At RealPolitics they excerpt a snippet from an interview of David Sacks in The Hill’s podcast, that may deserve some consideration:

So what you see now is there is no agreement within even the Ukrainian senior leadership, between Zelnsky and his advisors, and between Zelensky and his top general, about what is happening in the war.

I think now the truth has broken out, which is that Ukraine is not winning this war, the counteroffensive has been a failure, and if they don’t start doing something different, they’re headed for disaster.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY: Why do you think we’re getting this news now, that we’re getting the Time Magazine piece now? Certainly, circumstances on the ground haven’t been tony for Ukraine for a very long time, if ever. Do you think this is really about the United States making a choice about which of two ongoing wars it wants to throw its resources behind, and this is all being provoked by the fighting in Gaza? Or do you think it is being driven by the frustration with people inside his own regime, like this general who has been speaking out? To what do you attribute the change in tenor?

DAVID SACKS: I think that if Zelensky continues with this strategy of insisting on advances, there is a great fear on the part of the administration and within his own general corps that Ukraine will collapse.

Is he right? Is Ukraine on the verge of collapse?

Frankly, I doubt it and I suspect Mr. Sacks is misreading Ukrainian politics.

In his most recent New York Times column Tom Friedman says that it’s time for President Biden to promote a peace plan in the Israel-Hamas conflict and that it should be the plan that his predecessor called for in 2020:

Biden needs to say: “Israel, we are covering your flank militarily with our two aircraft carriers, financially with $14 billion in aid, and diplomatically at the U.N. The price for that is your acceptance of a peace framework based on two states for two indigenous peoples in Gaza, the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel. This plan is based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, which was also the cornerstone for negotiations in the peace plan put forward by President Trump in 2020.

“Bibi, do you remember what you said about that Trump plan that gave Palestinians about 70 percent of the West Bank for a state, plus an expanded Gaza Strip and a capital in the area of Jerusalem?” Biden could add. “Here’s the Associated Press story of Jan. 28, 2020, to remind you: ‘Netanyahu called it a ‘‘historic breakthrough’’ equal in significance to the country’s declaration of independence in 1948.’”

The Palestinian Authority foolishly rejected the Trump plan outright, instead of asking to use it as a starting point. This is a chance to make up for that mistake — or be exposed as unserious.

There are times when I wonder what opinion writers are smoking and this may be one of them. Several questions come to mind:

1. Does Mr. Friedman remember Harry Truman’s remark from back in 1952? “If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat.” In that light does he really think that Mr. Biden would advocate a plan proposed by Donald Trump?
2. Doesn’t that fly in the face of what President Biden has been saying since the beginning of the conflict?
3. Is this really the time to promote a peace plan? Specifically, is calling for a peace plan when the fate of the hostages Hamas seized on October 7 is still up in the air?
4. Would either the Israelis or the Palestinians support such a plan? There’s reason to believe that both groups see a two state solution as unworkable.
5. What good would a two state solution do if significant minorities in both camps are willing to oppose the other violently?

and that’s just off the top of my head.

The editors of the Washington Post exhort Senate Democrats to accept House Speaker Johnson’s proposal for preventing a federal government partial shutdown:

There’s much to dislike about Mr. Johnson’s plan for navigating the House Republicans’ internal divisions while preventing a shutdown, including its ungainly nickname, “a laddered continuing resolution.” As the moniker suggests, the plan would pass one short-term package to fund the military and veterans programs, agriculture and food agencies, and the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development until Jan. 19 and another to fund everything else until Feb. 2.

This sets up an ugly spending fight early next year, and it offers no additional aid for Israel and Ukraine — which the Biden administration urgently wants. Gimmicky as it is, though, Mr. Johnson’s proposed two-step increasingly looks like the best of many terrible options. Passing something like it averts a crisis and keeps the government funded at current levels through the holidays. It would also give the new speaker a very small victory as he gears up for tougher fights ahead. Getting the big funding bill done (for now) would let Congress use the rest of the year to focus on Israel and Ukraine. In short, it buys time for veteran lawmakers to try to find a way forward between two groups: far-right House Republicans, who say they will vote only for budget bills that slash domestic programs by at least 8 percent, and pretty much everyone else, who prefer to stick with the deal President Biden and Mr. McCarthy made in May. That agreement would keep spending essentially unchanged in 2024.

Senate Democrats are wise to express “openness” to this House GOP idea. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he supports it. House Democrats and the White House, at least behind closed doors, should do the same.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues and the war between Israel and Hamas intensifies, the world needs U.S. leadership. Shutting down the government, even briefly, would create a distraction for the Biden administration and undercut this nation’s credibility. On top of that, the U.S. creditworthiness is at stake. All three of the top credit rating agencies have now cited U.S. political dysfunction — including repeated shutdowns or near-shutdowns — as a reason to think twice about the nation’s future ability to manage its debts. The last near-shutdown, in September, triggered higher borrowing costs for weeks. If Republicans truly want to cut costs, they could start by avoiding these crises.

The passage I would like to focus on is the one I’ve highlighted. Is that actually true? Can you provide an example since 1995 in which U. S. leadership was a critical factor in preserving justice or maintaining the peace? I can’t come up with one. I would like to think of the United States as a force for good in the world but, frankly, I don’t think that’s been the case for a while.

That’s not a rhetorical question. I would really like to be proved wrong.

I recommend you read Yulia Latynina’s take on the war in Ukraine at The Hill. If you’re not familiar with her work she is a libertarian and is opposed to Russia’s war in Ukraine. She’s been declared a foreign agent by the regime. Here’s the conclusion of her piece:

Still, in Ukraine, the political reckoning for the failed summer offensive is coming. Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny, just admitted that the war is at a stalemate, and Oleksiy Arestovich — formerly an advisor to the president, brilliant and eccentric, who had an almost magic sway on the crowds in the first months of war — has just launched his presidential campaign with a hitherto taboo suggestion that Ukraine can forgo occupied territories in exchange for joining NATO. It was this breaking of ranks that prompted Zelenskyy’s desperate speech about “divisive manipulations.”

While Ukrainian democracy, wounded and traumatized, is slowly waking to the unpalatable truth, the Russian dictator lives in an alternate reality in which he is fighting a world war against America — and winning.

In the piece she comments on a number of developments of which I was unaware. Very imformative.

On Friday my wife and I went to see Donizetti’s 1840 comic opera at Lyric Opera. It was enormous fun. Neither my wife nor I had ever seen the work staged before and we both enjoyed it. The music—principals, chorus, and orchestra were uniformly excellent.

I don’t have words of praise strong enough for our Marie, sung by Lisette Oropesa. She was exceptional in every way from her singing through her acting to her physicality. She was simply brilliant and I hope we hear her again in something soon. Lawrence Brownlee did a fine job of singing the grueling role of Tonio (ten high Cs in a single aria!).

Hannah Edgar declaims:

Oropesa has sung Marie before — opposite Brownlee, no less, including a 2016 Washington National Opera production now famous for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cameo appearance as the Duchess of Crakentorp. Gawky and tomboyish, Oropesa’s Marie owns “Régiment’s” most hilarious and most vocally sublime moments. Oropesa’s coloratura stylings have a sturdy backbone, easily carrying over the orchestra and through the hall. Her upper register is tenacious, too — twice in this staging, Oropesa has to hit high notes while being hoisted in the air by castmates. Hearing her, one would never guess she was being tossed around like a Raggedy Ann doll while slugging out Ds above the staff.

Oropesa has sung Marie before — opposite Brownlee, no less, including a 2016 Washington National Opera production now famous for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cameo appearance as the Duchess of Crakentorp. Gawky and tomboyish, Oropesa’s Marie owns “Régiment’s” most hilarious and most vocally sublime moments. Oropesa’s coloratura stylings have a sturdy backbone, easily carrying over the orchestra and through the hall. Her upper register is tenacious, too — twice in this staging, Oropesa has to hit high notes while being hoisted in the air by castmates. Hearing her, one would never guess she was being tossed around like a Raggedy Ann doll while slugging out Ds above the staff.

It’s been 50 years since Lyric has produced Daughter of the Regiment.

Kyle MacMillan reports:

This presentation is a revival (directed by Christian Räth) of a co-production of the Royal Opera in London, Vienna State Opera and Metropolitan Opera in New York that was overseen by one the most talented and successful directors of our time, Laurent Pelly.

Rather than try to impose some kind of unnecessary, burdensome theatrical construct or concept onto this opera, Pelly has done what he always does so well, connect with the essence of this opera in an original, down-to-earth and delightfully entertaining way.

Nothing is ever static here. This production bustles with energy and movement (credit is also due to the original choreographer, Laura Scozzi), with, for example, the soldiers shuffling, clambering and marching to and fro and recoiling en masse and offering group double-takes to all that is happening.

and

A Lyric regular and understandably so, Corbelli is a superbly gifted comic actor who lights up the role of the lovable and grandiosely mustachioed Sulpice with his flawless French, boundless verve and burnished baritone voice.

Brownlee is particularly acclaimed as a bel canto interpreter, and it’s not hard to understand why. He shows an innate affinity for Donizetti’s vocal lines, investing his arias with compelling expressiveness and displaying dazzling technique as he hit every high note and garnered sustained ovations along the way Saturday evening.

The ultimate star of the show, though, is Oropesa, an American soprano who is making her Lyric debut. An innate physical comedian with a comfortable, compelling stage presence, she is a complete natural as Marie.

Oropesa has a supple, agile soprano voice, with a winningly honest and direct style. Seemingly unfazed by the vocal or physical demands of this role, this indefatigable singer handles its legendary coloratura with eye-opening ease and aplomb. Expect to see Oropesa back as soon as Lyric can re-sign her.

It’s been a while since we’ve had a star of Ms. Oropesa’s caliber at Lyric.

The Daughter of the Regiment is stunning and joyful, hilarious and fabulous, gorgeous and exquisite, clever and poignant. The music is beautiful. The arias soar. The performances are unforgettable. The orchestra’s terrific. It sounds fantastic and looks amazing. And above all, it is just pure fun. Undeniable, absolute fun. If you’re looking for an opera you can love, this is it.

Every review I’ve found recommended the production very highly.

Is it my imagination or are people energetically pursuing solutions to the problems they wish they had rather than the problems they actually face? Consider this characterization Sec. Blinken’s remarks last week by the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

Speaking in Tokyo last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken laid out five “Nos”: “No forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. . . . No use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or other violent attacks. No reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. No reduction in the territory of Gaza.”

Assuming that’s a fair characterization, it certainly appears to me that all parties are solving the problems they want to solve rather than the ones they have. Sec. Blinken is trying to achieve amity between an Israel different than the one that exists and a Hamas different from the on that exists, Israel is attacking a Gaza that does not exist while Hamas attacks an Israel that does not exist. The editors are criticizing a Biden Administration that does not exist:

While Biden Administration pessimism led it to withdraw from Afghanistan and surrender the territory, 6,000 miles away, to the Taliban, Israel doesn’t have that option. Gaza is next door. Ensuring “no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism” will require a decisive Israeli victory and more flexibility than “Nos” and “Musts” allow.

What exists? The agenda in Israel is controlled by a minority that believes that not only do they have a right to all of the land of Palestine (including present Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and more) but a religious obligation to those lands. Hamas believes that they have a right to all of the land of Palestine and a religious obligation to kill Jews and expel them from Palestine as “colonizers”. And the Biden Administration, rather than being pessimistic or soft on Iran, thinks in terms of nostrums and platitudes with an eye focused unswervingly on the next election.

I wish I saw a benign realworld solution to all of the problems but I don’t. I suspect that either the problems won’t get solved or the solutions won’t be benign.

I’m seeing complaints from a variety of sources in the press about political dysfunction in the United States. I wish I understood what they meant.

Since practically no one defines their terms these days, by inference I think they mean one or all of the following:

• The things that I want to do aren’t being accomplished
• People disagree
• People within the same party disagree
• The metrics I prefer, sometimes quite counter-intuitive and concocted to support a political point, prove that I’m right. Why do so many people think I’m wrong?
• Complaining about political dysfunction helps the people or party that I prefer

I can tell you what I would mean by political dysfunction: when the most radical factions are setting the agenda and they are unable or unwilling to compromise. I don’t think that any of the points in the bullet points above are indicative of political dysfunction. I think they’re indicative of democracy.

The irony of the complaints about political dysfunction is that so many of those doing the complaining hold views quite divergent from those held by a majority of Americans and they would be even more upset if those majority views were to gain real ascendancy.

Dictatorship and oligarchy are orderly. Democracy is messy.

I don’t have the time to devote to this post but it’s becoming apparent (see WaPo) that the Ukrainians were behind the sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines. I only have time to ask the question: is forcing Germany’s hand the act of an ally?

My answer to that is that there are priorities. For the Ukrainians detaching Germany from Russia was a higher priority than being Germany’s ally.

If the story has legs, there should be a price to pay. More fuel for delaying Ukraine’s admission to NATO or being under NATO’s aegis.

The editors of the Washington Post encourage support for Ukraine:

The steady but deliberate pace of Western arms deliveries has frustrated Mr. Zelensky. Ukraine rightly fears it has been given enough to survive but not enough to win, in part because of President Biden’s concerns about escalation with Russia. Congress can boost Ukrainian morale and military performance by passing a large economic and military aid package in the coming weeks, sufficient to avoid stop-start disruptions in the year ahead. Despite the reluctance of some House Republicans, there remains a sizable majority in both chambers for such a package.

The United States and its allies should also work to frustrate the Kremlin’s growing circumvention of the cap of $60 per barrel on Russian oil exports. The cap allows Western companies to ship, trade or insure Russian oil only if sold at or below the cap ― or else face penalties. But Russian oil companies and traders have built a shadow fleet of tankers to bypass the cap, and its biggest customers, China and India, don’t honor the cap, although they purchase Russian oil at a discount. Overall, Russian oil revenue rose by more than a quarter in October compared with the same month last year. The revenue will help Russia support the war effort. The West should continue to press sanctions on those who facilitate the shadow fleet.

However, their conclusion includes a point that bears comment:

In the end, Ukraine may face the reality that it needs to negotiate with a Russian foe willing to endlessly sacrifice treasure and lives on the battlefield. That point has not been reached, but the West should give Ukraine the leverage to drive the best possible bargain if the time comes. And that leverage means preserving Ukraine’s chance to survive and grow as a thriving European democracy, not a vassal of the Kremlin.

Unmentioned is that the “steady but deliberate” pace of Western arms deliveries is the maximum that we can achieve without increasing production capacity and increasing production capacity is in conflict with the goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Also, note that the objective they’re advocating is not the one that Ukrainian President Zelensky avers. It is, however, consistent with the lesser objective that I’ve been articulating here: our objectives should be to ensure that Ukraine doesn’t lose outright and that there is a Ukraine when the war concludes. Those objectives require that Ukrainians and Russians get to the bargaining table quickly which neither side is willing to do at this point.

There’s something about the editors’ plan that reminds me of the stories of Hitler in his bunker as Allied forces approached Berlin, ordering nonexistent units into battle.