There seems to be an emerging consensus among the YouTube commentators who are particularly inflential in shaping US/advanced economy perceptions among anti-globalists and other US hegemony skeptics and oppents. Many are coming to the position articulated early by Mark Sleboda, who has been the most accurate in forecasting the pace of the conflict, that Russia would have to take all of Ukraine, if nothing else because NATO officials and key EU political leaders have regularly and rabidly maintained that they will arm/rearm Ukraine even in the event of an apparent defeat. So the only secure and durable remedy to that, from the Russian side, is to make sure no US/NATO/EU-aligned Ukraine survives the war. That in turn would seem to require that Russia secures all of Ukraine’s current territory, by some combination of winning referenda in the Russia-receptive oblasts so they join Russia plus occupation or installatiom of a friendly regime in rump Ukraine. While I am in no position to observe directly, polls and the tone of commentary support the idea that Russian citizens more and more favor aggressive prosecution of the conflict, and subduing/controlling all of Ukraine and thus have been frustrated with Putin’s dalliances with Trump.
Even though occupying or otherwise dominatinng the entirety of Ukraine would entail more costs than other solutions, it is arguably the least bad result for Russia. But even so, Sleboda has warned that that outcome might not be unwelcome form of Russia victory to the West: “We’ll make you choke on it.”
But even in this “subjugate all of Ukraine” assumption, there are a lot of ways to skin that cat. John Mearsheimer has long argued that what Russia wants as an end-state is a dysfunctional rump Ukraine. That presumably includes Russia taking historically Russia-leaning Odessa1 to render what is left of Ukraine landlocked.
John Helmer has so far provided the most insight, due to his contacts in the General Staff, as to what the end game might look like. Helmer has suggested that the General Staff in particular has been frustrated with Putin apparently requiring a particularly slow grind on the ground, and holding back (until recently) on muscular prosecution of the electricity war. Admittedly that has become an easier task with Ukraine now almost entirely bereft of air defenses even as Russia has increased its stocks of missiles and drones.
Helmer early on described how one element of the Russian strategy was to push determined Ukraine nationalists out of the county. Rolling westward deliberately rather than rapidly would help with that aim, particularly given that the population might still accept the Ukraine rather than the Russian view of how well Ukraine was holding out, plus people understandably are very reluctant to abandon their homes and communities. Note that that aim has already been achieved to some degree, via emigration as well as war deaths. I saw estimates about a year ago of Ukraine’s population having fallen to as low as 20 million versus a pre-war level of ~43 million. Admittedly that factors in the loss of the Donbass. I can’t imagine that the true total is better now.
Not only does driving the neo-Nazis out in theory reduce the size of a terrorist rearguard, but on a more mundane level, it will result in more of the remaining population being Russia-tolerant and thus legitimately voting to join Russia. This would presumably result in more oblasts joining Russia than earlier voting maps of which areas favored Russia-friendly candidates would suggest.
In addition, Helmer pointed out that the General Staff expected that an aggressive prosecution electricity war (as in turning out the lights, which would also result in no heat and destruction of infrastructure via burst pipes; key parts of the municipal waterworks depend on electric controls and heating) would produce a humanitarian crisis and mass flight westward. Helmer did make clear that the General Staff saw overloading border states with refugees as a plus, but Putin presumably does not like the optics of punishing civilians. One solution to that apparent dilemma might be for Russia to create intermittent but somewhat lengthy outages (a guesstimate is 12 to 72 hours) to give the citizenry a taste of what is in store and give them time to leave in a more orderly manner.
However, I have not seen much consideration of what measures Russia can take to reduce the incidence of terrorism in rump Ukraine and the Russian Federation, not just the newly-integrated oblasts but pre-war Russia. MI6 lives for this sort of operation. Scott Ritter has claimed that Russia House, the CIA unit tasked to messing with Russia, is effectively a rogue operation. Even the formidable torture enthusiast Gina Haspel was unable to get it back under control. So even if the US officially retreats to sulk and lick its wounds after a Ukraine defeat, it seems a certainty that UK and US intelligence operatives will instigate violence.
A final point that seems overlooked in a lot of commentary on the future of Ukraine is that, given foreign pot-stirrers, it isn’t necessary to have much if any die-hard Banderites to man these operations. John Kirakou, formerly the CIA’s Chief of Counterterrorist Operations in Pakistan, has repeatedly described his findings from interviews of Al-Quaeda members the US had captured. Without exception, they were not ideologues. They were desperately poor and the Al-Quaeda pay and death benefits to families were generous. Russia surely must have taken note of this risk after Turkiye/Western aligned forces were able to buy off desititute members of the Syrian army, leading to a very speedy collapse when invaders rolled in.
Thus the John Mearsheimer notion that Russia wants to make rump Ukraine into a failed state would seem to play into schemes to foment terrorism unless “failed state” means “very seriously depopulated”. Recall we have suggested that Russia could de-electrify Western Ukraine ex Kiev and say Lvov, and reduce it to the level of the Unorganized Territory of Maine. That region has extremely low population density. Its denizens are hardy survivalists often described by Mainers as “men with beards.” But that part of Ukraine also has rich agricultural land, which would argue against letting it go wild.
So it would seem that Russia either needs to largely vacate the sections of Ukraine that will not have a Russia-friendly post-war population, or assure that it is sufficiently prosperous so as not to serve as a fertile area for hiring terrorists.
Perhaps there is an active debate in Russian circles on this issue, but Helmer’s latest post suggests that the General Staff is not alive to this risk. From his The Three Stages of the Trump War Begin with the Fifth Column:
A source in a position to know says: “The rate of east-to-west Ukrainian migration will accelerate and there will be disintegration of the frontline with a breakthrough on any one of the critical axes that will undermine the entire Ukrainian defence east of the Dnieper. Ouster of [Vladimir] Zelensky and [Andrei] Yermak will follow when the Ukrainian commanders cannot order their forces to continue fighting, holding their ground. There will be Russian satisfaction with the new regional lines and the depth of the demilitarized zone westward to Kiev. Of course, Banderite terrorism will continue, but so will the electric war strikes, as well as assassinations from the Russian side in reply. The rump Ukraine will be dysfunctional to the point where day-to-day survival will trump warfighting in terms of allocation of resources.”
That’s small “t” trump meaning defeat. “There’s no need for the Russians to declare that they are done fighting – the situation speaks for itself. The declaration that matters is that the winner is confident the opponent will never get up again.”
Admittedly this is one source, who is repeated a vision of the future that Helmer set forth from his General Staff sources early in the electircity war, of a very wide de-militarized zone (the width determined by the longest-range Western missiles that had or could operate in theater, now presumably the Taurus at 500 kilometers). Note this source sees Russia as not taking control of Kiev.
But what this contact sets forth is essentially an unending low-level war against rump Ukraine, with at least occasional electric grid strikes.
One would assume that the shape of post-war Ukraine is coming increasingly into focus in political and military circles, as well as in the pundit classes that can influence their views. And there is still likely some path dependency in what comes next. For instance, it may make a difference if Zelensky and others in his inner circle decamp to form a government in exile, as opposed to being expelled from office or executed.
As we’ve indicated above, doing what Russia can to minimize long-term terrorism risks would seem to be an important objective. My reading of what is admittedly one view (and that view may represent only one faction in the General Staff) says that risk is not given enough credence, unless the plan is to continue low-level operations in rump Ukraine on an open-ended basis.
I am hampered by not being able to read Russian sources or even the Russian press on a regular basis. Readers who keep on top of the Russian media, Telegram, and think tank output are very much encouraged to speak up.
_____
1 This idea is not as popular in Russia as one might assume, despite the role of Odessa in Russian history. It’s seen as fabulously corrupt and crime ridden, even by Ukrainian standards.
Bunch of typos in there, “creedence”, “readinng”, “officailly”, “formidabe”, “Al-Quaeda”.
Nobody likes a grammer natzee:)
You mean like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmVnr7rsWrE (2:15 mins)
Mearshimer
(Getting someone’s name wrong, even as an innocent typo, is, to me, never a good thing.)
Spell check does not work in Orion, which I prefer to Safari since Orion does not track browsing or, when you use Kagi, search histories. Will fix and I guess reluctantly have to go back to Safari. And in respponse to JW, I specifically have name dyslexia and have mangled some names worse than that.
As for Al-Quaeda specifically, that is an accepted spelling. A search shows Rand, BBC and PBS as having used it.
Yves has plenty of company in much much bigger budget and higher prestige publications, starting with the Gray Lady. There is a Twitter account devoted solely to Typos of the New York Times: https://x.com/nyttypos
Yves is in good company, including the Gray Lady. There is a Twitter account devoted solely to the Typos of the New York Times: https://x.com/nyttypos
I don’t think Russia will go for all of Ukraine, for several reasons. One is that it would again have NATO on its border, which was one of the reasons they started the SMO.
Another is that Russia would/could be seen as a colonizer by the ‘Global South’, and hence falling as low as the West. Optics count, and I think that reason precludes also the taking of Odessa or any other oblast.
And a last reason is that such ‘occupation’ would be costly in manpower, local terrorism acts … for no real benefits.
There is an old clip of John Mearsheimer explaining the ‘old’ situation where Poland and Ukraine were seen as buffer states protecting the West from Russia and vice-versa. I’d say Russia is aiming for a demilitarized rump Ukraine, as John Helmer has pictured.
That rump Ukraine includes parts & people that Romania, Hungary, Poland claim as theirs.
Now watch while Europe slides down in an economic black hole, and different countries try different strategies.
So one possibility might be that Russia creates a big demilitarized, neutral rump Ukraine, where the haggling European dwarfs block each other in creating mayhem while trying to survive.
And that implies that this war will drag on until NATO implodes.
“John Helmer has so far provided the most insight, due to his contacts in the General Staff”
With all due respect, I want to say that Helmer cannot have any contacts in the Russian General Staff. It’s fantastic. None of the Russian military will be in unofficial contact with him. Helmer simply interprets Russian news and conversations and presents his conclusions in this way.
Helmer has said he has contacts in the General Staff. Are you calling him a liar? Helmer described the logic of the electricity war very early on, in stark contrast to any other reporter/commentator writing in English, a large proportion of which read the Russia press and Telegram. Pray tell, how was Helmer alone in having that critical information?
I’m explaining. When he talks this way, he’s just hiding his sources. He’ll never say who told him that. But it certainly wasn’t the military from the General Staff. And what to call it, you can decide for yourself. But I always read it with great interest.
You have now defamed Helmer a second time with no evidence whatsoever. For Helmer to say the General Staff was a source when it wasn’t, as you assert, would be fabrication and a very very serious breach of journalistic ethics.
Since we moderate comments, we are liable for defamatory statements that appear here.
And let’s now look at what a crock your claim is. Has it never occurred to you that government, including militaries, plant or leak information when it serves them? And that there might be internal disagreements about how much if any of that sort of thing to do?
Nothing that Helmer published about the electricity war would help Ukraine or the US/NATO. His big tidbit was that Russia was deliberately doing only limited damage (the sort that could be repaired in hours or at most a day) so as to get a better understanding of how the grid work (for more efficient later large scale destruction should that prove necessary/desirable) and to deplete Ukraine’s air defense missiles.
As for Russia making clear is was deliberately doing only limited, short-term damage, that was helpful to Russia in:
1. Reaffirming to Russia’s critical allies, who did not like the fact of the war, that Russia was not in the businss of harming civilians or irreperably destroying critical infrastructure.
2. Letting Russians know that the limited damage was not incompetence but design
3. Also informing the UE/NATO of #2
I do not recall exactly when Helmer made the “exhausting air defense” point, but having Ukraine know that would not change their response. Ukraine had to shoot down incoming missiles, both from a political perspective (so as not to look wide open to attack) and to interdict them in case the targets were of high military priority (and some were).
So I think the issue is somewhat different. Why was the information Helmer got not publicized more widely? The most logical explanation is someone simply threw him a bone of what they regarded as (properly parsed) strategically and tactically unimportant nuggests that were Russia positive?
Good. As you wish. This means that John Helmer is lying and has violated all ethical standards. He cannot have sources in the Russian General Staff. It seems that in the West, all experts are completely confused and can no longer distinguish truth from fiction. No Russian general would ever have come into contact with a Western journalist during the war. This is only possible if the Russian general began writing his memoirs many years after the events. Is that difficult for you to understand? So, for you, Russia is a banana republic, and you don’t understand what’s going on.
I’ve finished my report.
Well, this is speculative terrain. In the same speculative vein is a post by Marat Khairulin titled AFU Against AFU; Who Will Take Revenge on the Nazis? which makes a point that may have some validity or not. For me one thing is clear. One way or the other we are, including Mark Sleboda, highly influenced by Western narratives which paint a picture very much at odds with realities in Russia, Ukraine and even the Collective West. The state of moral corruption or collapse in the CW has been noted by many commentators. Big Serges latest for instance comes to mind when he states.
Note German politicians urging Ukraine to keep it’s youngsters to fight in Ukraine. Note full moral collapse on Gaza. Note the leaderships increasingly detached from the populaces to push their… ego? in forever wars. There is no ideology, belief, religion, “value”, cultural stuff to preserve behind this push. Even Ukrainian ultranationalist morons might one day realise.
So well, the Russians might lose the peace but the same can be said about the CW. The CW insisting on making of Ukraine a pain in the neck for Russia can backfire in many ways and we are already seeing much of it. I have said this before but, for me, it matters much more how Europe is not only loosing the war but poised to loose any peace, unable to come to any kind of settlement, admitting defeat, and understanding the realities on the ground.
Insightful comments. Pertinent to the truism that war is bad–and not just for the losers. Yes, the collective West seems certain to lose the peace, and their “best” remaining play seems to be to work to ensure that Russia loses the peace along with them.
Insofar as Russians are Clausewitzean (or vice versa), the West is in a position (short of outright war with / by NATO) to deny Russia a satisfactory political solution, even if at the cost of bankrupting themselves.
Don ‘t think the Russians have any hard and fast political ideas. Most expect an end like WW2, enemy forces to disarm, disband and go into captivity for processing. I am sure the instrument of surrender is already drawn up. Those that hold out will be treated according to the rules of war.
Keitel and Jodl tried to hedge as well but it got them nowhere. The last couple of days the 750 kV substations have finally been hit so decisions have been made at last. Even Russia will find it hard to rebuild Ukraine quickly now so farming is the future for them for a while although Chinese construction is eye opening quick.
They will play the politics by ear, as Stalin said, how many divisions does NATO field ? Plenty of budding Gauletiers and PMC’s to pacify the populations, both sides can play that game.
WW2 continued in Western Ukraine until 1950, when the last UPA forces surrendered to NKVD and Border Guards.
FSB and Rosgvardya have almost monthly operations in Kherson, Zaporozhe and Donbass to find “divergents” and weapon stashes. They stop and search thousands of people and vehicles and always detain half a dozen or so.
It’s not like this a totally new game for Russia, they’ve been doing this since 16th century.
Might the ending of insurgency in the Caucasuses (Chechnya, Ingushetia) be a template for the endgame in Ukraine?
This is one of Khairullin’s speculations. The Russians seem to be trying and that might be seen as an indicator of events accelerating in Ukraine.
Not inconsistent with Yves:
> Recall we have suggested that Russia could de-electrify Western Ukraine ex Kiev and say Lvov, and reduce it to the level of the Unorganized Territory of Maine.
Kiev: 2003 sociological survey, when the question “What language do you use in everyday life?” was asked, 52% said “mostly Russian”, 32% “both Russian and Ukrainian in equal measure”, 14% “mostly Ukrainian”, and 4.3% “exclusively Ukrainian”.
Lvov: Results of the 2001 census: Ukrainian 88.48%; Russian 9.95%
So maybe not much love for Lvov. Shoving disgruntled migrants into the EU is a reasonable strategy. And speculating, is there money to be made from kicking the legs out from under the Euro? Are we there yet?
Would Poland abide by a treaty with Russia to take over western Ukraine as a DMZ to repatriate evacuees, or would it use that like the Minsk Accords to remilitarize and extend NATO to the Dniepr? Presumably that would become a banderite enclave financed by USUK secret agencies to make trouble for profit.
There are a few facts, imo, worth considering. Project Ukraine has its origins in the 1990s with the original plans to expand NATO. In 2008, it was agreed Ukraine would be offered NATO membership, and EU membership was likely. In 2014, the US orchestrated a coop in Ukraine.
I think it’s important to understand that at the time of the 2014 coup, the US, Europe, and the West, generally looked extremely attractive to anyone, but especially Ukrainians.
Meanwhile, as Bob Dylan wrote, “I used to care but things have changed.” Russia is no longer the dysfunctional state it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. Together with China and India we are now a multi-polar world, the recent decade has produced dramatic change, and the future looks much brighter when you look East rather than West.
Furthermore, it doesn’t take much to see what the US has become with its support for genocide in Palestine, crackdown on free speech, split between the US and Europe including degrading Europe’s industry. The US and the West have lost much of their shine and, above all, Trump wants to abandon Ukraine.
I think a Russian defeat and occupation of Ukraine, if handled properly, would not be nearly as difficult as it would have been back in say 2015 because in 2025, it should be obvious, Russia and the East have much to offer Ukrainians.
Yes and note that while in 2022 Russia had to take care about opinions in the Global South this is, IMO, no longer the case, so they feel freer to conduct whatever operations they consider necessary. Appearances are not longer a burden if you know what i mean.
This said if Tomahawks were one day to be deployed in Ukraine such a mistake would be the nail in the coffin for a rump Ukraine.
I think it more accurate to say that project Ukraine began at the end of WW2 when MI6 and CIA began cultivating anti-Soviet assets in Ukraine. Given that, I think no lasting solution in Ukraine is possible without the continued demilitarization of Nato and the UK in particular. The conflict has never been Ukraine vs. Russia, it is broader.
NATO was created in 1949, Ukraine declared its independence in 1991, and everybody knows the war is a US led proxy war, together with EU support, against Russia. Yet, the war is lost, NATO might soon collapse, and the problem is a plan for post-war Ukraine.
My point was that the US and Europe no longer have that many cards to play compared to just a few years ago, while Russia now has significant advantages.
The Talleyrand-trickster Arestovich has said that once the war ends and Ukrainians wake up to what the West and its corrupt ultra (and ultra-corrupt) compardors have wrought upon their proxy, they will not follow Anaalina B. in an acrobatic 360 but will turn their revanchist ire 180 degrees, center body mass, toward the West. Chalmers Johnson had a word for that: blowback.
As Mercouris randomly interjects: just saying.
Also: I second the hat tip to Mark Sleboda, winner, Analyst With Best Mao Coiffure. A perceptive fellow. Equally noteworthy: Brian Berletic, who can illuminate imperial geopolitics like a locked-on radar beam, though at the occasional risk of one-notedly mistaking noise for nous.
Pushing NATO back to west of the Elbe is necessary but likely not sufficient. Demilitarize Poland (Mr&Mrs Appelbaum may object), Rumania and Bulgaria. Evict US/UK naval presence in the Black Sea!
The entity ruled out of Kiev by US and 3LA (three letter agencies/subversives) is a kluge.
Before 1917 it was Tsarist territory, in 1945 Stalin added territory which had been Hapsburg, and another sector largely Pole both populated counties with “catholics” loosely attached to Rome via Budapest/Vienna and Krakow. Those territories (US’ Knights of Columbus have councils there) house some of most “restive” people in the world.
Those sectors culturally aligned with the expanded EU should be set adrift……
To achieve this a big two conference should be held to reverse the legacy of Potsdam…..
That said pushing NATO back west of the Vistula would be ironed out there.
Security in Europe!
War of the 6th coalition solution might just be what we come to, whether anyone likes it or not.
One problem for Russia rarely mentioned is the inner Russian tensions from this war. Remember, Russia is not a nation state but an empire without a positive over arching ideology. What it offers her citizens is security and a good life and “traditional” values. Sort of like an anti-“woke” ideology. That is something that the Orthodox and Muslim religious communities can agree on and the more the West pushed Russia on this (Gender, Gays a.so.o.) so much the better for Putin.
Even though Russia’s soldiers aren’t conscripts but men who get huge piles of money (at least by Russian standards) you still need to motivate those soldiers with something more than just cold hard cash. So the Kremlin has been forced to appeal to an ethnic Russian nationalism that portrays the Ukrainians as wayward members of the same family that were either seduced by the wily West or forced into the war by bona fide Neonazis. Putin’s interview with Carlson when he lectured him on the common history of Ukrainians and Russians was typical in this regard.
The problem for the Kremlin is twofold: by appealing to Russian ethnic Nationalism they are indirectly alienating the other nationalities of which Russia is made off. And the problem is heightened greatly by the fact that a disproportionate number of Russian soldiers are not ethnically Russian. That is simply due to the fact that the “ethnic” regions are on average a lot poorer than the Russian regions and there are therefore more volunteers who need the cash.
Last year I was in one such region – in Buryatia – and there’s quite a bit of anger about the stressing of Russian ethnic nationalism. And Buryatia is one of the most loyal regions. I imagine the reaction in the Muslim regions of the Caucasus is worse.
The Ukrainian know this Russian weakness and are playing on it. The CIA and the MI5 know as well. That is why they are supporting Azov. Contrary to what you might think Azov´s ideology is not particularly Ukrainian nationalistic. In fact Azov is openly Russian speaking. It is a movement from the Russian speaking East of the country and there are quite a few Neonazis from Russia proper in it. It’s “ideology” is a mixture of Neopaganism, Nationalsocialism and white pride. Azov is countering the Russian appeal to Russian ethnic nationalism by going one better and I don´t think the problem will go away once Ukraine is defeated. In fact the more of Ukraine Russia incorporates by claiming these new territories as ethnically Russian the more she undermines her raison d’etre in the eyes of her non Russian citizens. I believe the people in the Kremlin know and understand all of that. The generals evidently not.
The military victory looks like the easy part. Taking the long view, the break up of empires by World War I remains unsettled in Europe and West Asia to say nothing of the loose ends of World War II of which Ukraine is one. Good luck sorting it out. The bitterenders in Ukraine, the hysterical European leadership, the US/UK agents of chaos for the sake of chaos, capitalists lusting after Russian natural resources, the list goes on. It will be messy for years. Let us hope that disgust and despair do lead to some party saying,”Oh to hell with it and dropping the Bomb.
The slow pace that Putin is going at frustrates a lot of people, including his own military, but he may be doing a version of salami-slicing here. If he rushes it too fast it might panic a lot of western nations and make them do something outstandingly stupid – like sending in military forces into the country to occupy Ukrainian cities so that the Russians don’t. Odessa is a prime candidate here. He certainly doesn’t want Trump sending in a military force as it may end in a confrontation and that is risky in the extreme. We saw that when you had Russian tanks facing off with American tanks at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin in 1961-
https://www.dreamstime.com/picture-berlin-crisis-u-s-m-tanks-face-soviet-t-tanks-checkpoint-charlie-october-image259909194
So it may be that he does not want to see a situation like that repeated in Odessa but just to take it slow until the Ukraine collapses and by then there will be nothing that the west can do then.
Didn’t we already do the insurgency thing a few years ago?
Russia will solve the insurgency problem like it did in Chechnya, and everywhere else before that. Kill until it quiets down. For PR reasons, most probably it will be puppet government troops or peacekeepers or whatever doing that, for practicality reasons, these will probably in fact be russian troops.
For the ideas of Ukraine doing 180 and getting angry at the West… maybe, but that will not mean they will fall in love with the very Russia that just waged war upon them and destroyed their country. The same goes for all of the brotherly love and other such bullshit. That love is now forever gone. Before the war, not too many people in Ukraine cared to think about whether they were Ukrainians or Russians. By now everyone has figured it out, and there is no undo button.
We need to stop looking for a silver lining to the shit cloud, in the hopes that somehow it will all work out in the end. Or in the hopes that because we hate what the US did to make all of this happen, somehow we can find a way to have Russia be the good guy. Because our brains are binary, and will automatically find a good guy for every bad guy, and we have to be aware of that and reign it in. Sometimes there’s no good guys anywhere.
It’s all a clusterfuck any way you look at it. The only good thing that can happen is for the war to end, putting an end to most of the destruction, if not for the insurgency question. But the destruction will still have been done, and it will be a hundred years before most of the wounds have healed.
You seem to be new here. We have written Policies that you have agreed to adhere to as a condition of commenting. They are designed to promote critical thinking and include barring dishonest or logically/rhetorically invalid forms of argument.
It seems your intent was to offer a balanced vomment. However, you violated our Policies by straw manning, by inventing that the post had said Ukraine would get angry with the West, and depicting it as trying to find cheery outcome. This post depicted an end state of an ongoing low-level conflict in a rump Ukraine, were Russia to reject controlling all of Ukraine. That is not a happy outcome.
And in general, this site does not sell hopium. We have said more than once that if you want a happy ending, watch a Disney movie.
Any future comments that straw man posts or reader comments will not be approved.