The tragedy affects all humanity. The scientist who would have cured cancer; the next Pushkin; slaughtered over a patch of mud. The loss is staggering; Chefs and Plumbers; Playwrights and musicians; brilliant young men and women; murdered.
Our lives are shittier because of the Somme, our grandkids lives will be damaged from this one.
Never fear Tompon. African and the Middle East are sending boatloads of chefs, playwrights, and musicians, as well as physicians and engineers, to Europe every day.
Tom Yardley: Such is the perversity of the human condition. The tragedy of war has also produced great literature, great medical and technical advancements, great plays, great music, and brilliant men and women who may otherwise have remained unknown, along with their discoveries.
No, I am not arguing for war, but, war has made us who we are, and produced the society we now have; both the bad and the good.
Bubba I fought in a war That started when I was in the third grade, I saw High School boys graduate and get drafted to fight in that war, 1,353,000 people died, Due to Agent orange and UXB people are still dying in that war. The US had 58,281 KIA, 153,372 WIA, 1,584 MIA.
In the end, That war like Afganistan and Iraq, was lost and the US government sailed away.
It was a war fought for nothing.
Unlike WW2.
There is no sense in fighting a redux of Vietnam/Afganistan for basically nothing.
I come from a military line of family and I approve of their decision.
We part company on the causes. Putting NATO on the border with Russia has always been a serious redline. There is no proof Russia has any intentions of absorbing Ukraine. Only that the Russian speaking areas will be absorbed and has been. If the west had not pushed this the war would never have happened. The fault lies nearly completely in the West and our insane elites. Biden and his team seem hell bent on WW3. I've studied Russian history in College long ago. I think its absolutely necessary to understand the history of Ukraine and Russia before analyzing the war.
What do you assume that CDR Sal and others have not studied Ukraine and Russia, not only in college, but in decades of professional, high level Staff positions in their military career?
Ru imperialism is not a hypothetical. There is a deep strain of that ideology within Ru's geopolitical-focused elites and reinforced by the Ru Orthodox Church. That said, I don't believe imperialism drove Ru's decision to invade Uk. The roots of why Ru went into Uk flow back to the consequences of all the events that have unfolded since the fall of the Soviet Union. To be clear, I'm not excusing Ru's wretched behavior and their war crimes.
I have been listening and reading to Mark and Sal, their guests, and the Front Porch folks for the better part of a decade. It is not an assumption; it is knowing the facts of Sal & Company's experience and education discussed over the years.
The US and NATO made the big mistake that George Kennan often warned about, and that was to push NATO up to the borders of Russia leaving no neutral buffer zone between NATO and the Russian bear.
Yes, the Russian bear post Soviet Union has always had an ambition to reconstitute the Russian Empire. But one thing we in the west should not have done was to mindlessly give the Russians a rational reason to justify their imperialism.
Not to mention the nature and extent of the original decapitation attack attempt at the beginning of the war. That bespeaks absorbing Ukraine in total, not just the Donbas.
Russia actuall hoped force the more sane heads in Ukraine to the peace table. Ukraine would have kept most everything but Crimea. The UK pm put a stop to that on Amercan order...blackrocks investments are more importanr then peoples lives you know...
The Kremlin is busy winning to care much about what we OR our crumbling proxy army says about anything. Putin was at 90% in the polls last I heard to....
No, it doesn't. It bespeaks an effort to end the war as quickly as possible. Prussia occupied Paris for years after the Franco-Prussian war, then withdrew. Napoleon occupied Moscow and other capitols, and the anti-Napoleon alliance also occupied Paris.
So the Mayor of Moscow and some unnamed "other Russians" make Russian foreign policy? Russia may not be much of a democracy but there are still a number of opinions expressed in Russia.
Come on, you know damn well all I'm doing is acknowledging that there have been political factions bitching about Ukraine and wanting it back for decades.
Pay attention to the countries that know Russia best: those on its borders. All of those countries know that the only way to survive was to join NATO. And after spending the entire Cold War as neutrals, Sweden and Finland realized it too. To deny them the possibility of long-term survival safe from Russia was never in the cards.
You mean like when we invaded or attacked Haiti or Panama or Grenada or the Dominican Republic or Serbia or Lebanon or Iraq or Chile or Libya or Somalia or….
No, Putin et al. made it quite clear for a couple of decades that a NATO presence on the borders of Russia was unacceptable. Unlike mealy-mouthed European and American political hacks who are fond of that word he actually meant that Russia wouldn't accept it. I believe FAFO is the currently fashionable acronym.
Cut our losses. (I estimate we have squandered a trillion dollars on Ukraine in outright grants, equipment that had already been paid for and future obligations.)
It didn’t work out like Trump university or his casinos in Atlantic City.
No sense in throwing good money after bad.
I think we could cut a deal now that leaves Russia with Crimea and the four Russian speaking provinces. If we wait any longer then Ukraine will lose all its territory east of the Dniper and Odessa.
Our Ivy League neocon geniuses in the government were obsessed with humiliating Russia. They dreamed of a Pax Americana where they would pull the strings from behind the scene.
This war is lost. If it were a football game, it'd be 28-7 with 5 minutes in the fourth quarter. The best Ukraine can hope for is to be a non-aligned, disarmed rump state and Russia gets to keep the oblasts filled with ethnic Russians, as it should be.
We should've never been involved in this war. There are no vital national interests here except for the insufferable hatred our neocon nutters have for the Russians.
I feel bad for the Ukies, but we did overthrow their elected government and replaced it with that puppet dictator/head thief Zelensky.
That little beggar once played a piano with his genitalia and is lower than whale crap on the bottom of the ocean like the feckless carny trash he is.
Hundreds of thousands are dead and billions wasted because we can't control the neocons and consign them to the outer darkness where they belong.
The insatiable love MAGA has for Putin knows no bounds. Blame for the war rest squarely on the shoulders of the authoritarian dictator that started it. Any Charlie Kelly conspiracy board suggesting otherwise is pure kremlin agitprop.
And when Russia reinvades Ukraine in 5 years, what then? What about when Russia invades Poland or Lithuania, say goodbye to NATO? And when China tells all would be America allies in the Pacific that America is a fair-weather friend, just look at what they did to those poor Ukrainians, what then? Sacrifice the dollar as the world's reserve currency? Retreat behind fortress America and eek out whatever we can in a world order determined by Putin and Xi? No thank you.
The Russians aren’t the Nazis. They have no designs or need to conquer Europe. They already have them by the short and curlies thanks to energy.
Break free of your neocon propaganda and see this isn’t our fight. We broke the Minsk Accords. We “color revolutioned” Russia’s neighboring states’ governments and stirred up trouble to poke the Bear.
The Ukies have been fighting a brutal war in the Donbass for years. A vote to join Russia in that oblast showed those people wanted to be part of Russia.
"when China tells all would be America allies in the Pacific that America is a fair-weather friend,"
I think all our allies in the Pacific are smart enough to draw their own conclusions, at least partly based on America's bold and straightforward response to past and current Chinese aggression against them and violations (plural) of past agreements (also plural).
CDR Sal, what a mess. Happy ending? The history in this particular region is mind bogglingly bad. Cain and Abel bad (brother killing brother). National "interests" and nation's leaders "interests" don't always align...Putin's interests (restore the USSR? Welcome clarity there from someone who "knows that's his aim (I don't) ". From my perspective, Zelensky is a locked black box wrapped in nationalism). Legitimate question: what happens when Putin is gone (which can't be long). Who takes his place? What happens when Russia is so weak that China simply annexes Siberia? Putin has committed international war crime level aggression (ask the U.N. is you doubt that...oh, wait)...and the West seems happy to fund the conflict to it to the last drop of Ukrainian blood. Recent escalations (ATACMS green light), UK / France "supportive pronouncements" reinforce the status quo of continued...but escalating, perhaps dangerously so, force on force activity. Wielding a righteous sword while...perhaps...war profiting is...perhaps...disingenuous. OBTW, saving the worst for last: all those nukes, potentially being used, or misused, or flooding the global nuclear grey market as the former Soviet Union continues its death thrashes. The new administration really has its work cut out for it.
Western defense contractors are happy. Western politicians are grateful for their hard-won political donations from defense contractors (traveling to Ukraine for photo ops is a real chore). Investors are thankful for the opportunities created by various "dislocations" that were consequences of war in Ukraine (grain, shipping, oil, LNG).
Ethnic Russians and Ukrainians have been at each other throats for hundreds and hundreds of years. NATO jumped in for fun and profit and it worked.
World oil markets have been happy for the last three years. The US and EU diplomats and political leaders have spent 36 months hand waving on cutting off RUS capability to wage war using funds from their oil proceeds. In the meantime, behind the curtain they have allowed RUS to build and maintain a shadow fleet that has kept the oil flowing out of the county and revenue flowing in. RUS production and revenue is now greater than it was at the start of the war. Refined product made from this "restricted" oil continues to flood world markets in the greatest money laudering scheme history has ever seen. Of course, if the US and EU players meant what they said and had the necessary naval and coast guard assets then the RUS shadow fleet could have been nipped in the bud.
But then this comes as no surprise. The 4th rate Houthis have managed to affect control over the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Puts no responsibility on the authoritarian dictator that started this war, is a key sign that what you are reading is not "sober realist analysis" but Kremlin agitprop.
R. James: I am not assigning responsibility. I am commenting upon motivations of certain parties that are involved in the conflict, even if only as sources of funding and military supplies, although the involvement probably goes deeper, into the supplying of intelligence and assistance with operational execution. Obviously, Putin and the Russians have their own motivations. I am not disputing that Russia invaded the Ukraine.
Your original comment puts the blame on the West. It has the hallmarks of Kremlin propaganda: gaslighting the West into blaming itself while admitting no fault on the part of Russia for starting a war of naked aggression and territorial expansion.
Jumping junipers on a dung heap---so what? Kremlin propaganda supported Social Security and the New Deal in the 1930s. Kremlin propaganda has also supported peace, bread, and land for a century. God forbid, evidently, that I should support those " hallmarks of Kremlin propaganda:"
The various nations and ethnicities of Europe have been at each others throats for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Ukraine voluntarily joined the Russian Empire over 200 years ago because they wanted protection from Poland and Lithuania. A fair percentage of the US population is descended from people who came here to get away from that crap. Now their descendants want to dive back in.
Ukraine is running out of motivated infantry. The West's support has been "what can we spare", not "what must we sacrifice." War on the cheap meant waiting 2 years to start scaling up production. Russia has found a set of tactics that works - meat assaults, CS gas, artillery, and glide bombs - but at a high cost. The next year is likely to be the year of decision. I see no sign that anyone in the West is prepared to change the trajectory of this war.
I really like your articles because they teach me a lot but have a few questions, some with obvious answers and some with not.
1. What does Putin and Russia desire and why? If it’s an expanded Russia to exert its philosophical way of life on other people, to what end? Putin is extremely intelligent so if he simply looks at the numbers he knows that his way of life is inferior to the west and specifically the United States. If it wasn’t then it would be Russia with an expanding population and cutting edge technology and their navy that dominates the sea lanes.
This isn’t the case and you simply have to look at East Germany’s trend line from the end of World War II to reunification with West Germany to see the truth. The truth is that they were a stagnant and depressed country with an intrusive police state and one of the highest rates of suicide in Europe.
“Wisdom is justified by her works” is something a very special man said and was recorded in a very special book. If the Soviet way of doing business was better than it would’ve been justified by superior results in East Germany. They are not and it was not.
2. Despite the intentions that Putin may have, he is one man limited by the capabilities and numbers of people behind him. Can he realistically take over a unified and determined Europe? Looking at the numbers and the potential industrial outputs the answer is probably no. So why then the hesitancy from Europe to strengthen itself and make entry from the east a very hard proposition?
The Europeans are the ones who will lose their way of life if occupied by Russia, so I suggest they get off their arse and start acting like it. They don’t have the luxury of an ocean separating them from their potential aggressor. They need to get serious and it needs to be today.
3. I agree that Trump should have a FAFO attitude towards further western expansion by Russia. If we fully mobilize our war machine, Russia cannot match it. We know that, Russia knows that. At the same time, I don’t think Trump would’ve antagonized the Russians. Adding Ukraine to NATO… what would that have bought us exactly from a security perspective? It clearly made the Russians feel vulnerable enough to lash out. Was the benefit of adding Ukraine to NATO worth the price the Ukrainians and Russians have had to pay?
I don’t know. I do understand that there is a fine line between being peaceful and appearing weak and inviting aggression. Hind sight being 20/20 what would’ve been the best way to harden Ukraine while at the same time not provoking Russia? Should we have fully committed our military right from the outset of hostilities to inflict maximum casualties on the Russians and force them to the peace table sooner? Again, I don’t know. Maybe depleting Russian equipment and manpower was the right answer to diminish their ability to push westward but it sure had a high price tag for both sides.
Anyways, always like your articles and train of thought and look forward to reading them.
1. A little research will answer this question. You can start with Tucker Carlson's interview. Russia is still recovering from the wounds of communism, but at least they're not sacrificing their young to a perverted ideology.
2. Schrodinger's Russia: can't beat Ukraine, will roll to Lisbon if unopposed.
3. Mobilize what war machine? It's not 1991 anymore, that war machine is long gone.
I think I agree with you Billy. I do not believe Russia is any shape from a manpower or logistics perspective to roll into Europe.
I am not privy to classified information so perhaps there are 100 million more young Russian men hidden somewhere just waiting to called into the armed forces… but I really doubt it.
War is expensive for all parties. I hope the Trump administration can bring a peaceful resolution about.
While I disagree with Phib on many of these points, I respect the hell out of our host and he has my undying respect and friendship. There are likely many scenarios that will be an amalgamation of all the COA’s proposed.
Whatever commitments we have made with our retarded WEF / EU “Frens”, were never executed with a clear and sober mind. We had no plan, we had no influence on the Ukrainian leadership to act with intention against the Russian army. We had no true understanding of Russian military strategy or tactics and we continue to ascribe our western thinking to explain what the Russian military goals are. We suffer from a lack of ground truth. We simply throw outdated weapons and money at the problem. All the NATO members got on board seeing an opportunity to trade old tanks and aircraft for new tanks and F-35’s. The MIC is making a killing.
Our talking head retired generals and military “experts” haven’t seen the football since the kickoff. They failed to take Russia at her word. They think Russia is “losing” because they haven’t executed a “blitzkrieg” breakthrough. This demonstrates an embarrassing lack of understanding of Russian use of Artillery and small unit strike forces. A lack of understanding and failure to self analyze and course correct over Russian military tactics and actions. A failure to admit and see that the russian plan has always been to fight a war of attrition.
We have hopium that Russia is running out of troops and weapons. The reality is Ukraine is the one suffering from generational losses that will effect Ukraine and Eastern European economies and nations for decades.
The citizens of the west underestimated the veracity of the EU elite using Ukraine as a money laundering scheme since 2009. The citizens of the west are playing a tragic game of national suicide as they see as their economies are destroyed by the war, lack of fuel, perfect storm of green energy bullshit and Islamic colonization. The Western Europe elites are bent on remaining on power and under the color of “rules based order” are controlling their people in a new tyranny.
The off-ramps are clear and as described by Putin in the very beginning:
- Denazification of the Ukrainian army
- Destruction of the Ukrainian military
- Annex the Donbas (LPR AND DPR)
- make a NATO membership of Ukraine an impossibility
These aren’t my conditions and I don’t agree with them, but these are what Putin stated unequivocally.
There were and remains other possible goals for Russia as well:
- capture and annexation of Odessa
- new eastern border of Dnipro river
- possible partition of Kiev
It’s pretty interesting though that those of us who saw the clarity of the causal factors of NATO expanding where it shouldn’t were demonized by many even here on the front porch. Labeled “Russian Bots” or “Putin mouth pieces”. I find that as funny as it is intellectually dishonest. Battle lines were drawn quickly here and in real life. The conclusion of this war will be what it will be and on Russia’s terms and timelines. I hope we can get out of it alive and without a nuclear exchange.
Seeing the fact that there is no national interest for the United States, doesn’t make one a traitor. It makes one a realist.
War is a messy business and this war is tragic. At the end of the day, Ukraine and Russia will be brothers again and they will both blame the west and the US and UK in particular as the agents of evil for this war.
"At the end of the day, Ukraine and Russia will be brothers again and they will both blame the west and the US and UK in particular as the agents of evil for this war."
Those who understand the history of the region will recognize this obvious truth. Those Western elites who have grifted on, and fomented, eastern European corruption are just as blind as the ivory tower elites playing Model UN as our host alluded to.
Having both Russian and Ukrainian friends and colleagues (and a part-Ukrainian CINCHOME) I wish to avoid generational losses to both sides. I have no use at all for the leadership of either Russia or Ukraine, and less for what we've had to put up with in the West for most of my life. I don't have a good answer to offer.
I am particularly impressed by this obvious Russian bot that has been commenting on everything from our Civil War navy to DEI programs for the last two decades, just waiting for the right time to pop up and spread the Russian lies. They are a cunning, patient people for sure.
" We had no true understanding of Russian military strategy or tactics..."
If so, it is because our "leaders" and "experts" refused to understand it. Soviet and Russian military thought has been pretty much an open "secret" from the beginning. And they shared it with their allies & clients.
" They think Russia is “losing” because they haven’t executed a “blitzkrieg” breakthrough."
Kind of reminds me of WWI in 1916. Russia now, like Germany then, occupies large amounts of enemy territory. And Europe wants us to get more involved, again.
And yet the Ukrainians, in their wisdom and knowledge of the Russians due to over two centuries of being Russians themselves, chose to enshrine NATO membership in their Constitution.
That would play into Putin and Xi's hand. Far from pissing them off. It will allow Russia time to reconstitute its forces and invade Ukraine again or another Eastern European neighbor. It will also allow China to tell every would be ally of the US especially those in the Indo-Pacific that the US is a fair-weather friend who will not come to their aide, undermining any alliance to protect Taiwan.
So what do you have in mind to prevent future Russian aggression? Perhaps we should declare WWIII and conquer and occupy Russia to prevent possible future naughtiness?
Who breaks first in the Winter War of 2022? The bigger point of the piece is correct in that the search for silver bullet wonder weapons to make war between great powers cheap and fast is an illusion. At best, short-term advantages provide a temporary edge until counter-measures in weapons, protection, and tactics at least partially negate the new technology edge. But right now the question is who wins the current war.
Assuming both sides are waiting for the other side to collapse is the right assessment. That neither side is "willing" to collapse is irrelevant. Collapse is something that happens contrary to what one wants. And it happens slowly and then suddenly.
Right now it is difficult to see who is closer to collapse. Much is opaque. We see reports but assume that we can disregard such signs because one or both sides is immune because they have a history of enduring (which applies to both Ukrainians and Russians) or that they have superior morale because they are defending their country (which some say applies to Russians "restoring" their empire; but which seems to apply more to Ukraine). Or that they have superior manpower and materiel (which mostly applies to Russia). The one sign that we can see is territorial control changes. And recently Russia is gaining territory more rapidly--still slowly--as that ISW report discusses. Does that visible sign that points to Ukraine being the first to collapse outweigh the factors we can't fully measure or appreciate?
So who collapses first and who can exploit the collapse? World War I saw three significant collapses: French, Russian, and German. Russian troop morale collapsed in 1917. Germany was able to exploit that to push deeper into Russia to force Russian qualified surrender with massive territorial concessions.
But this was not a one-on-one war. Germany shifted troops to the Western Front and tried to win on the battlefield before American power could be decisive. Despite gaining ground in big chunks after three years of stalemate, German losses eventually broke the German army in 1918. And the Allies were able to begin pushing the German army back. Germany agreed to a qualified surrender and went home--which also saved Russia from its qualified surrender to Germany the year before.
So the ability to exploit a collapse is important to success. The third collapse, that of France's army that refused to attack only to die in huge numbers, went undiscovered by the Germans in 1917. The French army eventually recovered and the leadership committed to making sure firepower and not lives were the means to win. Had the Germans known about the collapse, perhaps they could have attacked and done to the French what they did too the Russians.
These examples make it seem as if Russia has the advantage in the battle for who collapses first and who can exploit it.
Despite massive losses in men and materiel, Russia has the initiative across the front--even in the Kursk salient. So if Ukraine collapses first, Russia will be able to exploit it. As the Germans did on the Eastern Front and the Allies did on the Western Front.
If Russia collapses first, Ukraine seems to lack the forces to exploit that collapse by attacking. So Russia may survive that breakdown and recover without serious repercussions. Indeed, I believe that Russia may have effectively collapsed--let's call it a serious culmination--by autumn 2022. But while Ukraine was able to push back on Kharkiv and Kherson fronts, Ukraine lacked the military power to really hammer the Russians and fully crack Russia's teetering ground forces.
I was desperately looking for a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the fall or winter. And every week that passed without that raised my fear that Ukraine was granting Russia the valuable commodity of time. And by the time Ukraine organized and equipped enough troops to attack in the summer of 2023, its was too late. Russian morale recovered. Reinforcements were mobilized and deployed. And Russia dug in with multiple defense lines, planted minefields, and posted reserves behind the lines with artillery support. Ukraine failed.
So now we wait to see if either side collapses and if the other can exploit it.
And we wait to see if the Ukrainians and Russians who may see clearly the factors opaque to outsiders will welcome an opportunity provided by a Trump presidency to end the war on barely acceptable terms rather than risk collapse and disaster.
And so another revolution in military affairs dies in the mud and blood of trenches.
Sorry I droned on. I'll probably have to post this as the draft for a stand-alone on my home turf, too. But I appreciate the framing our host has provided for the way out of this war in Europe. There may be no happy endings given the death and destruction both sides have endured. But there are certainly degrees of less sad endings to struggle for. And given that Ukraine has endured beyond three weeks as both Russia and America (offering Zelensky a ride out before the collapse) expected in February 2022, not losing and suffering occupation and elimination as an independent state is as happy an ending Ukraine can get right now.
Which makes me wonder why we are not as openly and vocally pro-Taiwan as we are pro-Ukraine. Why not push as hard for a US-Taiwan Security Treaty as for Ukraine membership in NATO?
Everyone here will be pleased to learn that yesterday the current Administration committed to $50M to a Ukraine Mental Health initiative. Get your ideas submitted for this last gasp of grift. The due date for your proposal just happens to be January 15th.
Sorry, this is just a brief note - getting ready for Thanksgiving. Have huge respect for you, so feel like a bratty student writing this - but given the crazy talk about WW3 The Ukraine business has been going on since at least the Orange Revolution. Been long standing State Dept policy to weaken USSR by gnawing at countries around its edges. As the USSR was ending, we traded assurances of NATO "not one inch east" for the reunification of Germany. [Without the Communist or imperial mandate for expansion, the Russian Federation needed to find a new way. Thanks to the Harvard boys and their shock treatment, economy went to hell.]
Back to NATO: It continued east despite no Warsaw Pact to defend against, nor an expansionist Communist power. After the US backed Maidan revolution [Vicky Nuland and her cookies], the Ukrainians upped their attacks on the Russian speaking Oblasts in the Donbass including targeting civilians. Separatists had Ukraine army in a fire bag and viola Minsk cease fire fully backed and negotiated with Putin, Ukraine, Germany, France. As Merkel admitted later, Minsk was a stalling tactic to rearm Ukrainian army. The OSCE monitored all violations. 85 Days to Slavyansk is good book. PS. The ISW is run by Kim Kagan, Nuland's sister-in-law. Neo-cons.
So anyone who you disagree with is a “Russian Bot”? Echo chamber much. You can’t hear an opposing viewpoint because it fucks up your blind Neocon programming.
Brave Search Summary: Who leads the ISW?: Dr. Kimberly Kagan, Founder and President of ISW. She founded ISW in 2007 and has been instrumental in shaping its research agenda and direction.
General Jack Keane (US Army, Retired), Chairman of the ISW Board. He has played a central role in developing the intellectual foundation for ISW’s research and has supported the organization’s formation.
A poll published on November 19th (Gallup) indicates the following:
The majority of Ukrainians support a negotiated settlement of the war, even if it involves ceding territory.
The majority of Ukrainians would prefer that negotiations be conducted by the EU or the UK rather than the United States.
I've long supported financial and military aid to Ukraine. However, "Don't" or "as long as it takes" is not a strategy unless it is to prolong the war. Suddenly, the "strategy" has changed. Now, the US and NATO have decided that Ukraine can use long-range missiles to attack deeper into Russian territory.
Why the abrupt shift? Is it due to North Korean troops have been deployed in the Kursk region? Is the Biden Administration attempting to lock the Trump Administration into a no-win position? Recently, the French Foreign Minister has stated that it is possible that, if requested by Zelensky, France would send military assets to Ukraine. Belarus is a co-belligerant. China, Iran, and North Korea are supplying the Russian Army with the means to continue the war. There have been reports that Russia has recruited Chinese mercenaries as well as attempting to recruit from Africa.
Like it or not, the fifteen-day "Special Military Operation" is becoming a World War.
Acccording to the ISW, the United States is by far the largest contributor to the support of Ukraine. Many in Europe have framed the conflict around the "strategy" that the Ukraine conflict poses a direct threat to European peace and security. We should wonder why the Europeans are not contributing substantially more to Ukraine and by their argument to their defense.
For the incoming administration, there are three other problems. First, every piece of equipment drawn from existing stocks has to be replaced. Second, our defense-industrial base is not robust enough to replace that equipment. Third, military support for Ukraine decreases our ability to deter the CCP or fight an Indo-Pacific War.
You are mistaken that military support for Ukraine decreases our ability to deter the CCP or fight an Indo-Pacific War. To do either requires not just ordinance but allies. The goal of the CCP in propping up Russia is to undercut US security guarantees in order to convince US Allies and Partners in the Pacific not to join the US alliance because
'America is a fair-weather friend'. 'Just look at how the US treated its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.'
The CCP also seeks to prop up Russia's position in Ukraine ahead of a peace negotiation in order to extract more concessions from the Ukrainians in order to humiliate the US. This strategy was outlined by a Chinese think tank this month with backing of no less than the Deputy Chairman of the CMC. So, the US decreasing its support of Ukraine and forcing it to the negotiating table will play into China's hands and undermine America's ability to build an alliance in the Indo-Pacific.
If the US writes off Zelensky and the Ukrainians after three years' heroic war against superior forces, we may as well write off Israel and Taiwan and be done with this world power stunt.
The tragedy affects all humanity. The scientist who would have cured cancer; the next Pushkin; slaughtered over a patch of mud. The loss is staggering; Chefs and Plumbers; Playwrights and musicians; brilliant young men and women; murdered.
Our lives are shittier because of the Somme, our grandkids lives will be damaged from this one.
Never fear Tompon. African and the Middle East are sending boatloads of chefs, playwrights, and musicians, as well as physicians and engineers, to Europe every day.
Tom Yardley: Such is the perversity of the human condition. The tragedy of war has also produced great literature, great medical and technical advancements, great plays, great music, and brilliant men and women who may otherwise have remained unknown, along with their discoveries.
No, I am not arguing for war, but, war has made us who we are, and produced the society we now have; both the bad and the good.
My Grandkids have said they won't go fight in another stupid war for somebody not American.
If our grandfathers were as selfish, imagine the world we'd live in today.
Bubba I fought in a war That started when I was in the third grade, I saw High School boys graduate and get drafted to fight in that war, 1,353,000 people died, Due to Agent orange and UXB people are still dying in that war. The US had 58,281 KIA, 153,372 WIA, 1,584 MIA.
In the end, That war like Afganistan and Iraq, was lost and the US government sailed away.
It was a war fought for nothing.
Unlike WW2.
There is no sense in fighting a redux of Vietnam/Afganistan for basically nothing.
I come from a military line of family and I approve of their decision.
We part company on the causes. Putting NATO on the border with Russia has always been a serious redline. There is no proof Russia has any intentions of absorbing Ukraine. Only that the Russian speaking areas will be absorbed and has been. If the west had not pushed this the war would never have happened. The fault lies nearly completely in the West and our insane elites. Biden and his team seem hell bent on WW3. I've studied Russian history in College long ago. I think its absolutely necessary to understand the history of Ukraine and Russia before analyzing the war.
What do you assume that CDR Sal and others have not studied Ukraine and Russia, not only in college, but in decades of professional, high level Staff positions in their military career?
Yes, CS lost me at Russian imperialism, then copying over ISW.
Ru imperialism is not a hypothetical. There is a deep strain of that ideology within Ru's geopolitical-focused elites and reinforced by the Ru Orthodox Church. That said, I don't believe imperialism drove Ru's decision to invade Uk. The roots of why Ru went into Uk flow back to the consequences of all the events that have unfolded since the fall of the Soviet Union. To be clear, I'm not excusing Ru's wretched behavior and their war crimes.
Why do you assume they have?
I have been listening and reading to Mark and Sal, their guests, and the Front Porch folks for the better part of a decade. It is not an assumption; it is knowing the facts of Sal & Company's experience and education discussed over the years.
They reinforce your perceptions aka cognitive dissonance. Which I thought was trained out of tactical thinkers
The US and NATO made the big mistake that George Kennan often warned about, and that was to push NATO up to the borders of Russia leaving no neutral buffer zone between NATO and the Russian bear.
Yes, the Russian bear post Soviet Union has always had an ambition to reconstitute the Russian Empire. But one thing we in the west should not have done was to mindlessly give the Russians a rational reason to justify their imperialism.
"There is no proof Russia has any intentions of absorbing Ukraine"
Yury Luzhkov (Mayor of Moscow) started pushing for reclaiming Sevastopol in 1996.
There are other russians who have claimed Ukraine belongs to Russia and those claims have been published for almost 30 years.
Those comments caused Ukraine to start seeking NATO membership before Clinton left office.
Not to mention the nature and extent of the original decapitation attack attempt at the beginning of the war. That bespeaks absorbing Ukraine in total, not just the Donbas.
Russia actuall hoped force the more sane heads in Ukraine to the peace table. Ukraine would have kept most everything but Crimea. The UK pm put a stop to that on Amercan order...blackrocks investments are more importanr then peoples lives you know...
More Kremin lies.
The Kremlin is busy winning to care much about what we OR our crumbling proxy army says about anything. Putin was at 90% in the polls last I heard to....
600,000 casualties in two years is winning apparently.
"Putin was at 90% in the polls last I heard to...."
Yes, because the Russian people love Mr. Putin. Or at least that's what they say in public to a state-run media company...
"That bespeaks absorbing Ukraine in total,"
No, it doesn't. It bespeaks an effort to end the war as quickly as possible. Prussia occupied Paris for years after the Franco-Prussian war, then withdrew. Napoleon occupied Moscow and other capitols, and the anti-Napoleon alliance also occupied Paris.
So the Mayor of Moscow and some unnamed "other Russians" make Russian foreign policy? Russia may not be much of a democracy but there are still a number of opinions expressed in Russia.
Come on, you know damn well all I'm doing is acknowledging that there have been political factions bitching about Ukraine and wanting it back for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Luzhkov
So? We have political factions still bitching about giving away the Panama Canal. Should Panama go to DefCon One to prepare for our invasion?
They might need to of there is a sudden need for us to be there. Sorta' like Iceland in 1941.
CORRECT....Russia warned us for years. Ukraines plan to use it new NATO trained army in the Donbas was the last straw...
All I can say is, F uck U kraine.
Pay attention to the countries that know Russia best: those on its borders. All of those countries know that the only way to survive was to join NATO. And after spending the entire Cold War as neutrals, Sweden and Finland realized it too. To deny them the possibility of long-term survival safe from Russia was never in the cards.
"Putting NATO on the border with Russia has always been a serious redline."
Pure Russian propaganda.
"Only that the Russian speaking areas will be absorbed and has been."
Someone asked the Sudeten Germans, where I've heard that line of argument before.
"There is no proof Russia has any intentions of absorbing Ukraine. "
Other than initial Russian strategy to seize Kyiv at the outset of the war, no proof at all...
"If the west had not pushed this the war would never have happened."
Some insane victim blaming at play here. Rule of thumb: the authoritarian dictator that invades his neighbor's land is at fault for the war.
Man, these GRU bots really need to try harder.
You mean like when we invaded or attacked Haiti or Panama or Grenada or the Dominican Republic or Serbia or Lebanon or Iraq or Chile or Libya or Somalia or….
Syria
"Pure Russian propaganda. "
No, Putin et al. made it quite clear for a couple of decades that a NATO presence on the borders of Russia was unacceptable. Unlike mealy-mouthed European and American political hacks who are fond of that word he actually meant that Russia wouldn't accept it. I believe FAFO is the currently fashionable acronym.
Oh you mean like Zelensky who suspended elections and now rules by decree? That dictator?
He had to do it to protect their democracy.
Write Ukraine off.
Cut our losses. (I estimate we have squandered a trillion dollars on Ukraine in outright grants, equipment that had already been paid for and future obligations.)
It didn’t work out like Trump university or his casinos in Atlantic City.
No sense in throwing good money after bad.
I think we could cut a deal now that leaves Russia with Crimea and the four Russian speaking provinces. If we wait any longer then Ukraine will lose all its territory east of the Dniper and Odessa.
Yes - this is the way.
Better this than a world conflagration that decimates most of civilization.
"we could cut a deal now that leaves Russia with Crimea and the four Russian speaking provinces"
Could have had this within months of the war starting, and a lot of Ukes and Russians would be alive, and we'd all be richer for it.
Our Ivy League neocon geniuses in the government were obsessed with humiliating Russia. They dreamed of a Pax Americana where they would pull the strings from behind the scene.
Or they did not trust Putin and knew he would not stop with Ukraine.
Sure. Putin is on his way to the English Channel. He just won’t stop until he’s drinking tea in Buckingham Palace.
Peace in our times. Afterall Heir Putin can be trusted, he's never broken his word before...
Our leaders never lie except for the Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq, Obamacare, …
This war is lost. If it were a football game, it'd be 28-7 with 5 minutes in the fourth quarter. The best Ukraine can hope for is to be a non-aligned, disarmed rump state and Russia gets to keep the oblasts filled with ethnic Russians, as it should be.
We should've never been involved in this war. There are no vital national interests here except for the insufferable hatred our neocon nutters have for the Russians.
I feel bad for the Ukies, but we did overthrow their elected government and replaced it with that puppet dictator/head thief Zelensky.
That little beggar once played a piano with his genitalia and is lower than whale crap on the bottom of the ocean like the feckless carny trash he is.
Hundreds of thousands are dead and billions wasted because we can't control the neocons and consign them to the outer darkness where they belong.
The insatiable love MAGA has for Putin knows no bounds. Blame for the war rest squarely on the shoulders of the authoritarian dictator that started it. Any Charlie Kelly conspiracy board suggesting otherwise is pure kremlin agitprop.
There was no war during Trumps presidency.
And when Russia reinvades Ukraine in 5 years, what then? What about when Russia invades Poland or Lithuania, say goodbye to NATO? And when China tells all would be America allies in the Pacific that America is a fair-weather friend, just look at what they did to those poor Ukrainians, what then? Sacrifice the dollar as the world's reserve currency? Retreat behind fortress America and eek out whatever we can in a world order determined by Putin and Xi? No thank you.
You are welcome to march into Siberia with a rifle
“when Russia reinvades Ukraine in 5 years, what then? What about when Russia invades Poland or Lithuania, say goodbye to NATO?”
Sounds like Europe has five years to build military power sufficient to deter Russia. If they don’t, we should wash our hands of them.
I think LBJ had it right--
"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
This ain't 1945; Europe can defend itself.
The Russians aren’t the Nazis. They have no designs or need to conquer Europe. They already have them by the short and curlies thanks to energy.
Break free of your neocon propaganda and see this isn’t our fight. We broke the Minsk Accords. We “color revolutioned” Russia’s neighboring states’ governments and stirred up trouble to poke the Bear.
The Ukies have been fighting a brutal war in the Donbass for years. A vote to join Russia in that oblast showed those people wanted to be part of Russia.
"when China tells all would be America allies in the Pacific that America is a fair-weather friend,"
I think all our allies in the Pacific are smart enough to draw their own conclusions, at least partly based on America's bold and straightforward response to past and current Chinese aggression against them and violations (plural) of past agreements (also plural).
CDR Sal, what a mess. Happy ending? The history in this particular region is mind bogglingly bad. Cain and Abel bad (brother killing brother). National "interests" and nation's leaders "interests" don't always align...Putin's interests (restore the USSR? Welcome clarity there from someone who "knows that's his aim (I don't) ". From my perspective, Zelensky is a locked black box wrapped in nationalism). Legitimate question: what happens when Putin is gone (which can't be long). Who takes his place? What happens when Russia is so weak that China simply annexes Siberia? Putin has committed international war crime level aggression (ask the U.N. is you doubt that...oh, wait)...and the West seems happy to fund the conflict to it to the last drop of Ukrainian blood. Recent escalations (ATACMS green light), UK / France "supportive pronouncements" reinforce the status quo of continued...but escalating, perhaps dangerously so, force on force activity. Wielding a righteous sword while...perhaps...war profiting is...perhaps...disingenuous. OBTW, saving the worst for last: all those nukes, potentially being used, or misused, or flooding the global nuclear grey market as the former Soviet Union continues its death thrashes. The new administration really has its work cut out for it.
"Putin has committed international war crime level aggression (ask the U.N.)"
If we ask the UN, I think they say the same about US
Depending on the day, and the subject the UN is commenting on, concur 100%.
Ukraine was Obama, H Clinton, democrat war creds expansion gambit.
War in the heartland is too close to nuclear, where the outcome has not been investigated.
US cannot afford to go continental with oceans to secure.
Blame Biden and walk!
But the kickbacks to the DNC made it all worthwhile.
Internal plundering. US does not have to lose the wars to be pillaged
Western defense contractors are happy. Western politicians are grateful for their hard-won political donations from defense contractors (traveling to Ukraine for photo ops is a real chore). Investors are thankful for the opportunities created by various "dislocations" that were consequences of war in Ukraine (grain, shipping, oil, LNG).
Ethnic Russians and Ukrainians have been at each other throats for hundreds and hundreds of years. NATO jumped in for fun and profit and it worked.
World oil markets have been happy for the last three years. The US and EU diplomats and political leaders have spent 36 months hand waving on cutting off RUS capability to wage war using funds from their oil proceeds. In the meantime, behind the curtain they have allowed RUS to build and maintain a shadow fleet that has kept the oil flowing out of the county and revenue flowing in. RUS production and revenue is now greater than it was at the start of the war. Refined product made from this "restricted" oil continues to flood world markets in the greatest money laudering scheme history has ever seen. Of course, if the US and EU players meant what they said and had the necessary naval and coast guard assets then the RUS shadow fleet could have been nipped in the bud.
But then this comes as no surprise. The 4th rate Houthis have managed to affect control over the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Sicinnus: Maximum revenue extraction plus geopolitical fun & games.
Puts no responsibility on the authoritarian dictator that started this war, is a key sign that what you are reading is not "sober realist analysis" but Kremlin agitprop.
R. James: I am not assigning responsibility. I am commenting upon motivations of certain parties that are involved in the conflict, even if only as sources of funding and military supplies, although the involvement probably goes deeper, into the supplying of intelligence and assistance with operational execution. Obviously, Putin and the Russians have their own motivations. I am not disputing that Russia invaded the Ukraine.
Your original comment puts the blame on the West. It has the hallmarks of Kremlin propaganda: gaslighting the West into blaming itself while admitting no fault on the part of Russia for starting a war of naked aggression and territorial expansion.
We broke our promise not to expand NATO.
" It has the hallmarks of Kremlin propaganda:"
Jumping junipers on a dung heap---so what? Kremlin propaganda supported Social Security and the New Deal in the 1930s. Kremlin propaganda has also supported peace, bread, and land for a century. God forbid, evidently, that I should support those " hallmarks of Kremlin propaganda:"
"For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
The mind of the beholder
When correctly viewed
Everything is lewd
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)"
Tom Lehrer
"Puts no responsibility on the authoritarian dictator that started this war"
Okay, Putin is evil and started the war. Happy?
Now what?
The various nations and ethnicities of Europe have been at each others throats for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Ukraine voluntarily joined the Russian Empire over 200 years ago because they wanted protection from Poland and Lithuania. A fair percentage of the US population is descended from people who came here to get away from that crap. Now their descendants want to dive back in.
Ukraine is running out of motivated infantry. The West's support has been "what can we spare", not "what must we sacrifice." War on the cheap meant waiting 2 years to start scaling up production. Russia has found a set of tactics that works - meat assaults, CS gas, artillery, and glide bombs - but at a high cost. The next year is likely to be the year of decision. I see no sign that anyone in the West is prepared to change the trajectory of this war.
I really like your articles because they teach me a lot but have a few questions, some with obvious answers and some with not.
1. What does Putin and Russia desire and why? If it’s an expanded Russia to exert its philosophical way of life on other people, to what end? Putin is extremely intelligent so if he simply looks at the numbers he knows that his way of life is inferior to the west and specifically the United States. If it wasn’t then it would be Russia with an expanding population and cutting edge technology and their navy that dominates the sea lanes.
This isn’t the case and you simply have to look at East Germany’s trend line from the end of World War II to reunification with West Germany to see the truth. The truth is that they were a stagnant and depressed country with an intrusive police state and one of the highest rates of suicide in Europe.
“Wisdom is justified by her works” is something a very special man said and was recorded in a very special book. If the Soviet way of doing business was better than it would’ve been justified by superior results in East Germany. They are not and it was not.
2. Despite the intentions that Putin may have, he is one man limited by the capabilities and numbers of people behind him. Can he realistically take over a unified and determined Europe? Looking at the numbers and the potential industrial outputs the answer is probably no. So why then the hesitancy from Europe to strengthen itself and make entry from the east a very hard proposition?
The Europeans are the ones who will lose their way of life if occupied by Russia, so I suggest they get off their arse and start acting like it. They don’t have the luxury of an ocean separating them from their potential aggressor. They need to get serious and it needs to be today.
3. I agree that Trump should have a FAFO attitude towards further western expansion by Russia. If we fully mobilize our war machine, Russia cannot match it. We know that, Russia knows that. At the same time, I don’t think Trump would’ve antagonized the Russians. Adding Ukraine to NATO… what would that have bought us exactly from a security perspective? It clearly made the Russians feel vulnerable enough to lash out. Was the benefit of adding Ukraine to NATO worth the price the Ukrainians and Russians have had to pay?
I don’t know. I do understand that there is a fine line between being peaceful and appearing weak and inviting aggression. Hind sight being 20/20 what would’ve been the best way to harden Ukraine while at the same time not provoking Russia? Should we have fully committed our military right from the outset of hostilities to inflict maximum casualties on the Russians and force them to the peace table sooner? Again, I don’t know. Maybe depleting Russian equipment and manpower was the right answer to diminish their ability to push westward but it sure had a high price tag for both sides.
Anyways, always like your articles and train of thought and look forward to reading them.
1. A little research will answer this question. You can start with Tucker Carlson's interview. Russia is still recovering from the wounds of communism, but at least they're not sacrificing their young to a perverted ideology.
2. Schrodinger's Russia: can't beat Ukraine, will roll to Lisbon if unopposed.
3. Mobilize what war machine? It's not 1991 anymore, that war machine is long gone.
I think I agree with you Billy. I do not believe Russia is any shape from a manpower or logistics perspective to roll into Europe.
I am not privy to classified information so perhaps there are 100 million more young Russian men hidden somewhere just waiting to called into the armed forces… but I really doubt it.
War is expensive for all parties. I hope the Trump administration can bring a peaceful resolution about.
Not. Our. War.
While I disagree with Phib on many of these points, I respect the hell out of our host and he has my undying respect and friendship. There are likely many scenarios that will be an amalgamation of all the COA’s proposed.
Whatever commitments we have made with our retarded WEF / EU “Frens”, were never executed with a clear and sober mind. We had no plan, we had no influence on the Ukrainian leadership to act with intention against the Russian army. We had no true understanding of Russian military strategy or tactics and we continue to ascribe our western thinking to explain what the Russian military goals are. We suffer from a lack of ground truth. We simply throw outdated weapons and money at the problem. All the NATO members got on board seeing an opportunity to trade old tanks and aircraft for new tanks and F-35’s. The MIC is making a killing.
Our talking head retired generals and military “experts” haven’t seen the football since the kickoff. They failed to take Russia at her word. They think Russia is “losing” because they haven’t executed a “blitzkrieg” breakthrough. This demonstrates an embarrassing lack of understanding of Russian use of Artillery and small unit strike forces. A lack of understanding and failure to self analyze and course correct over Russian military tactics and actions. A failure to admit and see that the russian plan has always been to fight a war of attrition.
We have hopium that Russia is running out of troops and weapons. The reality is Ukraine is the one suffering from generational losses that will effect Ukraine and Eastern European economies and nations for decades.
The citizens of the west underestimated the veracity of the EU elite using Ukraine as a money laundering scheme since 2009. The citizens of the west are playing a tragic game of national suicide as they see as their economies are destroyed by the war, lack of fuel, perfect storm of green energy bullshit and Islamic colonization. The Western Europe elites are bent on remaining on power and under the color of “rules based order” are controlling their people in a new tyranny.
The off-ramps are clear and as described by Putin in the very beginning:
- Denazification of the Ukrainian army
- Destruction of the Ukrainian military
- Annex the Donbas (LPR AND DPR)
- make a NATO membership of Ukraine an impossibility
These aren’t my conditions and I don’t agree with them, but these are what Putin stated unequivocally.
There were and remains other possible goals for Russia as well:
- capture and annexation of Odessa
- new eastern border of Dnipro river
- possible partition of Kiev
It’s pretty interesting though that those of us who saw the clarity of the causal factors of NATO expanding where it shouldn’t were demonized by many even here on the front porch. Labeled “Russian Bots” or “Putin mouth pieces”. I find that as funny as it is intellectually dishonest. Battle lines were drawn quickly here and in real life. The conclusion of this war will be what it will be and on Russia’s terms and timelines. I hope we can get out of it alive and without a nuclear exchange.
Seeing the fact that there is no national interest for the United States, doesn’t make one a traitor. It makes one a realist.
War is a messy business and this war is tragic. At the end of the day, Ukraine and Russia will be brothers again and they will both blame the west and the US and UK in particular as the agents of evil for this war.
"At the end of the day, Ukraine and Russia will be brothers again and they will both blame the west and the US and UK in particular as the agents of evil for this war."
Those who understand the history of the region will recognize this obvious truth. Those Western elites who have grifted on, and fomented, eastern European corruption are just as blind as the ivory tower elites playing Model UN as our host alluded to.
Having both Russian and Ukrainian friends and colleagues (and a part-Ukrainian CINCHOME) I wish to avoid generational losses to both sides. I have no use at all for the leadership of either Russia or Ukraine, and less for what we've had to put up with in the West for most of my life. I don't have a good answer to offer.
“The MIC is making a killing.”
“…no national interest for the United States…”
B-b-but whatever happened to “What’s good for Northrop Grumman ins good for America”?
The Russian propaganda is strong with this one.
You are such a bore.
Yep critical thinking skills are a rube.
“The Russian propaganda is strong with this one.”
Indeed.
I am particularly impressed by this obvious Russian bot that has been commenting on everything from our Civil War navy to DEI programs for the last two decades, just waiting for the right time to pop up and spread the Russian lies. They are a cunning, patient people for sure.
We try here at camp. I was simply waiting in my gillie suit until the right time to activate.
Yep. Jeffrey Sachs the esteemed professor at Columbia University is also a Russian Bot….
" We had no true understanding of Russian military strategy or tactics..."
If so, it is because our "leaders" and "experts" refused to understand it. Soviet and Russian military thought has been pretty much an open "secret" from the beginning. And they shared it with their allies & clients.
Yep.
" They think Russia is “losing” because they haven’t executed a “blitzkrieg” breakthrough."
Kind of reminds me of WWI in 1916. Russia now, like Germany then, occupies large amounts of enemy territory. And Europe wants us to get more involved, again.
A compromise that pisses everyone off:
Russia keeps an agreed portion of the Donbas. a DMZ is established along the border of this territory.
Stabilized with the new border, Ukraine is immediately allowed to petition for NATO membership.
Then the warcrimes investigations kick off, no implied immunity for anyone.
I don’t think Ukraine membership is NATO is something Russia will accept.
Deal breaker
That is one of Russia's key war aims. Non-negotiable.
Absolutely
And yet the Ukrainians, in their wisdom and knowledge of the Russians due to over two centuries of being Russians themselves, chose to enshrine NATO membership in their Constitution.
Genius!
Gee, ya think? What on Earth would give you that idea?
(sarcasm)
(for the hard of thinking here)
That would play into Putin and Xi's hand. Far from pissing them off. It will allow Russia time to reconstitute its forces and invade Ukraine again or another Eastern European neighbor. It will also allow China to tell every would be ally of the US especially those in the Indo-Pacific that the US is a fair-weather friend who will not come to their aide, undermining any alliance to protect Taiwan.
China doesn’t have to tell anyone anything. Our record in South Vietnam and Afghanistan speaks for itself.
The second point is already clearly apparent and has been for some time. Nothing new here.
The first is just wrong. proactive expansion of NATO in the face of Putin's aggression is exactly the sort of lose for winning that Vlad doesn't want.
So what do you have in mind to prevent future Russian aggression? Perhaps we should declare WWIII and conquer and occupy Russia to prevent possible future naughtiness?
China doesn't need to tell anyone. Every country in Asia knows the US is a fair-weather friend.
War crimes investigations, how quaint. Let's see if they get Netanyahu on the docket.
Who breaks first in the Winter War of 2022? The bigger point of the piece is correct in that the search for silver bullet wonder weapons to make war between great powers cheap and fast is an illusion. At best, short-term advantages provide a temporary edge until counter-measures in weapons, protection, and tactics at least partially negate the new technology edge. But right now the question is who wins the current war.
Assuming both sides are waiting for the other side to collapse is the right assessment. That neither side is "willing" to collapse is irrelevant. Collapse is something that happens contrary to what one wants. And it happens slowly and then suddenly.
Right now it is difficult to see who is closer to collapse. Much is opaque. We see reports but assume that we can disregard such signs because one or both sides is immune because they have a history of enduring (which applies to both Ukrainians and Russians) or that they have superior morale because they are defending their country (which some say applies to Russians "restoring" their empire; but which seems to apply more to Ukraine). Or that they have superior manpower and materiel (which mostly applies to Russia). The one sign that we can see is territorial control changes. And recently Russia is gaining territory more rapidly--still slowly--as that ISW report discusses. Does that visible sign that points to Ukraine being the first to collapse outweigh the factors we can't fully measure or appreciate?
So who collapses first and who can exploit the collapse? World War I saw three significant collapses: French, Russian, and German. Russian troop morale collapsed in 1917. Germany was able to exploit that to push deeper into Russia to force Russian qualified surrender with massive territorial concessions.
But this was not a one-on-one war. Germany shifted troops to the Western Front and tried to win on the battlefield before American power could be decisive. Despite gaining ground in big chunks after three years of stalemate, German losses eventually broke the German army in 1918. And the Allies were able to begin pushing the German army back. Germany agreed to a qualified surrender and went home--which also saved Russia from its qualified surrender to Germany the year before.
So the ability to exploit a collapse is important to success. The third collapse, that of France's army that refused to attack only to die in huge numbers, went undiscovered by the Germans in 1917. The French army eventually recovered and the leadership committed to making sure firepower and not lives were the means to win. Had the Germans known about the collapse, perhaps they could have attacked and done to the French what they did too the Russians.
These examples make it seem as if Russia has the advantage in the battle for who collapses first and who can exploit it.
Despite massive losses in men and materiel, Russia has the initiative across the front--even in the Kursk salient. So if Ukraine collapses first, Russia will be able to exploit it. As the Germans did on the Eastern Front and the Allies did on the Western Front.
If Russia collapses first, Ukraine seems to lack the forces to exploit that collapse by attacking. So Russia may survive that breakdown and recover without serious repercussions. Indeed, I believe that Russia may have effectively collapsed--let's call it a serious culmination--by autumn 2022. But while Ukraine was able to push back on Kharkiv and Kherson fronts, Ukraine lacked the military power to really hammer the Russians and fully crack Russia's teetering ground forces.
I was desperately looking for a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the fall or winter. And every week that passed without that raised my fear that Ukraine was granting Russia the valuable commodity of time. And by the time Ukraine organized and equipped enough troops to attack in the summer of 2023, its was too late. Russian morale recovered. Reinforcements were mobilized and deployed. And Russia dug in with multiple defense lines, planted minefields, and posted reserves behind the lines with artillery support. Ukraine failed.
So now we wait to see if either side collapses and if the other can exploit it.
And we wait to see if the Ukrainians and Russians who may see clearly the factors opaque to outsiders will welcome an opportunity provided by a Trump presidency to end the war on barely acceptable terms rather than risk collapse and disaster.
And so another revolution in military affairs dies in the mud and blood of trenches.
Sorry I droned on. I'll probably have to post this as the draft for a stand-alone on my home turf, too. But I appreciate the framing our host has provided for the way out of this war in Europe. There may be no happy endings given the death and destruction both sides have endured. But there are certainly degrees of less sad endings to struggle for. And given that Ukraine has endured beyond three weeks as both Russia and America (offering Zelensky a ride out before the collapse) expected in February 2022, not losing and suffering occupation and elimination as an independent state is as happy an ending Ukraine can get right now.
Very insightful post!
There will be no permanent peace until Russia subsumes or controls Ukraine. It will end when Ukraine becomes a suzerainty like Belarus.
Ukraine and to a lesser extent the Baltics are Russia's version of Taiwan.
Which makes me wonder why we are not as openly and vocally pro-Taiwan as we are pro-Ukraine. Why not push as hard for a US-Taiwan Security Treaty as for Ukraine membership in NATO?
Everyone here will be pleased to learn that yesterday the current Administration committed to $50M to a Ukraine Mental Health initiative. Get your ideas submitted for this last gasp of grift. The due date for your proposal just happens to be January 15th.
https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/357353
Just when I thought I couldn't become more cynical . . .
Sorry, this is just a brief note - getting ready for Thanksgiving. Have huge respect for you, so feel like a bratty student writing this - but given the crazy talk about WW3 The Ukraine business has been going on since at least the Orange Revolution. Been long standing State Dept policy to weaken USSR by gnawing at countries around its edges. As the USSR was ending, we traded assurances of NATO "not one inch east" for the reunification of Germany. [Without the Communist or imperial mandate for expansion, the Russian Federation needed to find a new way. Thanks to the Harvard boys and their shock treatment, economy went to hell.]
Back to NATO: It continued east despite no Warsaw Pact to defend against, nor an expansionist Communist power. After the US backed Maidan revolution [Vicky Nuland and her cookies], the Ukrainians upped their attacks on the Russian speaking Oblasts in the Donbass including targeting civilians. Separatists had Ukraine army in a fire bag and viola Minsk cease fire fully backed and negotiated with Putin, Ukraine, Germany, France. As Merkel admitted later, Minsk was a stalling tactic to rearm Ukrainian army. The OSCE monitored all violations. 85 Days to Slavyansk is good book. PS. The ISW is run by Kim Kagan, Nuland's sister-in-law. Neo-cons.
A GRU bot could not have repeated Russian talking points any better. You should question where you get your news from.
There you go again. Anyone who opposes this war is an agent of Putin.
Ya know, that old expression "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" is true even for Russian propaganda.
So anyone who you disagree with is a “Russian Bot”? Echo chamber much. You can’t hear an opposing viewpoint because it fucks up your blind Neocon programming.
Confirmation bias is a bitch.
Brave Search Summary: Who leads the ISW?: Dr. Kimberly Kagan, Founder and President of ISW. She founded ISW in 2007 and has been instrumental in shaping its research agenda and direction.
General Jack Keane (US Army, Retired), Chairman of the ISW Board. He has played a central role in developing the intellectual foundation for ISW’s research and has supported the organization’s formation.
A poll published on November 19th (Gallup) indicates the following:
The majority of Ukrainians support a negotiated settlement of the war, even if it involves ceding territory.
The majority of Ukrainians would prefer that negotiations be conducted by the EU or the UK rather than the United States.
I've long supported financial and military aid to Ukraine. However, "Don't" or "as long as it takes" is not a strategy unless it is to prolong the war. Suddenly, the "strategy" has changed. Now, the US and NATO have decided that Ukraine can use long-range missiles to attack deeper into Russian territory.
Why the abrupt shift? Is it due to North Korean troops have been deployed in the Kursk region? Is the Biden Administration attempting to lock the Trump Administration into a no-win position? Recently, the French Foreign Minister has stated that it is possible that, if requested by Zelensky, France would send military assets to Ukraine. Belarus is a co-belligerant. China, Iran, and North Korea are supplying the Russian Army with the means to continue the war. There have been reports that Russia has recruited Chinese mercenaries as well as attempting to recruit from Africa.
Like it or not, the fifteen-day "Special Military Operation" is becoming a World War.
Acccording to the ISW, the United States is by far the largest contributor to the support of Ukraine. Many in Europe have framed the conflict around the "strategy" that the Ukraine conflict poses a direct threat to European peace and security. We should wonder why the Europeans are not contributing substantially more to Ukraine and by their argument to their defense.
For the incoming administration, there are three other problems. First, every piece of equipment drawn from existing stocks has to be replaced. Second, our defense-industrial base is not robust enough to replace that equipment. Third, military support for Ukraine decreases our ability to deter the CCP or fight an Indo-Pacific War.
You are mistaken that military support for Ukraine decreases our ability to deter the CCP or fight an Indo-Pacific War. To do either requires not just ordinance but allies. The goal of the CCP in propping up Russia is to undercut US security guarantees in order to convince US Allies and Partners in the Pacific not to join the US alliance because
'America is a fair-weather friend'. 'Just look at how the US treated its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.'
The CCP also seeks to prop up Russia's position in Ukraine ahead of a peace negotiation in order to extract more concessions from the Ukrainians in order to humiliate the US. This strategy was outlined by a Chinese think tank this month with backing of no less than the Deputy Chairman of the CMC. So, the US decreasing its support of Ukraine and forcing it to the negotiating table will play into China's hands and undermine America's ability to build an alliance in the Indo-Pacific.
When has Ukraine been our "friend"?
Why is it that nobody here ever provides links to evidence supporting their assertions? Laziness? Stupidity? Dishonesty?
If the US writes off Zelensky and the Ukrainians after three years' heroic war against superior forces, we may as well write off Israel and Taiwan and be done with this world power stunt.