequence is the demonstration that Russia has a huge internal security problem. These drones were assembled in Russia, and transported to their launch sites (again, in Russia) in semis contracted for by Ukrainian agents. No doubt the security apparatus dogs are fighting viciously under the carpet to attribute blame. Internecine warfare within the government, and especially among rival security agencies and officials will distract Putin and his minions from the front. Moreover, this will no doubt result in a substantial diversion of resources to maintaining internal security.

A horror movie trope is “the call is coming from inside the house.” Well, here the drones are coming from inside the house. That’s pretty scary.

Ironically, in this regard Russia’s massive size is a handicap. So much territory with so many targets to monitor. Not just military bases but refineries, railways, and other economic resources essential to the war effort. In a place so huge, hitting it where they ain’t is easy. They can’t be everywhere, because everywhere is immense.

A security state that cannot provide security has no legitimacy. It has lost its reason for being and the justification for its oppressive measures. But the typical response is to double down on the repression. It’s all they know how to do.

The US disclaims foreknowledge. Ukraine claims it did not tell the United States. I call bullshit. Zelensky knows Ukraine is on a short leash with Trump. Further, an operation that gestated for so long (18 months, supposedly) would almost certainly be sniffed out by US intel. Further, (a) we know (per the NYT) that the US is deeply embedded in Ukrainian targeting, and (b) the fact that the Russians have been shuttling these planes around means that US intelligence on their location on any given day would be vital to successful strikes.

The timing is fascinating for another reason. Trump has been trying to play nice with Putin to get him to the table, and to make concessions. Putin has responded with a smirking chimp routine, doubling down on his demands for Ukrainian concessions, refusing to make any of his own, and ramping up strikes on civilian targets.

My read is that Trump decided, OK, if that’s the way you are going to respond to my playing nice, I’ll let Ukraine undertake highly embarrassing (to Russia and Putin) strikes throughout the width and breadth of Russia. You want the war to continue Vova? You think you are winning? You think we will let you win?

Think again, bitch.

It is unlikely that a strike so long in the making just became feasible Saturday. Instead, Putin’s intransigence and smirking arrogance exhausted Trump’s patience and he greenlighted an operation that had been held in abeyance.

On the same day as the drone strikes on the bases, two bridges were (according to the Russians) blown up right when trains were underneath. In what I consider a case of the US feeding Putin his own medicine, Rubio and Vance expressed their condolences. Awww. We’re soooo sorry about that, Vova.

It was actually sorry, not sorry. Get your mind right.

Whether this will materially affect the trajectory of the war is doubtful, given who Putin is. Both sides, but especially Putin, are locked into a sunk cost mindset: “I must have total victory to justify the waste of the last 3 years!” With Putin this is accentuated by the need to maintain the illusion of dominance necessary for a dictator, which would be damaged, perhaps fatally, by concessions.

It was this mindset that drove the combatants in WWI to perpetuate a pointless war. Neither side would give in, and a growing body count only made them more intent on waging the war to the bitter end. The war only ended when one side could no longer continue–and even then, elements within Germany wanted to continue.

Putin has been betting that side will be Ukraine, in part because of a potential withdrawal of US support. But his holding out for complete victory has likely convinced Trump, albeit reluctantly, to continue and perhaps increase US support, and to permit Ukraine to take actions that the US had heretofore prohibited.

The lesson being, that when you demand everything, you can end up with nothing. The tragedy is that so many more will have to die to get to that point.