How Gloria Steinem Rescued Wonder Woman

 

We lost a global icon with the passing of Gloria Steinem. Much of her philosophy was common sense. If it's okay for men to do something, shouldn't it be okay for women to do the same thing?  Why do we, especially in America, create a culture with double standards?

Nowhere was this symbolized more clearly than on the cover of Ms. Magazine in July 1972.  It was not straightforward however.  Some women felt that Wonder Woman's tight fitting and revealing costume was exploitive and catered to male sex interestes.  Okay, but what about Superman's tight fitting costume?  Why was it okay for him to wear revealing superhero garb, but not okay for women to do similar things?  That logic prevailed.  Gloria Steinem was not anti-sex, though others of that era really did not want to have much to do with men at all.  The Women's Lib movement could not be lumped together as one single agenda. After all, people are diverse and have different opinions about how progress should be made.

It sounds ridiculous, but DC Comics had systematically depowered its iconic female superheroine Wonder Woman. It's absolutely true. Wonder Woman was completely powerless by 1972. In fact, she was known by her ordinary name, Diana Prince, rather than her more famous code name of Wonder Woman.DC thought for some reason it would be liberating if Wonder Woman could be a female James Bond stunt woman and secret agent, clad in a white pantsuit.  Note that the issue below is a Special! Women's Lib Issue, proof that DC really did lose their marbles, and I'm not making this up!  By the way, judging from the cover, it looks like Women's Bondage issue rather than Women's Lib issue.  Diana and the dogs are mainly black and white and only the victim is colorfully clad, and moreover, she appears to be wearing a 1960's style pointy bra. I would call that exploitive, portraying a woman as a sexified victim, rather than Woman's Lib.    

Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine #1 ultimately gave Wonder Woman--the "old" Wonder Woman, with super powers-- the cover of the first-ever Ms. Magazine! It was hotly debated, as there was some thought within the feminist community that women should in fact be man-haters. However, the miniskirt-wearing Steinem's logic ultimately prevailed. The message was clear.  Women could be strong and beautiful.  They can be Superman's peers.  They do not have to be powerless in order to be feminine.       

No, I didn't make it up. Wonder Woman had no super powers, wore a pantsuit and was a James Bond-type female spy. That's Women's Lib?  If you say so...

DC Comics was shamed into giving up the Diana Prince Secret Agent version of Wonder Woman and the white pantsuit, and returned to the original concept of Wonder Woman.  This was followed by a successful TV show with Lynda Carter in a starring role. 

Lynda Carter brought Wonder Woman to life and made her a global icon.  

Needless to say, the success of Wonder Woman did not resolve the debate of whether she was an is a liberating figure, a global icon, or a sexually exploited fantasy character.  Perhaps it would be fair to observe that she is a complex phenomenon and at times all three of these facets can be found in her character.  

Gal Gadot's version of Wonder Woman, I thought was the most moving.  She is a superhuman force, but isolated from the ills of human society to the extent that she is amazed by a revolving door at a department store.  The extent of human stupidity in creating World War I is incomprehensible to her and she rebels against the entire institution of war, believing that it must be a curse created by the evil God of War, Ares. 

Wonder Woman I was the greatest Superhero movie, ever. After hundreds or even thousands of years of isolation, Wonder Woman rediscovers human society and is shocked by what she finds! 

Just reading the news from around the world in 2026, the evil curse theory does not seem too far out of line, frankly.  

Spidey Smashes Box Office Records While Fighting Evil

Spider-Man Brave New Day is the best movie about your favorite spider, and it is no wonder it is squashing box office records.  Why is it the best?  Well, we can start with Peter Parker (Tom Holland, who in my view is the best actor to ever portray our friend Peter).  The old Peter Parker was struggling to make it as a Pizza delivery boy and photographer for Adolf Hitler (disguised as newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson, of course). There was just too much time devoted to makin Peter's life miserable, and it was just not as exciting as the moviemakers assumed.  Who is actually that interested in selling pizzas and getting yelled at by crabby customers and unreasonable dictator bosses?  

Spidey BND has plenty of more challenging problems due to being worn down by super-villains, while living in a world that has all but forgotten the existence of Peter Parker due to a spell cast by Dr. Strange. He doesn't have time to sell pizzas.  He winds up clashing with incredibly powerful humans as well as mutants.  Unlike DC Comics, which sought vanilla made-up urban areas for its heroes to in habit, there is no doubt that Spidey lives in real live New York City and confronts a city with its true-to-life problems.  

Historically, in moviedom the New York cops as well as the Feds have been Spidey's enemies.  Look, in the 1960s it was a fresh idea to have superheroes be masked vigilantes that were misunderstood by the authorities and persecuted by the media. But that plot device gets stale after 60 years or so.  Thankfully, we heard not a peep from Jolly Jonah this movie. The New York cops are on Spidey's side. It's about time they figured out he's a good guy! Even the United States Department of Damage Control (DODC), which is set up to regulate super-powered individuals, are willing to work with Spidey in solving problems that afflict New York City. 

DODC Head Bill Metzger (Trammell Tillman) holds a rational discussion with Spider-Man, realizing they may be facing threats larger than either of them can handle alone. 

Thankfully, this movie is finally about SPIDER-MAN, not some stupid puzzle piece that is part of the Thanos saga dealing with the bad guys winning and killing half the universe. That was just a horrible idea from the get go, and attaching all Marvel movies to that was tiresome and sick (sick = the literal definition, diseased; not the slang definition meaning really cool).

There are a lot of interesting characters who appear, but I can't even tell you who they are or it would spoil the fun. Just trust me on this one. You will not be disappointed! 

One major mystery is that we need to know more about the Punisher's backstory. Evidently he has accomplished both enormous positives as well as enormous negatives, and thus both Spidey and the authorities are not anxious to take him down.  Put it this way, if he looks like a terrorist, quacks like a terrorist, swims like a terrorist and waddles like a terrorist, why is he not regarded as a terrorist? There's an ongoing reference in the film that everything is explained by an event in Staten Island, but that is a cop out.  All the Internet commentators I researched seem to agree that whatever that event was, it is not (yet) contained in film or the comics. Someday it will probably make sense. But that day is not today.  Till then, you just have to keep an open mind about the Punisher, okay?  

There is a mystery to be solved, by Spidey, the Punisher, by the New York and Federal authorities. It's not just video game caliber action, though there are some memorable conflicts there too. Spider-Man has to rely on the science and engineering genius of Peter to figure out what is going on and what to do about it.  He is not just a web-slinging punching machine.  He is a complex young man who is prepared to do battle against evil with tech, psychology, inductive reasoning, super powers, and old fashioned grit and determination.  

Who wins?  Well, that is hard to say.  As we learn more about what is actually going on, the goals of many of the players, including Spidey and Peter, begin to change.  The resolution is not what you thought it was going to be at the beginning of the movie.  

Some of the tech has changed, and some of the characters have changed, and indeed the universe has actually evolved quite a bit since I started reading comics in the 1960s, but Spider-man is down to earth again, in fact, down to New York again, where he should be, and I could not be happier about how this movie developed and how it turned out. Somewhere, up in the sky, I know that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko are looking down on this movie and smiling.  Too bad they can't spend the money in Heaven, because there is going to be plenty made on this one, deservedly so.  

 

 

 

 

Ayatollahs' Apocalyptic Reality is Vastly Different than America's

Surely the coming of Donald J. Trump is not foretold in the Holy Quran, and the End Time and the associated destruction of the State of Israel is not imminent--or is it?  It may depend on who you ask.  Ask in the highest political circles within Iran and it has already been answered in the affirmative. At least one Ayatollah has claimed that President Trump is indeed the Islamic Antichrist or Dajjal, signaling an imminent transition to a Final Judgment.   Many may also believe that the development of nuclear bombs to destroy Israel is a mandatory commandment from Allah in order to initiate the End Times, which will right the imbalance of power between the evil first world (Israel, the USA and their allies) and the faithful Shiites. The Shiite clerics that rule Iran are not necessarily insane, but they adhere to ancient beliefs based on strict interpretation of Quranic prophecies that are utterly alien to Western pragmatism. Hence they are willing to endure massive bombings and devastation because they believe it is all part of Quranic prophecy, and at the end, the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi (the Hidden Imam),  and Jesus (Isa) will descend from the skies prior to the Day of Judgment to establish global peace and justice. This is not just lip service.  They truly believe it and they are not afraid to die for their beliefs.    

The opinion that matters most is the opinion of the allegedly infallible Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, who, we are assured, survived the bombing by the US and Israel last Feburary 28, and arose to this position upon the death of his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That bombing severely wounded Mojtaba but supposedly did not kill him, according to hints in the global media. We can assume he hates the US. 

The Supreme Leader of Iran is believed to be infallible, meaning his authority cannot be questioned in matters of Scripture or Law, either one.  He is like the Pope and Dictator.  There is no reason to believe the new Supreme Leader is friendly to the US at all.  He is said to have been seriously injured from the bomb blast, but according to The Jerusalem Post, he is alert though delegating his duties to the military.

Over the years, the previous Supreme Leader used his power to squash dissent via executions, torture and other policies that those in the West would normally find repugnant.  At the same time, Iran has used oil money to export revolution around the world, including to Lebanon (which has a sizeable Shi'ite population). This is how Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations around the world receive backing.  

Thanks in large measure to funding from Iran, Hezbollah has emerged as a formidable, well-trained fighting force.  

Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have End Time narratives, or apocalyptic literature which describe the overthrow of evil earthly authorities and bringing the Righteous to power.  The simple equation is this: Righteous = Christian in Christian interpretation of the Bible; = Jewish in the Tanakh, = Muslims in the Holy Quran.  In the Quranic version, Jesus survived the Crucifixion (many interpreters understand that someone else somehow died in his place).  The 12th and final Imam, accompanied by Jesus, will return to Earth to destroy the nonbelievers (i.e., Jews and Christians, for example). The Quran also prophecies that there is a Dajjal or Antichrist, a powerful world leader who will deceive many people into believing he is good, though actually he is incarnate evil. So, is Donald Trump the Shi'ite Dajjal?

Ayatollah Seyyed Hassan Ameli has made this explicit accusation.  Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi has created a Fatwa, or religious decree, calling for President Trump's death. He is joined in this call by Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi Amoli, who has called for death to President Trump as well as death to Israel's President Netanyahu as well as the destruction of the State of Israel. However, only the Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is truly regarded as infallible.  Mojtaba is the son of the previous Supreme Leader, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed by a joint U.S.-Israeli operation on February 28, 2026. Supposedly reliable sources insist that the younger Khamenei survived, but there are not confirmed photographs or audio recordings.  He is receiving the best available health care in Russia...but never mind. At some point, one way or the other Iran will have an undisputed, functioning Supreme Leader who will guide Iran through the End Time and decide whether they in fact need nuclear weapons to carry out the will of Allah. My belief is that they will continue to decide in the affirmative, although I hope I am wrong.    

From New Delhi (India) Television, Instagram site.  

For that matter, 39% of Americans also believe that the world is close to the End Time, according to a Pew Research survey taken in 2022. 

Many Americans are making similar claims after he posted pictures of himself which seemed to portray him as Jesus.   

After this image appeared, some Conservative Christians found themselves agreeing with Conservative Shiite Muslims that DJT is the AntiChrist.

Baptist New Global apparently believed President Trump is the AntiChrist prior to the controversial AI-generated images.   

Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have End Time narratives in which evil is destroyed and the righteous inherit the earth. Strict fundamentalists in Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism all have a clear idea who is who and where they will go after the Final Judgment, but disagree about who will be saved and who will be discarded into Hell. 

Last year, on June 29, 2025, Shia Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi issued a Fatwa (religious declaration), calling President Trump an Enemy of Allah (Mohareb), and called upon Muslims of the world to kill him. 

It does seem that there is great sentiment among senior Ayatollas for believing that the End Time is near, and that the Supreme Leader may well believe it also.  It is very plausible that the Supreme Leader believes that a nuclear bomb needs to be used to obliterate all or part of Israel. We can only hope that he realizes that such a bomb strike will be met with a counterattack that is 100 times more powerful. Millions will die and Iran will not be allowed to win. Nuclear war makes no sense to a pragmatist of whatever religion.  However, Iranian clerics are not pragmatists.  

In the End Times, Jesus (yes the same Jesus of the Christian New Testament) will return to earth and slay the Dajaal and rule the Earth. The Day of Judgment will come and the just people will be rewarded, and evildoers will  be placed in torment.

Thus, we in the West need to be concerned about the potential for a nuclear attack on Israel. This is the end goal of the Iranian nuclear program. In Iran, it is not fringe thinking, it is the belief held at the highest levels of their government.  Church (or Mosque) and State are not separated in Iran; rather, they are the same entity. 

Protestors in New York support Shiite movements in Iran, Lebannon and elsewhere. 

One of my greatest fears for America is that our Partisan instincts are so strong that one party or the other will automatically support the other side.  That is, if one party supports Israel, the other party will support the groups that oppose Israel, regardless of ideology.  

Conversely, it is possible to be very sympathetic to the cause of Islam without supporting nuclear annihilation of Israel. However, supporting the Shiite (Iranian) government is intimately associated with the development of nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying Israel and fulfilling Quranic prophecies.  The Shiite government is not the people and does not speak for all Islam. Even so, in a democracy it is the right of American citizens to advocate support for entities such as the Iranian Supreme Leader and the Ayatollahs and Hezbollah and terror cells in the US if that is what they want. Just be aware that the Ayatollahs really do share an apocalyptic vision which may include overseeing the destruction of Israel via the use of nuclear bombs if they do not get their way. 

Conversely, can there be a country or a group that is supported by both Democrats and Republicans?  30 years ago, that would not have been a problem.  Now, however, if the Republics oppose the methods of the Shiites in Iran while supporting Israel, the Democrats may feel pressure to support the Shiites and oppose Israel.  

US citizens are certainly permitted to support totalitarian groups  and to advocate the destruction of Israel. Whether or not it is a good idea is a different matter entirely.  I would like to believe that today's dangerous partisan politics is an aberration and we may start to act sensibly again. But when?  

President Trump is Co-Opting the Bush Middle East Plan

When the news of the US bombing in Tehran broke, I could not believe it. Nothing made sense. How could Iran be a threat to anyone with nuclear weapons? Weren't we told by the President of the United State that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been OBLITERATED? How then could Iran be poised to carry out a nuclear attack as the President seems to claim?

The short answer is--stop the presses--our President has a tendency to be overly bombastic, which resulted in overstating US success and more recently overstating the threat posed by Iraq. Recall that the US used Bunker Buster bombs in June 2025 to penetrate deep underground and blow up the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (near Qom, ~80m deep), and the Natanz Nuclear Facility (including the deep "Pickaxe Mountain" site) while also destroying surface facilities at Isfahan.

Recall that the news media was shown overhead photography of the Fordow and Natanz sites, clearly showing debris that had been blown out of the access tunnels. Clearly whatever was inside those facilities had been blown to smithereens.

However what most of us were missing was that although the surface facilities at Isfahan were destroyed, the deepest underground site at Isfahan was too deep to be affected by even a Bunker Buster. For that reason, the Bunker Buster was not used against Isfahan! Thus whatever was down there--possibly the bomb test site and a stockpile of enriched uranium and equipment to further enrich it to bomb grade--likely survived.

So it is quite plausible that sometime between now and and the next century or two Iran could have a nuclear weapons capability. Now, about the claim that Iran was going to have a nuclear weapon within two weeks, I think what the President may have meant was, had the US not bombed the nuclear sites on June 22, 2025, they would have had a nuclear weapon in two weeks. That is probably a gross exaggeration, which is part of the reason many Americans have trouble trusting this President. Nevertheless I personally have no problem with the actions he took at that time. 

President Trump's Exact Words

So why are we going in at this time? Well, the President said at the time that he was sympathetic to protestors in Iran.

"Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations."

That's what he said at the time the decision was made.

So his plan is to blow things up and hope that something good happens. The President has trusted his own hunch, or instinct, over the advice of his closest advisors. Taking out the Navy and Air Force is great. Remember, however, that protestors will be armed with rocks, while the Shiite authorities will have automatic weapons.

Ironically, President Trump's political career was launched by his takedown of the Bush political dynasty. Both Bushes were irrationally frightened of Iraq. Bush I sought to rescue the Emir of Kuwait from an Iraqi takeover. Bush II used the opportunity presented by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi National who had fought in Afghanistan and sponsored global terrorism, but who had never been in Iraq as far as we know. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but the US attacked them anyway, hoping to improve things by doing so. Jeb Bush argued that his brother George W. had "kept America safe" by throwing trillions of dollars into Iraq, and Trump trashed the Bushes in the Republican Presidential debates, rightly so. Both Bush President gave us an unnecessary war, a Recession and huge Deficit to the tune of trillions of dollars. Now, President Trump is creating his own version of George W.'s plan.

Trump/Walmart Turkeygate Check Shows 2025 Price Drop, but Less than Claimed

 

On Thursday November 6, a reporter at President Trump's offered the observation that Walmart's 2025 Thanksgiving dinner is 25% cheaper than the 2024 dinner. So, wow, many persons including DJT himself, took that at face value and tweeted the news at face value.

"Not so fast!" retorted the critics, operating at near warp speed.  The 2024 dinner had different items.  In fact it had more items!  It's not an apples to apples comparison!  

True that.  So, why don't we make an accurate comparison and see where we stand?  The truth is that if you did buy the 2024 deal at 2025 prices, you would play $51.75, according to prices I picked off the Walmart.com website as of 11/6/2025.  The numbers are shown below.  

Walmart says that in 2024, "Walmart's 2024 meal basket was about $55. The 2025 curated meal basket costs $40 ($39.93), which is about 25% less than last year."

So the price drop of the 2024 meal is 5.9% without taking inflation into account.  

A point of vagueness is that we don't know how much turkey Wal-Mart assumed that the 8-person dinner would contain. However, since they listed 10 pounds as the lower part of the range, it's reasonable to assume that that is what they would have used to arrive at a low estimate.  

There are some noteworthy differences between 2024 and 2025. On the whole, I would rather eat from the 2025 menu, actually.  The 2025 menu features a Butterball turkey rather than a frozen turkey, which is generally regarded as a superior tasting bird. Also, the critics rightfully point out that the 2024 menu has several more items, but how many of these items do you really want to eat?  8 persons are supposed to eat two pies, which comes out to a quarter of a pie per person, with whipped topping and marshmallows and stuff. The 2025 meal has 10 people sharing only one pumpkin pie.  I don't know about your family, but in my family not everyone eats dessert, so we probably won't miss the pecan pie.  I don't know that we need to make the stuffing from scratch (onions, corn bread, etc).  Stovetop stuffing is a blessing.  Let it happen.  The biggest uncertainty is the size of the 2024 frozen turkey that was assumed.  Logically, it would have been smaller than the 13.5 pound bird that feeds 10 people.  They list 10 pounds as smallest option.  On the other hand, 80% of 13.5 pounds is 10.8 pounds.  Given that the 2024 meal contains plenty of extra calories for desserts, i think that the 10 pound bird is probably appropriately sized. 

 

CONCLUSION:

The overall conclusion is that Thanksgiving Dinner is more affordable in 2025 compared to 2024, although the 25% figure is based on comparing different dinners.  This author likes the 2025 dinner more than the the 2024 version because we are getting somewhat more turkey, beans and corn and less sweet pie for desert.  The 2025 meal offers a Butterball turkey rather than a frozen one. My best estimate is that the 2024 dinner would be 6.9% less expensive this year compared to last year.   

6.9% is actually a really good number.  However, it needs to be viewed in context with all the other good and commodities that make up our lives. I don't think you can conclude, for example, that Thanksgiving dinner can be used as a proxy for the entire economy.  

The US does not yet Have a Winning Ukraine Strategy

You can't change President Putin, but you can absolutely destroy his military in Ukraine.  The latter is achievable. 

Photo Credit: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Warofua.jpg

 

Mr. President,  Secretary Hegseth, 

You are not being given a winning strategy in Ukraine if the plan is really to use Patriot missiles to defend the country versus Russian drones such as Shahed, which is crudely estimated to cost about $50,000.  The Patriot costs $4 million per throw, which is 80 times higher cost, not including the billion-dollar-class launcher.  This is not winnable in the long run. At all.  America will lose if you follow this strategy. 

May I suggest that part of the problem is that President Putin has succeeded in making us believe that the Ukraine war is all about him, Vladimir Putin.  The whole point is do find a way to get him to the negotiating table, or to not upset him to much into broadening the war and getting our "Allies" (using the term loosely, of course) angry, and so on.  

Well, the Village Elliot does not know much, however, if you try to be nice to Putin, he posts unflattering photos of FLOTUS on the Internet.  Ask him to negotiate, he bombs hospitals and schools. So our plan is to deploy so-called "defensive weapons," namely Patriot missiles, at $4 million each to destroy $50,000 dollar weapons being used for terrorist purposes.  But we really will not go after the military, preferring to use this defensive strategy that we hope will not upset Mr. Putin too much, and eventually tire him out and bring him to the negotiating table.  Village Elliot to Mr. President! Sir, it ain't working!

I propose we have to quit worrying about the influence on Putin.  Instead, we have to return to the military objective, which is to REMOVE EVERY MILITARY THREAT ON UKRAINIAN SOIL. If you can outspend Putin 80 to 1, use it to go on OFFENSE instead of letting him bleed us to death in a well-intentioned but futile effort to defend against the unlimited supply of drones.  Shoot every solider, destroy every tank, every aircraft, every plane, every missile.  We have to use weapon systems that are designed to destroy Ukrainian military forces.  The current strategy perpetuates the Russian presence in Ukraine and allows them to continue to build drones and fly them into civilian population centers.  

When I was a kid, in a karate school, one guy was a hippie and only wanted to block the other guy's punches. The instructor, Sensei Kim, threw a fit.  "What are you DOING, Jim?"  Jim replied, "Well, I want to learn the culture of non-violence and only practice defensive techniques, and use persuasion to end the fight."  Sensei Kim screamed back at him, "Knock the other guy out!  Then he will quit throwing his offense at you!!"  

Similarly, in Ukraine, persuasion has failed.  Mr. Putin cannot be persuaded and blocking his punches is not a viable strategy.  We are going to have to dismantle his military in Ukraine. Mr. President, you're going to have to knock the M****r out!  

Why Can't NATO Defeat Russia?

If the West can outspend Russian 9 to 1, why can't we defeat Putin in Ukraine?

 Here is some simple math.  In Russia spent some $129 billion dollars on defense last year.  A lot of it was spent on Ukraine of course, but not all of it.  There was a lot spent on updating the nuclear arsenal, protecting the long border with China, adventures with Syria and the Middle East. Then there's North Korea,  plus other miscellaneous plots to take over the world and other fraud waste and abuse that has to be funded in Russia.  Plus nobody is quite sure how to translate Russian rubles to American dollars, but $129 billion seems reasonable.

NATO is supposed to be spending 2% of its budget on the military, but by its own admission is short of that (1.28%). Nevertheless, they came in at $430 million in 2024.  Had they met their goal, they would be up around $623 million. Neverthess, the actual numbers are that NATO outspends Russia by 3.3 to 1.  If the US is added, with its gargantuan $755 billion defense spending, the good guys spent $1185 billion compared to Russia's $129 billion.  That is, overall we outspent the Russians 9.2 to 1. Of course, the US spends money on Israel, South Korea, the Middle East, keeping shipping lanes open worldwide and many, many activities.  Nevethess, NATO alone far outspends Russia, and combine with the US the defense spending differential is decisive. 

Recently, NATO agreed to increase its defense spending to 5% by 2025. The good thing about that is that, hopefully, President Trump will be out of office by then and perhaps they can get out of it.  But in any case, if that were true, the NATO total would be the equivalent of around $1.68 Trillion in today's dollars, and NATO plus America would be outspending Russia by 19 to 1, assuming no increase in American spending. 

SO WHY CAN'T WE BEAT PUTIN IN UKRAINE? 

Everywhere the news says that Russian soldiers don't want to fight; the Russian military is incompetent, the West has better weapons and the West is so much more clever than Russia.  SO WHY CAN'T WE WIN?

If you watch video footage from the Ukraine War, the Ukraine military looks like Rambo, and the Russians look like the Three Stooges. However, very little land is every taken back by Ukraine.  WHY IS THAT? 

The press narrative was that Putin thought he would win the war in three days when he invaded.  He was then shocked to find resistance.  I no longer believe that.  He ran the calculations shown above and was terrified that Ukraine was going to invade Russia with NATO assistance and he would be powerless to stop them. His hope was to overwhelm the place with a 1:9 disadvantage. Putin's fears turned out to be well founded, as Ukraine was well defended by NATO assets.

One possible explanation--a horrible one-- is this:  perhaps the Biden Administration's plan was never to achieve victory at all. Rather, the intention may have been to not upset anyone by having either side achieve a victory. The fear was that, if backed into a corner, Putin might unleash strategic weapons and expand the war, and perhaps the Biden Administration wanted to avoid that at all costs. Thus the plan may have been to achieve a perfect stalemate, and if so, it was successful. Could it be that the West was not sincere in aiding Ukraine but simply containing Russia?

    

I don't believe the US and its allies intend to win in Ukraine. The objective is a negotiated settlement at all costs. 

References

https://cepa.org/article/russias-year-of-truth-the-runaway-military-budget/

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

https://politact.com/ukraine-russia-stalemate-ensues-concerns-multiply/