The communist is a master of projection, because he is a master of hypocrisy

The communist is a master of projection. He takes the suffering and slavery of his own people, the Uygher slave camps or Bauxite mines of the soviets, and projects it on to the capitalist, suggesting the highest standard of living the world has ever seen equates to slavery, ignoring the slave of his own or his preferred nation he for some reason refuses to live in.

He demands we copy the failed system to improve our own standard of living, that somehow wages will go up or costs will improve if we base our system on the somehow superior, authoritarian failed system of the Venezuelans, Cubans, Russians, Chinese or other communist state, but simultaneously insists that the only reason why these systems are so bad is due to our interference. Simultaneously exalting the virtues of this cesspool while acknowledging how poor off that it is. The communist is also a master of hypocrisy, or self contradiction, necessary to be a master of projection. The communist when standards of living improve in the west, recreates and redefines long established terms and values, to constantly insist, based on these new definitions, there must be something wrong with society, by not meeting these ever increasing and ridiculous demands. He will both demand increased wages for everyone but lower prices, ignoring higher wages for nurses, doctors, farmers and construction workers would drive up the price of medicine, food and housing. Or worse he demands it free. The communist demands higher wages for nurses and doctors but cheaper costs, demanding the best treatment but also that it be the cheapest. If we have the highest survival rates, standards of care and fastest response times, it's too expensive, and if we don't spend the money, we don't care enough. When we do spend exactly as much as he demands he complains it costs too much. The communist puts a crunch on both ends of the system. He simultaneously demands cheaper or even free food and medicine, declaring it a human right (although ignoring the rights of the farmer such as those evil Afrikaner’s or Ukrainian kulaks), and yet declares farming to be the biggest threat climate change and thus insists it must be banned or so severely curtailed shortages and price increases must become inevitable, without slavery (again, of poor kulaks). He demands a cheaper transit yet wants to ban or regulate oil, gas and other fuels, even being against nuclear, the cheapest and cleanest form of power. Somehow all of these are inadequate but the pollution from cobalt mines and lithium ion production or neodymium magnets is to be ignored, along side its profits to communist countries like China, which produce 95% of the worlds solar panels. Or straight up buying oil and gas from Russia, Qatar or Iran, as Europe did increasing its Russian oil and gas supply from 10% to 45%, due to climate change regulations. Fancy that. And that Angela merkel personally knew Putin and was a Soviet politician in 1989. The communist puts a squeeze on both ends, demanding more but also that we limit production. Insisting we consume too much end need to cut back but we need such a surplus it becomes practically free. In the end his goal is simple, to destroy our society and give our wealth and prosperity to our enemies. Even when we shower a communist or socialist country with resources and humanitarian aid, we do not see an improvement of standard of living but a bottomless pit of government waste. Look at North Korea, Venezuela, South Africa, or any other country we've provided humanitarian aid. Once again we see immense suffering, that only a change in the system could correct. It would be more valuable for the average person living there to pick up a gun and overthrow the system than for the government to receive food the people will never get. And yet the socialist and communist, nearly indistinguishable from each other, demands this suffering for himself and all his countrymen, insisting both these countries have it better and are only poor due to us. That we can right our “capitalist slavery” via socialist chains. A communist is a master of projection precisely because he is a matter of hypocrisy.

We're likely already in WWIII, and our current conflict is like WWI

 We’re quickly heading towards a WWI type scenario, where a number of smaller border skirmishes will coalesce in to a larger world war. Appeasement and slow action will lead to this in part, with it opening up aggressive action from otherwise far weaker enemies I fully expect Taiwan to be invaded before the new president is sworn in but likely after the election, unless they get antsy and jump the gun sooner. Ukraine, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Israel, Venezuelas neighbors, the Brazil and Myanmar coups, it’s not looking good. Weak leadership in the west created this as they did not create an effective deterrence. What point is a giant military if you don’t use it? In many ways we are already in WWIII. A bioweapon is released, the whole world goes on lock down (due to chinese and north korean influence over the WHO), and then our major cities are taken over by communist guerrillas (Chaz, Chop), a number of coups happen around the world, and during the chaos wars break out by the same people who financed the lock down arguments and rioters. A dozen border skirmishes by Chinese and Russian connected groups already exist, be it Israel or Afghanistan. It’s already here

With Syrian, North korean, Cuban, Chinese and other troops going to Ukraine, it's quickly becoming the start of a global conflict. Each of these countries militarily and economically are allying so close they are sharing troops, and Ukrainian and Russian troops are already fighting each other in Africa. America killed 300 russian troops which attacked it's forces in Syria first, and there have been dozens of skirmishes. NATO cables cut, pipelines blown up, american volunteer troops fighting Russian one's. American soldiers have likely fought Chinese soldiers in Ukraine already, and the equipment certainly is facing off. Despite attempts to the otherwise, we are essentially already in WWIII, although it looks more like WWI. Hopefully civilians will not be caught up in the war, but its only a 40 mile drive from the frontlines in Ukraine, a lot like it was in WWI where soldiers would go drink at a pub at night and then return to the trenches. This is the way war is being fought now, trench warfare and all in Ukraine, and it likely will escalate soon, dragging more countries in.

Reagan doubled the size of the economy and inflation dropped below 2%

Reagan doubled the size of the economy and inflation dropped below 2%

                                  GDP and Average Wages

The nominal GDP [1], in real terms, doubled from 1980 to 1992, during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush, from 3.2 to 6.5 trillion dollars. Inflation went from a high of 13.5% in the prior Jimmy Carter era, to below 2%. At the same time, wages doubled for the average person from around 12,000 to 22,000 a year (not gdp per capita, but average wages), and tax rebate systems which gave unusual taxbreaks to certain groups of people the government favored, were eliminated, streamlining the tax code. Tax Revenue actually went up slightly during this time period as a percentage, as the weird tax codes before they allowed some people to pay nearly nothing and others up to 70%, were eliminated, resulting in a fair tax burden across the board. Despite the erroneous notion that Reagan implemented "Trickle Down Economics", which no economist or major right-wing figure ever used this term to describe their economic plans, and that this somehow hurt the poor to the benefit of the rich, the average person really saw their wages go up dramatically in this time period, and tax revenue actually increased overall, despite Reagan cutting taxes nearly in half. One of the biggest economic booms in America soon followed, and just an economic sanction on the Soviet Union managed to cause them to collapse in 1991, in addition to various internal matters. 

Despite the idea Reagan was somehow terrible for the economy, when it doubled in size and inflation dropped below 2%, or that he was responsible for deficit spending when we almost had a budget surplus by the time Bush left office at the end of 12 years, or the idea that the poor lost out when their wages doubled while inflation had dropped, is fairly absurd. Not only that, but it is easily disprovable. And while it's been so far as taught in schools that "Reagonomics" was terrible for the country, it was anything but. Basic common sense Republican policies DO work. It turns out when you let the average person have more of their own money, it boosts the economy. Similarly, whatever president drops the social security income tax from 15% to 2% or lower will see one of the massive booms in American history, as the social security tax is money taken out of the economy that isn't even reintroduced via tax spending until decades later. A retiree who paid 80 bucks a month in to the system in no way can pay for 2000 dollar checks, due to inflation, and therefore it would be best to spend the money, now, and get economic growth from it. 

Tucker Carlson's propaganda on Russia is sickening

 Tucker Carlson's propaganda on Russia is sickening 

Moscow University, the parts they don't show of Moscow

We on the right often rightly point out the left's fetishism of parts of Europe, Russia and China, as well as Venezuela and Cuba and other socialist countries. These countries hire western propogandists to spout out nonsense that is positive about their countries, and sickeningly politicians or political pundits use this to push an insanely biased narrative about the supposed superiority of our enemies and their standard of living and why we should just give up and stop fighting these genocidal maniacs because hey, "at least the trains run on time!". Bernie Sanders infamous trips to the soviet union, including a honeymoon where he was married by the Soviet Union, highlight this where his criticisms were sparse and he spouted out propaganda points about how clean and nice certain parts of the show cities foreigners were allowed in to were, or infamously how the trains "ran on time". Beijing Biden has earned his name fairly, and so have people like Eric Swalwell who was sleeping with a China spy "Feng Feng", or Diane Feinstein with a Chinese agent driver for more than a decade. But while we ruthlessly mock the left for supporting the nightmarish shitholes that are Cuba and Venezuela, and China and at one point Russia, there are some on the right, or who claim to be on the right, who rush to the defense of these same socialist shitholes. It is entirely that the west is seeking to emulate Russia and Cuba and Venezuela that places like Canada or the UK have lowering standards of living right now and high amounts of inflation. We need to move away from socialist policies, not continue to copy them. 

However, for all of our problems, they are still nowhere near as bad as places like Russia or China. I said some time ago we need to be prepared for some people on the right-wing to actually be working for Russia, or working for China, just like many on the left. Tucker Carlson at this point is being deliberately disingenuous about his talking points. These ideas are easily disprovable, and aligns perfectly with Kremlin talking points. While I don't believe interviewing Putin is in and of itself pro Russian propaganda, despite his softballing questions that were so weak even Putin himself called out Tucker for be too propagandistic, straight up lying about the standard of living in Russia or socialist countries is absolutely absurd and is designed to make westerners think Russia is some kind of Utopia and the west is somehow awful by comparison. And while there are certainly problems in the west right now, many afflicted by pro socialist Putin type leaders, emulating Russia would be a catastrophe for the west. Russia also has virtually no freedom of speech and regularly assassinates journalists, is ran by super rich elitists oligarchs who openly run the government at the expense of the poor, and is actually drafting it's people to fight in a war in Ukraine (unlike Tucker's hysterical fears that his kids will somehow be drafted by Ben Shapiro to fight in Ukraine or Israel despite no-one ever suggesting a draft). Because this apparently isn't obvious to some people, allow me to explain further. 

From statistics in 2021 [1], the figures showed that Russians spent on average around 29% of their income on food, while in the U.S. they spent 6.7%. This mean that Russians spent about 1/3rd of their money buying groceries just for food, without including Vodka, eating out at resteraunts (which increases it to 38%), or other groceries, while Americans spent around 1/16th. Russians spend 5 times the amount of their income on food as Americans do; if you think your grocery bill is bad in America, it's 5 times that in Russia, relative to their income. This is higher than obviously poor places like Mexico (26.2%), Iran (28.7%), Saudi Arabia (20.5%), Venezuela (18.6%), South Africa (21.3%), and Greece (17.6%), just for example. It's only slightly below places like Pakistan and Vietnam, and of course Belarus which is a Russian ally and has about the same amount of spending on food. Standard of living in Russia is laughably bad, and it's a common pro-Kremlin talking point to talk about how food prices are "somehow good actually" and things are doing well and more importantly the west is doing much worse (even though it's not). In Russia, the 100 dollars Tucker spends is close to 1/4 the monthly paycheck of the average Russian, which is far, far worse than the percentage of what Americans spend on groceries, even despite the recent 20-40% spike due to inflation largely from Biden and the Democrat spending bills. And Tucker's choices of wine, pumpkin and squashes is laughably absurd for an average Russian's grocery shopping as they typically eat large amounts of bone broth soup each week, not pumpkins and wine. As bad as it may feel right now in the west, inflation has been far, far worse in China and Russia, and has been this way for the past 30 years, if not longer if we decided to go back even further to the Soviet Union. All of the data shows this, but so does anecdotal evidence. If you talk to any Russian person they'll tell you they're struggling, even in rich cities like Moscow, and if you wander outside of the place where the government corruptly dumps all the money in to the hands of Rich oligarchs and show areas for tourists, it appears even worse. For example, in America, the average American eats about 124 kilograms of meat a year, where as in Russia from 2002 to 2020 it's range between 50-80. Russians eat more cheap vegetables like bread and potatoes and their diet has less protein and vitamins in it. The average Russian knows it has only gotten worse since the start of the war, with the meat consumption falling dramatically and replaced by groats and less savory foods. 

Housing prices are similarly bad. The price to income ratio [2] of housing in America is roughly 4.1%, while in Russia it's 16.1%, and in china nearly 30%. Europe by comparison is twice as high as the U.S. at around 10% for most countries, along with Canada and Japan, but this is still half that of Russia. Housing as a percentage of income is 4 times that of America in Russia, while food as a value of income is 5 times higher. Russians spend the bulk of their income on food and housing, and have very little left over for luxuries. This isn't just due to a difference in overall GDP, but purchasing power parity. The average Russian's money goes less far in his own country, and things are far more expensive relative to America. After the war in Ukraine it's only gotten worse, with some reports that food prices have gone up to 40% of the average Russian's income, and many houses are freezing in the winter and are without power. [3][4] Russia's economy is hemorrhaging right now both under international sanctions and terrible economic decisions like BRICS, as well as it's poor decisions on the war with little to show for it, so Moscow is desperate for propaganda to paint Russian life as idealic and far better in comparison to westerners. While it may be easy for westerners to believe that because things have gotten worse in the west, and it's easy to believe it's better in some other country they want to believe is real and idolize, the truth is Russia and China are far, far worse than America right now, in fact by the numbers orders of magnitude worse. 22.6% of Russians do not have indoor plumbing. In rural Russia, almost 2/3rd's have no access to indoor toilets, 48.1% use outhouses and 18.4% do not have a sewage system. The figure (page 180) has since gone up to 27.4% of people as of 2020, as in it's gotten worse. 13% of people living even in the rich cities like Moscow still don't have plumbing either. So even where the big cities where all the money is concentrated, 13% of people don't have toilets or sewage systems, and sewage just piles up in the street. More than a third of Russia's roads are unpaved and track mud everywhere, in fact even in many of the Big cities, including Moscow. The economy is more than 50% socialist, or government ran, with it being approximately 40% in 2005, and now well over that past 2020. 

Bear in mind also that Russia has strict gun control and freedom of speech controls, and regularly assassinates journalists, often with polonium darts, a radiotoxic poison that is virtually guaranteed to kill someone slowly from cancer. There are strict movement controls and you need a passport to travel internally to certain areas or aren't allowed to leave, just like China. If you think if you are from a poor region Moscow deliberately starves and that you can go to a big city like any America could go to New York or LA, you'd be wrong. It has to be approved by the state specifically. People cannot generally go to certain areas or even leave the country unless they are rich. Russia's immigration has doubled the immigrant population from 5% to 10%, and has put a terrorist Chechenia warlord in charge who admitted to doing terror attacks across Russia, openly finances and arms groups like the Taliban and Houthi rebels, and Viktor Bout, a convicted FSB arms trafficker, admitted as much and Russia traded for him. Sex slavery and prostitution is common in certain Islamic regions of Russia and is even encouraged by many elites who frequent there. Russia also is responsible for the bulk of Islamic migrants heading to Europe and disproportionately chooses to send terrorists there on purpose. [5][6] Putin has said that he believes Russia's version of Christianity is more compatible with Islam than it is with western Catholicism or Protestantism, which is not only heretical but explicitly anti-western. Russian propogandists laugh that European girls are being raped by these terrorists they help to finance and send to Europe. Russia has one of the highest domestic abuse rates, murder rates and abortion rates in Europe, and that's according to Russian propaganda. This is before getting in to the hundreds of thousands killed in Ukraine, including their own young men drafted in to the war when Russia is facing a demographic crisis (a fertility rate of 1.5 or lower, much lower than the west), and in Moldova, Georgia, Chechnya. You can try to argue that the U.S. somehow magically forced Russia to invade Ukraine because it needed a buffer zone to stop an invasion from four alternate directions of Finland, Eastern Europe, Alaska or the middle east (NATO already borders Russia, including America itself with Alaska) but it's harder to use this argument to justify every single invasion and mass murder of the Russians going back since the 90's, or right before the Soviet union collapsed when it killed 3 million people in Afghanistan, 30% of the population of the time which is what destabilized the middle east, not the U.S. (that and Saddam draining the Mesopotamian marshes). 

Other than a complete lack of freedom, such as online, in journalism, to walk in public or do what you want, the standard of living is far worse, and on par with places like Iran, Pakistan, Kenya, Mexico and India. It is an absurd pro kremlin talking point to act like the standard of living is not only all fine during the war, but somehow better than the west. And Tucker repeating this garbage is beyond grotesque. Just as how Labor party leader Jeremy Corbyn praised Osama Bin Laden and Treduea and others praised Fidel Castro after he died, this must be called out. Mass murdering regimes are evil and tricking the west in to accepting this kind of rule would completely destroy us. There are however many bewildering or absurd statements Tucker has made recently that feed in to the pro Russian narrative but are more specific. Chiefly that the Subways are cleaner and run on time, that somehow Americans will be drafted to fight and die in a war in Ukraine and Israel due to the likes of Ben Shapiro (of which Russia is the only country drafting it's men to fight in Ukraine), and that Moscow is a much cleaner, prettier and better city than any city in the west. Theses are also easily disprovable, and it’s a huge shock Tucker would do this at all, unless you’ve been paying attention. 

The left's need to accept it's role in what's happened to Ukraine

Source: transportenvironment

I feel like there is a lot of delusional thinking at play by the left on Ukraine. The left was overwhelmingly pro Russia before 2014, and many of them laughed at Mitt Romney for saying Russia would be our biggest geopolitical foe, or at Trump when he said Europe needed to get it's spending about 2% in NATO or stop buying Russian oil or else it faced financing their war machine and being totally dependent on them. [1] [2] People don't want to look at the facts of the situation and are stuck in a mindset fostered in 2001. Part of this is the creation of the belief that America or the west is always bad in every military activity they do, due to lies about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We did actually find WMD's, we didn't steal oil, Bush didn't do 9/11 and so on, and terrorists and Saddam were obviously a real threat. 50 countries got involved precisely due to this. Saddam not only admitted to having WMD's but threatened to use them against his neighbors, and an entire city, Halajbah, was poison gassed, as well as the marshes where most the food of the middle east was grown was drained and poisoned by him. This is the reason for the destabilization of the middle east. Nonetheless, somehow the fault for all of this was magically transferred to the west or America, and this has ever since created a sense of distrust about western governments in everything that they do, especially in regards to military activity. How many cries of "western imperialism" have we had to endure from the left-wing press and due to left-wing politicians? How much of the youth from that time period still believe in their 30's and 40's America or the west was at fault for everything in the middle east, eastern Europe, Africa, south America and the rest of the world, largely built on lies or ridiculous hand-wringing? That the capitalist west was the reason why every socialist shithole collapsed and invaded it's neighbors and killed all of it's people in concentration camps. How much praising of Venezuela, Saddam, Cuba, Hamas and Iran, and even the Viet Cong have we endured from the left-wing press and the so-called liberals?

The hard reality is the left has no-one to blame but themselves for this, willingly promoting ridiculous propaganda at the time. But the left also was unwilling to provide lethal aid to Ukraine when they were first invaded under Obama and Biden, and Trump was the first to authorize javelines and lethal aid to Ukraine, which he got impeached for as the left called it a "quid pro quo". The left removed McCarthy, the Republican speaker of the house from power, right as he was going to authorize aid to Ukraine, delaying it by many months, and then blamed Republicans in congress for this crucial delay. However more startlingly, congress has already approved aid that might actually change the course of the war, but the Biden Administration has consistently blocked it. Biden has single handedly banned HIMARS, long range weapons, and numerous other forms of aid to Ukraine, and only recently approved a few dozen tanks and IFV's, as well as F-16's, when what Ukraine really needs are F-35's which are both stealthy and can come in any language as they have fly-by-wire systems. After 2 years of war Biden finally allowed a few dozen F-16's to go to Ukraine which won't make any difference and HIMAR missiles with their ranges SECRETLY shortened after congress approved them. The key advantage of long range missiles is so Ukraine can take out Russian artillery. Artillery is not only is responsible for 85% of casualties, virtually all of Russia's ground defense and all the gains they've made, but for shelling entire cities in to oblivion. You take that out, and ukraine could win the war in a months, with HIMARS specifically designed to beat artillery given its' long range, difficulty in detection, faster firing and cluster munitions which means a higher probability of hitting the target even in entrenched positions. Just four HIMAR systems managed to reduce Russian artillery fire to 1/4 it's original amount in about a week. Imagine what thousands could do. It's also important to remember Biden removed sanctions off of Russia, stopped all lethal aid to Ukraine a year before the war, and allowed the nordstream pipeline construction to continue, something Trump blocked, within about the first week in office. But we get endless waves of crap against Trump or Republicans, Trump who is not even in office and was not in office when Ukraine was invaded by Russia after Biden pulled out troops and after Biden cut lethal aid, and all of this happened while Biden was in power who still has blocked this aid, and whom he was pressured by, via progressives in congress. Although the media is trying to shift the blame to Republicans, it's transparently not the case. You can see even NOW how the left wing New York Times or other run articles about how Ukraine should surrender, both right after Russia invaded Kiev and 2 years later in the war. The reality is not as cut and dry as people like and it's been almost impossible to get past stalemates. Even despite all that, the U.S. has sent 5 times the aid of Europe who is the most likely to benefit from Russia being stopped in Ukraine and being unable to advance in to Poland or the rest of Europe. Europe which is far more left-leaning makes big promises it doesn't deliver on, from artillery shell delivery to raw funding, to 300 billion dollars of frozen Russian assets. Europe is still buying 50% of it's gas and oil from Russia, and hasn't shown any signs of slowing down, which finances Russia's war machine by hundreds of billions of dollars and makes Europe dependent on Russia for it's energy needs. And Europe refuses to spend more on it's own military's, which Republicans and Trump have demanded all the way back in 2017. The problem is that the obvious issue looking us in the face is ignored, that many in the west are outright sympathetic to Putin, and are blocking it for this reason. Many just want this to go away and to pretend it never happened and keeping buying their oil from Russia like it's 2010. This is before we get in to the fact Clinton pressured Ukraine in to giving up it's nukes, downsizing it's army and giving equipment to Russia, something even Clinton admits was wrong at the time, which likely lead to this mess. Or Biden pressuring prosecutor's looking in to Russian corruption to be fired. Or how many shirtless picks of putin riding on horseback the western media promoted in the early 2000's. Calling Putin the type of politician the west needed. Or the degrading of trust in our military by insisting they had lied about WMD's, something else they later acknowledged was fake. All of this has lead to our current situation today, and people want to act like it's somehow Trump's fault, as are somehow all other things.

WWIII will likely be like WWI, a series of border conflicts that eventually spill out in to a major war

 WWIII will likely be like WWI, a series of border conflicts that eventually spill out in to a major war

I've said before that it appears we've been fast approaching a WWI type scenario for the last three years, but it's never been more prominent than today. WWI was the result of a number of small border skirmishes escalating in to several major wars, until it resulted in a single large war that had dramatic changes to the world and particularly Europe for generations to come. WWI was so extreme it eventually directly lead to WWII, with the political climate created during WWI directly leading to WWII. Be it Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, Venezuela and Guyana, or now even Pakistan and Iran, it would appear as if the world is devolving in to chaos. There have also been more than a dozen coups, such as in Myanmar, the Congo, and Ethiopia, and civil wars spilling out in to the surrounding areas, such as Houthi rebels launching missiles at random ships. China announced that reunification with Taiwan was inevitable, and may happen as early as this year, signaling an intent to potentially invade Taiwan as well. Given the current circumstances, it would be hard to imagine China wouldn't take advantage of the Chaos and distraction as well. North Korea has even threatened to invade South Korea. The backdrop of WWI had the Spanish Flu (Covid), Communist revolution and Spanish civil war (various coups and civil war), numerous border conflicts that erupted in to a larger global crisis, and political world-changing events such as the Communists in Russia, Fascists in Italy, or even the Nazi party in Germany getting their first political babysteps during or immediately following WWI. Be it the Francoists in spain, the Nazis in Germany, the Communists in Russia or the Fascists in Italy, all of them were shaped by WWI, with many if not most of their adherents being WWI veterans and gaining power during WWI. 

When the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, it was not an end to the region's troubles. The Viet cong would later invade Cambodia and Laos, and eventually China would invade Vietnam, resulting the death in the region of several million, including 2.6 million in the killing fields alone. Without the U.S. to serve as a shared enemy, the region immediately fragmented, despite every country being communist and allies at one point, and each country plunged in to war with each other. The Sino-Soviet split, or Chinese-Russian split occurred at around the same time as well, igniting tensions between the two most powerful communist countries in the world at the time. The entire region destabilized and balkanized without the U.S. presence, and resulted in millions of deaths, potentially up to 10 million if starvation and disease are considered, or other early deaths. The U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan seems to be creating the same problem, igniting tensions between virtually every middle eastern neighbor, particularly with Pakistan and Iran, with Pakistan largely forming, financing and controlling the Taliban who've taken over large swaths of Afghanistan. Without the "Great Satan" to serve as an outlet of aggression, the islamic national socialist governments have all turned on each other, and border skirmishes are erupting that could easily turn in to major conflicts, be it Iran and Pakistan, the Yemeni Houthi Rebels and numerous countries, or the various anti-Israel terror groups backed by numerous powers, particularly Iran. 

WWI was marked by trench warfare, and thus far fighting in the Ukraine-Russian war has revolved around trenches, and tunnels in Israel and Gaza. One particular feature of this type of warfare was, that aside form initial gains early in the war, no one side could gain a very clear advantage, thus leading to stalemates that lead to constant costly human wave charges or the deaths of thousands of people with no real change in ground. Border skirmishes frequently go this form of warfare, such as in the Iran-Iraq war, and even with modern weapons little has changed since the days of WWI or WWII other than the sophistication and capabilities of offensives, as well as their marginally higher probability of success. We may simply be looking at the first salvos of the war, 

Ways to potentially end a war in Ukraine - HIMAR missile systems to take out artillery

Ways to potentially end a war in Ukraine - HIMAR missile systems to take out artillery

The fastest way to end the war in Ukraine likely is for Ukraine to take out Russian artillery, which it could do with HIMAR missile systems, as well as other long range weapons. Long range weapons are the key to ending the war quickly, as they can outrange the enemy artillery and allow Ukraine to take them out from relative safety. Further the logistic supply trains of the Russians would be easily targeted which are already quite vulnerable, and Russian anti-air defenses and other vehicles. Furthermore, the HIMAR missile utilize cluster munitions, which is largely made up of hundreds of shaped charge warheads over a pound a piece, similar in size to small rocket launcher rounds, which in studies were found to have 30 times higher effectiveness against vehicles and 8 times the effectiveness against infantry than standard singular warheads. The wide area of dispersion, ability to fill in every nook and cranny and anti-armor effectiveness allows them to potentially take out tanks, and they would make short work of dug in infantry in trenches and armored vehicle formations as well. When just four HIMAR missile systems were sent to ukraine, they managed to reduce Russian artillery fire by three quarters, or 75%, cutting their artillery fire in half and then cutting it in half again, and managed to inflict the single deadliest blow to their air force in decades by attacking an air field while the aircraft were on the ground, hundreds of miles away. It's not hard to imagine what could be done if Ukraine had thousands, or even 10's of thousands of these missiles, which were specifically designed to defeat Russian vehicles and defenses, in particular with each warhead able to penetrate more than 2.5 inches of Russian armor even at high angles (although with modern software it can easily get through 8 inches by coming straight down on the target like a javelin), which will defeat the top armor of most older soviet tanks. Armor, infantry, logistic supply trains, anti-air defenses and artillery would be easy to destroy. The U.S. at one point had nearly 600,000 HIMAR missile systems and the plan was to thin out Russian forces before any ground invasion, and while many were destroyed due to international agreements Russia themselves never followed, our substantial stockpiles of them and launching systems would allow for 10's of thousands of these, and many cruise missiles to be sent to Ukraine. Ukranian forces have had trouble advancing during the counter offensive due to artillery shelling them when they try to clear landmine fields. It will be impossible for Ukraine to make real substantial advancements through Russian-held territory without removing these minefields, which can only be done if they are not being relentlessly bombed by Russian artillery. Artillery is responsible for 70-85% of causalities on both sides, even vehicles, and makes up the bulk of the destruction of this war, including the shelling and destruction of numerous Ukrainian cities. 

The reduction of civilian casualties as well as Removal of Russian forces relies heavily upon defeating Russian artillery, which is the bulk of the Russian's army firepower and key to them holding ground and advancing in Ukraine. Ukraine's tanks, infantry, aircraft and artillery is superior than Russia's, but Russia simply has such an overwhelming volume of artillery that it can beat Ukraine. Sending large volumes of artillery to Ukraine can offset this somewhat, but artillery duels are risky and dangerous and cost lives to perform. What Ukraine needs, more than anything, is anti-artillery, counter battery weapons, to allow the rest of their military to advance, which can only be achieved via long range weapons which outrange artillery. Artillery is the longest range mass produced weapon on the battlefield, which is why it's so hard to defeat. If the enemy can kill you before you get close, what can challenge it? Only even longer range weapons can defeat artillery, which means long range weapon systems. The Fact president Joe Biden and many democrats have blocked this highly specific and important type of weapon in large volumes is astounding to me. I urge everyone involved to release these weapons to Ukraine in the 10's of thousands, enough to take out Russian's few thousand artillery pieces, so that the tide of the war can shift in Ukraine's favor, and the war can eventually be over. 

There is no much point to sending 17 tanks or 50 APCs to Ukraine that will be promptly destroyed by Russian artillery in under a month. These sorts of things will result in Ukraine losing their men's lives to achieve tiny victories or taking back slivers of territory from Russia, while wasting resources from the west. As we can see by how the current six month counter offensive has played out, all of this equipment is useless without a way for Ukraine to gain artillery superiority. The only way for Ukraine to win is to take out Russian artillery, and to do so in an effective and live-saving way requires long range weapons that can be fired from a safe distance. Ukraine pays the price in western hesitancy with blood, and any "escalation" people may fear from Russia certainly cannot be worse than what Russia has already done. What will Russia do, murder civilians, attack the west, try to destroy the west economically and withhold fuel or food or try to destroy our dollar? Perhaps they will blow up pipelines, destroy undersea NATO cables, and threaten our allies if they join or remain in NATO? In the end, the west must be willing to stand up to Russia, to understand western countries have nukes too, and not allow these transgressions to continue, both for basic morality and humanity, and to prevent them from going further in to Europe and the western world. Like after the fall of Afghanistan, we do not want to trigger a cascade of subsequent attacks signaling to the world they can get away with this. The price for such crimes must be so high that it deters nations from even attempting them. The only deterrence to conventional invasions, are conventional weapons. And more importantly, a willingness to use them. If the rest of the world believes were are too weak or too soft to use military power, they will brutally and ruthlessly attack us during our period of hesitation and convince them now is the time to act. We need a win to signal to the world that such transgressions are not allowed and will be severely punished, just as much as to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, in Ukraine. 

More in depth 

I have been hesitant to give my opinion on ending the war in Ukraine or the issue in general given the complexity of the situation and my direct lack of involvement. It would be prudent to avoid making major assumptions about a conflict from a distance, and I hesitate to act as if I have all the answers to all the problems in Ukraine. However given the frequency of people who insist they have the right answers that are obviously wrong and the various Ukraine grifters which have emerged over the years, some of them literally financed by Russia, I've decided to provide my input. The simplest and fastest way to end the war in Ukraine is by taking out Russian artillery. Without Russian artillery, the Russian military is largely ineffectual. The Russian military often been described as an "Artillery army with tanks and human wave charges", and given their recent performance in Ukraine this would seem accurate. Russia has always depended heavily on artillery barrages, be it in WWI, WWII, in Chechnya or any conflict it's been in. Calling it the "King of battle", the Russians put an inordinate amount of emphasis on artillery, and use it in the same way the United States used carpet bombing during WWII, only with even less regard for civilian lives. Russian artillery bombardments killed more civilians than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs in notable shellings of cities during WWII, and unlike the U.S. they did not drop leaflets and try to warn civilians ahead of time. Despite modern JDAM's making precision bombs dropped from the air a reality, going from a 1 mile radius down to just 6-30 feet (2-10 meters) on average, Russia has instead continued it's trend of shelling in to oblivion any area it deems enemy territory. It is also inaccurate even by artillery standards, with Ukraine inflicting higher casualties on the Russians, despite Ukraine using approximately 1/3rd to 1/10th the amount of rounds as the Russians, and using the same type of artillery cannons. It's estimated Russia may have burnt through as much as 12 million of it's prior 17 million soviet stockpile of artillery ammunition, and that's just to gain slivers of territory in Ukraine, of which much of which it promptly lost. The key to stopping Russia in Ukraine is to take out their artillery; without it, their military would crumble. 70-85% of casualties on both sides are due to artillery, Russian artillery is it's only saving grace, and it's key to both preventing Ukrainian advances as well as advancing their own. The Russians also have enormous volumes of artillery from their soviet days, including artillery Ukraine was forced to give them, which only furthers this problem. Russian treaties have forced countries to give up artillery or long range missile systems that could counter them, resulting in an even greater advantage for Russia in this domain. A form of hybrid political warfare. 

Some would argue Ukraine should cede territory to Russia, although this a horrible idea for many reasons. Other than the immoral injustice of Ukraine having to surrender people who are being wholescale slaughtered to the Russians, the Russians open admission that they will not stop until Ukraine is demilitarized, Denazified, and "De-ukranized", implying a removal of over 1/3rd of the Ukranian people in a genocide (a stated objective by Russian media and Putin), it would encourage Russia to continue to gain victories in Ukraine. It needs to be clear to the Russians that Russia cannot win and has been soundly defeated, that it has lost over 300,000 men and half a million injured, for nothing, that it gained nothing and the Russians simply lost in a humiliating defeat. Russia must not be able to stroke it's ego and pride, or else the leaders can go back to their people and say the inordinate price was worth it. If the entire war was for nothing in the minds of the Russian people, than Russia cannot sell it defended Russia or achieved it's stated goals, which, while shifting and changing, would be impossible to deny if Russia was kicked out of Ukraine completely. As long as Russia has an inch of Ukrainian territory, it can sell to it's people the idea of victory, and will never truly stop it's campaign in Ukraine. 

Secondly, Crimea, the Donbass regions and others were surrendered by Ukraine after international opinion decided Ukraine MUST surrender this territory to Russia, and Russia not only invaded multiple times afterwards, but had any easier time doing so. Crimea was a shaping operation, to establish a foothold in Ukraine to launch another invasion. Russia has violated every single peace agreement and ceasefire Ukraine has agreed to, and has violated international law and committed heinous warcrimes from torturing prisoners to attacking civilians, to flooding areas to attacking nuclear reactors, and shelled entire cities in to oblivion. There is no reason to believe Russia would simply not try again, more emboldened and better rested with another ceasefire, as it did after Crimea and it's Donbas invasions more than 8 years prior. Finally, we see what happens to territory Ukraine cedes to Russia. Mariupol, despite surrendering to Russia, was bombed in to oblivion and nearly completely annihilated with 95% of the residents gone and over 95% of the buildings destroyed. Even if the territory was ceded, Russia is set on Deukranizing Ukraine, that is to remove all the Ukrainians. Given the castration and torture of Ukrainian prisoners, the mass rape and murder of woman, the Bucha massacre and kill lists targeting gun club members, bloggers, school teachers and other civilians directly, and the selling in to slavery Ukrainians to Chechnyan terrorists, Russia will not be kind to the people in the captured territories who are currently held hostage and have trouble escaping. The only thing that keeps Russia from murdering all of them is the fear of reprisal from Ukraine who may very well take this territory back one day. If it is handed to Russia, even for a few years, the civilians will likely all be wiped out in Brutal fashion, judging by what Russia has already done. 

We know this from Russia has already done to surrendered areas in Ukraine, the kidnapping and brainwashing and torture of 10's of thousands of Ukrainian children, which is considered so bad there now is an international arrest warrant out for Putin. We also know what the Russians have done in Chechenia by shelling entire cities such as Grozney, and in Georgia and Moldova. There isn't a way to let Russia think it has won that doesn't result in the genocide of millions of people. The only way to defeat Russia, is to defeat them militarily. To do that, Russian artillery must be removed, which both destroys entire cities and turns them in to rubble, and prevents Ukrainian advance. Ukrainian forces are relatively safe when in trenches or underground, but Ukraine loses thousands of men every month. However when they come above ground they have no protection, and artillery casualties may increase by over a 100 fold. When out in the open and stuck in half mile deep landmine fields, Ukranian forces simply cannot advance. The key to victory is taking out Russian artillery. To stop the slaughter of civilians, it is imperative that the west help Ukraine take out their most powerful and deadly weapon, which is the only reason why Russian forces have advanced at all.  

Additional options (covered trenches, drones, and body armor)

As said before, the key problem with the war has been artillery, which is responsible for 70-85% of casualties on both sides. One way to mitigate the advantages to artillery could be better defenses or armor, to allow troops to have a higher chance to survive an attack. This could take the form in better designs of trenches, which Ukraine has already implemented, or simply more reinforced trenches. One thing most infantry trenches lack is a roof, which means if shells do land in the trench or near it, troops are likely going to die. While air-bursting shells produce a lot of casualties, they don't often result in severe injury or death being so far away. But if a full sized artillery shell detonates inside of a trench, the impact is often devastating. While it may take on average 100-200 shells for the Russians to kill one Ukrainians, it takes about 500-1000 to actually land inside the trenches. But when it does, it results in many deaths per shell, as they are extremely large and powerful. It's so powerful that at 10 meters, it's rated to get through much tank armor, or 30mm resistant armor, as fired from the A-10 warthog. STANAG Level V rating requires stopping 30mm rounds or 155mm artillery shrapnel at 10 meters. Artillery often destroys enemy tanks through sheer shock force and through penetrating the weaker parts of the armor such as from the side or rear. If this lands within 30 feet of infantry, it practically guarantees their death. One way to prevent deaths from artillery and large injury figures, with ukraine being low on medical supplies especially after Russia used missiles to blow up civilian hospitals and create civilian casualties to overwhelm them, is simply to provide a roof. A very simple half pipe could be placed over a trench which would allow 5-10 feet of dirt to be placed on top, with pipes being found all over society and buried deep underground. Corrugated concrete, plastic or sheet metal could be use, and would allow the roof of a trench to withstand at least one direct hit from artillery and stop virtually all air-bursting shrapnel, greatly reducing civilian casualties. 

Early on in the war Ukraine attempted to do something like this, but had much of it's construction vehicles get destroyed as they weren't armored and essentially ad hoc units pressed in to service out of desperation. Armored construction vehicles as well as building supplies could be a great help to Ukraine, giving tanks with construction equipment added so these same vehicles could be multipurpose and not overly specific. As tanks and other vehicles are waiting for an offensive, they could be used to reinforce defensive positions. Furthermore the west could likely produce much better roofs for trenches, or even easily submerged full pipes outright, which would make them stronger and easier to deploy. Trenching equipment, trucks which can transport many half pipes and cranes to install them would speed up the process and allow enough to be built under Russian fire to reinforce these positions. The west should likely develop these resources themselves for their own purposes and start building reinforced trenches in the west as well. The best way to build these is over many years while not under Russian artillery fire, so it behooves us to start now.