So RAND Says the US Lost the Ukraine War and Should Surrender. What Next?

Author’s Note: RT did a second, larger write-up of the RAND paper, “Avoiding the Long War.” I read the original, but it takes so much effort to go through and pull the quotes that simply commenting on this piece is much easier.

Previously: RAND Think Tank Says Ukraine War No Longer Beneficial for Jewish “Double-Anal Agenda”

RAND coming out and saying that the US has already lost the war in the Ukraine and should just surrender is basically the biggest thing that has happened since the invasion.

Since US/NATO said flatly that there would never be any negotiations in March of 2022, we’ve kinda just been watching a machine process, where no one is really making any decisions. It was all just cruise control. The top war think-tank saying “okay let’s wrap this up and move on” creates a situation where something really could finally happen.

The fact is, “we need these resources for a war with the Chinese” is an argument that is actually going to resonate with a lot of people in Washington.


The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine.

The report has an unequivocal title, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” which provides a strong indication as to its contents.

It starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.

The US ending its financial, humanitarian and particularly military support promptly would cause Ukraine to completely collapse, and RAND cites several reasons why doing so would be sensible, not least because a Ukrainian victory is regarded as both “improbable” and “unlikely,” due to Russian “resolve,” and its military mobilization having “rectified the manpower deficit that enabled Ukraine’s success in the Kharkiv counteroffensive.”

It’s so funny the way the top Pentagon thinkers just say this so matter-of-factly while the entire US media – which also represents the US government – is out there saying the precise opposite. They are still literally saying that Russia is losing (as they call for infinity weapons to be dumped into the Ukraine to stop the anal Jewish fake country from collapsing).

The US media is just not even mentioning this RAND report at all. It’s spooky actually, the way this stuff can just be omitted.

While the Daily Stormer and other reality-based publications are talking about the RAND report, the top Ukraine article in the New York Times is talking about more braindead gibberish about how Russia is collapsing.

I wonder if these journalists believe this tripe?

Believing their own lies would certainly make their jobs a lot easier.

In my experience, they are very dumb people. Like, shockingly dumb. Less capable of following a train of thought than an auto mechanic. But how could they not be aware of this RAND report?

If the US surrender ends up being a surprise to the journalists, they’ll take it in stride like they did when they found out that the vax is neither safe nor effective.

From the perspective of US “interests,” RAND warns that while the Kremlin has not threatened to use nuclear weapons, there are “several issues that make Russian use of nuclear weapons both a plausible contingency Washington needs to account for and a hugely important factor in determining the future trajectory of the conflict.”

The think tank believes the Biden administration “has ample reason to make the prevention of Russian use of nuclear weapons a paramount priority.” In particular, it should seek to avoid a “direct nuclear exchange” with Moscow, a “direct conflict with Russia”, or wider “NATO-Russia war.”

This is while Petraeus is out there joking about nuclear weapons, saying it’s not really a big deal if Russia drops a couple nukes.

The entire Biden Administration is saying that Putin is insane and on drugs and getting ready to die, but that he is much too reasonable to ever use a nuke.

On the latter point, RAND worries that US general Mark Milley’s demand that the conflict stay “inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine”  is on the verge of being disrespected, as “the extent of NATO allies’ indirect involvement in the war is breathtaking in scope,” including “tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and other aid” and “tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support,” along with “billions of dollars monthly in direct budgetary support to Kiev.”

Such largesse could, RAND forecasts, prompt Moscow to “punish NATO members…with the objective of ending allied support for Ukraine; strike NATO preemptively if Russia perceives that NATO intervention in Ukraine is imminent; interdict the transfer of arms to Ukraine; retaliate against NATO for perceived support for internal unrest in Russia,” if the Kremlin concludes the country’s national security is “severely imperiled.”

I don’t agree with this part so much. Russia doesn’t want to escalate the war outside of the Ukraine. If they did, they would probably jump straight to nukes.

The US, on the other hand, has been casual about this. The Ukraine has attacked Poland, Belarus, Moldova, and Russia itself. The US has also attacked Germany by bombing those pipes, and they are actively trying to provoke some kind of thing in Kosovo.

If there were to be an official escalation in the Ukraine conflict, the US would do a false flag Russian attack on Poland (possibly something different like Finland, but most likely Poland).

These outcomes are “by no means inevitable,” but still represent an “elevated” risk, particularly in light of incidents such as a Ukrainian air defense missile striking Polish territory in November 2022 – a situation exacerbated by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky falsely claiming it was a deliberate Russian strike. While this event “did not spiral out of control, it did demonstrate that fighting can unintentionally spill over to the territory of neighboring US allies.”

See, they know. They just can’t use “false flag” type language, but everyone who is informed enough to be reading RAND papers in the first place understands what they’re talking about.

Another incident like that could mean “the US military would immediately be involved in a hot war with a country that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.” This, as well as a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia, is a prospect Washington should avoid at all costs, RAND argues.

A clear implication is the US could lose such a conflict, one key reason being, as pointed out by RAND, “the intensity of the military assistance” being given to Ukraine by its Western backers is already approaching an “unsustainable” level, with US and European weapons stocks “running low.” This consequently means a longer war equals more Ukrainian territory reunified with Russia.

On the subject of territorial losses, RAND is unmoved by arguments Ukraine should attempt to recapture all that it has lost since 2014, as “greater territorial control is not directly correlated with greater economic prosperity” or “greater security.”


That’s what I’ve said since 2014: capturing Crimea (or now the Donbass) wouldn’t improve the lives of the average hohol in any way, and it would not boost the status of the Ukraine as a country. This entire reasoning is fake, based totally on the US desire to hurt Russia. “Borders are sacred” is an ideological position, and not one that the US has ever cared for.

Land having been retaken by Kiev since September means “Russia has imposed far greater economic costs on the country as a whole.”

RAND also considers the worth of arguments that “greater Ukrainian territorial control” should be assured “to reinforce international norms, and to foster Ukraine’s future economic growth” to be “debatable,” as even in the “unlikely” event Kiev pushes “beyond the pre-February 2022 line of control and manages to retake areas that Russia has occupied since 2014,” the risks of escalation from Moscow, including “nuclear use or an attack on NATO” will “spike.”

This is all just basic common sense.

But it’s been shockingly absent from the discussion in Washington since this debacle began.

“The Kremlin would likely treat the potential loss of Crimea as a much more significant threat both to national security and regime stability,” the report warns.”

All these factors make “avoiding a long war…the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks,” so RAND recommends the US “take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely,” including “issuing assurances regarding the country’s neutrality,” something that Moscow had requested before the conflict began, to deaf ears, as well as “sanctions relief for Russia.”

Yes, they’re calling for Putin’s demands to be met, i.e., they are calling for a surrender.

Of course, it’s important to understand the context: these people are much more concerned about China than they are about Russia, because China is the real superpower threatening Western/Jewish dominance.

Russia, taking on the entirety of NATO, has managed to hold their ground. There is no chance that Russia is going to collapse any time soon. Some people in Washington apparently thought this would be an easy win, and it was not (mostly due to Russia’s ability to navigate the sanctions and actually increase the size of their economy, rather than due to their performance on the battlefield), so the logical thing now would be to cut their losses and focus on China.

People are Going to Look Stupid

The process has now begun. The call has been made and, as I’ve said since at least April, the US is simply burning resources without the potential of any benefit while Russia is making enough money from the economic boon of the US sanctions to keep doing what they’re doing for years.

The half-hearted commitment on the tanks shows that this has already begun to affect policy.

The people who promoted this war, or claimed that the Ukraine was going to win, or mocked Russia for not bringing down all of NATO in three days, are going to be very embarrassed. Maybe they won’t be, because it’s literally the same people who promoted the vax, and they apparently can’t really feel embarrassment.

For my part, I might go ahead and do a bit of gloating. Over the last few months, supposed right-wing people have come at me saying Russia is losing.

This huge spam campaign on Twitter is going to look very sad when the realization hits. As far as that goes: I think it will be very hard to do this kind of State Department spam on social media again. These people will try it when they start the war up with China, but people aren’t going to buy it a second time.

This should be a major boost for the morale of those opposing ZOG – even bigger than the Taliban victory.