CDR S is typically--and rightfully-- circumspect in attributing credibility and reliability to state officials (of any stripe), but he sure seems to give broad credence to Ukrainian ones here. Perhaps a bit of caution is warranted, especially given the rank propaganda, if not outright BS, that abounds in that part of the world (as well as closer to home, sadly).
If "joining the West" was the goal, and I think you have to importantly ask whose goal (but that's another question), then they certainly did it the wrong way. Or they really didn't plan it out and think what would Russia do? Or in their hubris they didn't care. All three seems to be the case to me. At this point Russia goes to nukes before Ukraine joins NATO. Whose vital interest is it anyway? Sad that it got to this point. A neutral Ukraine could have benefited greatly by being a gateway for both sides. Instead, the Atlantic Council and the Victor Nulands of the DSC got their way-- and how is that working out for you? Their ilk keep urging to go "All in" with the chips. It's going to be like that scene from Hunt for Red October. "You arrogant bastard, you killed us all."
A lot of victim blaming in this post. Usually, I blame the expansionist authoritarian country, who invades its neighbors for starting a war, but that's just me.
Written by someone who apparently thinks in black and white and who doesn't think Russia has its own vital national interests or that the US and NATO shoulder any responsibility over the past 20-39 years for how Russia (or China for that matter) may be acting. One may not "like" another country or what it may be doing, but to imply they are not acting in their own vital interests and/or to take pains to avoid seeing those interests from the other's point of view is foolhardy. In this case, over the past 25-30 years Russia has not been acting in a vacuum; the US and NATO have not been passive bystanders (anything but). If one starts the historical clock with year zero being 2015, one may see only Russian aggression. If one starts the clock with year zero being, say, 1993 or so, one sees the bigger, messier picture that manifests into what we see now. Action begets reaction, which begets counter-action, etc. etc.
Yes, yes and I'm sure that the Germans would say that Lebensraum was a vital national interest too. That doesn't make Poland the aggressor.
Please explain to me how launching a revanchist war of aggression, which you are woefully unprepared for, against a neighbor, who has not even joined the EU let alone NATO, is somehow in the VITAL national interest of Russia? Even from a Russian point of view this war was an overly aggressive unprovoked atrocity for which Russia was utterly unprepared to fight.
So you speak for the Russians, now, do you? C'mon. My point (based on (thanks to a career in the Army) years of graduate and post graduate study of Russia and the FSU, advanced language proficiency (reading, listening and speaking) in Russian (invaluable in better understanding the Russian worldview), and years serving in the FSU and Eastern Europe (in uniform) as well as interacting in an official capacity on the ground with Russians, Ukrainians, etc. etc. and serving within the US Interagency) is that you gotta look at issues from the other's vantage point to understand the other's motivations and actions. No, I'm no Russophile but, then again, I'm no Russophobe either. Oh, yeah, and whether or not the Russians were "prepared" or have acquitted themselves well in the current war has zero relevance to whether they look at the future of Ukraine to be in their vital national interest. That's simply a fact. Having fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan myself, I can attest to the painful reality that national "ends" can be completely disconnected from "ways" and "means."
LOL Your first post called for an explanation as to the Russian perspective and now you chastise me for giving one.
How about instead of giving an argument from authority, you actually make a point; why was invading Ukraine a VITAL national interest for the Russians?
Every time I hear someone talk about "the US Interagency" my thouhgts run to Vindman, who thought "the interagency", not the President, made US foreign policy. I hope you don't take Vindman's position.
I absolutely don't. In fact, like most regular Army soldiers, I loathe the guy (known derisively as "The Fat Colonel" by average Joes) and have only contempt for his opinions (for that is what they are) and his delusions of grandeur. Vindman is a thoroughly unprofessional and partisan hack, who should have been nowhere near the NSC, much less promoted to LTC. He committed the cardinal sin of Foreign Area Officers, which is to "go native" and to forget who you represent and where your fundamental loyalties lie (it must always be to the US and never to the country or region about which you may claim some measure of expertise) and to forget for whom you work (e.g., the established chain of command). I got to know a lot of squared away uniformed professionals in my time working within and with the Interagency who knew their stuff and stayed in their lane. Are their legions of issues and problems with the US Interagency and its processes (especially in this overly politicized era)? Absolutely, but I'm not going to tar the lot of those who work there (especially those in uniform) with an overly broad brush. At least during my time serving within the senior Army hierarchy, Joint world or Interagency, we uniformed types knew that we did not set or establish policy; we were there to help inform policymakers and to support and execute established US national security policy. Vindman never appeared to "get" that fundamental obligation.
Defacto they do. They'll wait out a President who acts slow, and try to get rid of one who puts up a fight. Like Schumer said ,“they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." Huge problem.
Sorry, I missed in that timeline when Ukraine joined NATO? I also missed when Russia invaded Georgia unprovoked in 2008 and Crimea in 2014?
You also forgot to mention the attempts by Obama and Bush to hit the reset button with Putin.
"Overthrew the government of Ukraine"? Putin didn't like that his puppet lost an election and was driven out of office by his own people. That's tough, but it doesn't excuse an invasion.
Russia didn't just overreact. They are completely acting in bad faith and launched an unnecessary war of aggression.
Oh, please. NATO et al. have been, and are still, frothing at the mouth to get Ukraine into NATO. Not to mention Finland and Sweden. And Georgia. Hell, if some people had their way they would get The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago into NATO if they thought it would irritate Russia.
And these same people squeal with outrage at the prospect of China building an intelligence gathering facility in Cuba.
"Oh please" what? Did Ukraine join NATO? No. Were they likely ever to be invited to join NATO before this invasion? No. Biden even today said that Ukraine would not be admitted into so long as this war goes on. You need to stop drinking the Kremlin' koolaid.
Finland and Sweden didn't join NATO until AFTER the Russian invasion. That was another unforced error by Putin. Turns out invading your neighbors in unprovoked wars of aggression is a great way to get the rest of your neighbors to ally against you.
And Georgia, when did Georgia join NATO? I don't blame them for trying given how Russia invaded their country in another unprovoked war of aggression in 2008.
Those people "who squeal with outrage at the prospect of China building an intelligence gathering facility in Cuba" are not calling for an invasion of Cuba...key difference there.
Multiple billions of US cash and arms with no accounting as to where it is and what it it is being used for seems like #2 priority is slipping in importance.
I saw Vietnam start while in Elementary school and ended up there by 19, it started like Ukraine did, border war left over from WW2, first aid, money, weapons, ammo then somehow a Torpedo boat attack which triggered JFK (D) to start US boots on the ground, then the draft of High school graduates and straight to Nam.
After that the Boxes of body bags started streaming in, along with the sick, maimed, blinded Veterans.
All who got crapped on by those who didn't go.
And we shall see this in Ukraine, any time now, a sudden torpedo boat will blow up a Nuke plant and put down your books and pick up a gun ,here we go again.
Ukraine is NOT a US Problem, let those cousins decide their war without us.
Just because you are too young to watch Vietnam start don't mean this silly war in Ukraine will be any different.
When your children end up in boxes you may understand an old man's fears for his grandchildren due to some Third world bunch of Slavic oligarchs stupid wars with an even more criminal NATO.
I saw Vietnam, Mogadishu, Afghanistan, Iraq, my brother, and nephews and Son was in those wars and a cousin died in Iraq.
I was old enough to live through Afghanistan. That was a more comparable to Vietnam than the war between Ukraine and Russia. Even though the reasons for getting involved in Afghanistan were far more directly related to the US national interest. Even if the US is drawn into this war, the tactics or type of enemy would not be the same as Vietnam.
This seems to have less to do with whether or not a war is comparable to how the Vietnam War was fought and more about your generally anti-war position. To which, I'd respond unfortunately some wars need to be fought in order to prevent far worse conflicts. The generation that survived WWI were so traumatized by their loss that they adopted isolationism and appeasement in order to avoid another war, even when faced with expansionist authoritarian dictatorships. And the result of their anti-war policies was a war far worse than any that had come before and any that would follow it for almost eighty years. Isolationism and appeasement have their own bloody costs. Some wars are worth fighting.
Such as, perhaps, the provocation and humiliation of Germany by laying exclusive blame on it for WWI in addition to massive territorial and financial penalties?
Those "causes" do not excuse the conduct of the Third Reich nor does it excuse the failure to oppose it earlier in the 1930s, so why do they matter for the purposes of this discussion.
Us smart young folks, weren't of voting age in 2001. Nor were we in any position to make strategic decisions during much of that war. It was the generation that fought the Vietnam War as JOs that failed to learn its lessons. But I remember 9/11 all the same, I doubt any President would've keep the US out of war in 2001. You don't just kill nearly 3,000 Americans and get away with it.
As opposed to some wars maybe necessary position. If you disagree, please tell me how WWII was unnecessary?
"not everything in life is comparable to the 1960s"
True, but people are. The individuals may change, but human nature doesn't. And we in the "over 50 crowd" have managed to learn a bit about it. Perhaps you have heard phrases such as "He who doesn't learn history is doomed to repeat it", or "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose", etc., or "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Yes, learn history. But you should actually compare similar situations. There is no comparison between Vietnam and Ukraine. One is a guerilla war fought in a jungle against a developing power. The other is a conventional fight over mostly open terrain against a regional power that has nukes.
While an argument can be made that stopping communism in Vietnam was in the national interests of the US, there's little to support US involvement in Ukraine promotes valid US national interests, and plenty to support it is a source of corruption in the US.
I will half agree with you. I think keeping Ukraine free of Russian domination and occupation is in the US interest. I understand the point is arguable.
Regarding 'a source of corruption in the US', yes definitely. I would love to see an accounting of all the money and shady deals through Ukraine, plus an explanation of the biolabs that seem to exist or not exist based on State's mood at the time.
Tinfoil hat, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of that money & resources are being used to keep "European Allies" in lock step with Deep State policy. What is USAID & Samantha Powers doing in Hungary (a NATO country)? Why did arms allocated to Ukraine turn up in France? Crazy, right?
No, Vietnam was only partly a guerilla war. By 1963 it was evolving, per Mao Tse Tung, into a conventional war. By 1964-65 with the entrance of NVA regular units it became both a conventional war and a guerilla war. By 1972 the guerilla part was distinctly secondary.
There are always comparisons. There are also always differences.
perhaps the example was already set by one General Marshall when he cleaned house prior to WWII, cause right now it sure seems if anyone has confidence in the General/Admiral crews and their civvie counterparts over the services right now, well god bless them, cause this is one big corporate set of who leads the most straight line path and stays connected to the voted weasels gets the highest rungs of the ladder. Challenge it in anyway and well, there is a job awaiting the bright ones in the defense industry as a bright spot. The bright person out there that fixes it can even use the very big abused phrase "divest to invest" to get these bright minds in place now.
This makes me wonder, if the reason US Navy transformation efforts were such a miserable failure was because the leftover Cold War leaders were running things, Now with the Cold War well in our wake we see the USMC transforming, creating change, with notible success.
US Navy transformation efforts have been an unmitigated success. Problem is, what the Navy has transformed into is not very useful for national defense.
It's a task, quite an undertaking, to maintain factory production while under repeated assault. Still, in his book "Inside the Third Reich" Albert Speer described how he was able to keep factory production up, even under the heavy Allied bombing. Even though the aerial photography showed devastating direct hits, getting production back up to 85% was often only a matter of a couple weeks. What Speer wrote wasn't just him blowing a lot of smoke. The US Strategic Bombing Survey had come to the same conclusions.
I wonder is any retired UKR FOGOs are involved in their defense industry?
Perhaps if we fired all the FOGOs involved in ours and replaced them with kids in their thirties we might not do any worse. Ditto for the 535 idjits in Congress.
"his nation is in the middle of an existential fight"
"existential"?
Well, you know how disagreeable I am. Perhaps you can show me some evidence of Russia's goal to eliminate Ukraine, as opposed to a limited goal of taking territory it considers to be Russian.
Perhaps President Zelensky can set an example by donating all the money he has in Swiss banks and European real estate to Ukraine.
Zelensky is not dumb, put some young "anti-corrupt" stooge in place so he can keep more for himself.
He is the stooge, and a puppet, someone else runs that country, he like Joe is a figurehead.
Probably told by the same people not to cooperate with Trump on the Gazprom thing.
US has a serious problem with bureaucrats who are not responsive to elected officials.
CDR S is typically--and rightfully-- circumspect in attributing credibility and reliability to state officials (of any stripe), but he sure seems to give broad credence to Ukrainian ones here. Perhaps a bit of caution is warranted, especially given the rank propaganda, if not outright BS, that abounds in that part of the world (as well as closer to home, sadly).
His blind spot concerning Ukraine (&NATO) is big enough to drive a Russian tank division through.
I hope, for their sake, that it works.
If "joining the West" was the goal, and I think you have to importantly ask whose goal (but that's another question), then they certainly did it the wrong way. Or they really didn't plan it out and think what would Russia do? Or in their hubris they didn't care. All three seems to be the case to me. At this point Russia goes to nukes before Ukraine joins NATO. Whose vital interest is it anyway? Sad that it got to this point. A neutral Ukraine could have benefited greatly by being a gateway for both sides. Instead, the Atlantic Council and the Victor Nulands of the DSC got their way-- and how is that working out for you? Their ilk keep urging to go "All in" with the chips. It's going to be like that scene from Hunt for Red October. "You arrogant bastard, you killed us all."
https://youtu.be/YZuMe5RvxPQ?t=23
NATO thinks they are operating from a superiors military position.
They/them can't lose in their short eyes.
I think any war that goes to boots in country will lead to anti-war riots and protests that will make Vietnam look like a Sunday church picnic.
A lot of victim blaming in this post. Usually, I blame the expansionist authoritarian country, who invades its neighbors for starting a war, but that's just me.
Written by someone who apparently thinks in black and white and who doesn't think Russia has its own vital national interests or that the US and NATO shoulder any responsibility over the past 20-39 years for how Russia (or China for that matter) may be acting. One may not "like" another country or what it may be doing, but to imply they are not acting in their own vital interests and/or to take pains to avoid seeing those interests from the other's point of view is foolhardy. In this case, over the past 25-30 years Russia has not been acting in a vacuum; the US and NATO have not been passive bystanders (anything but). If one starts the historical clock with year zero being 2015, one may see only Russian aggression. If one starts the clock with year zero being, say, 1993 or so, one sees the bigger, messier picture that manifests into what we see now. Action begets reaction, which begets counter-action, etc. etc.
Yes, yes and I'm sure that the Germans would say that Lebensraum was a vital national interest too. That doesn't make Poland the aggressor.
Please explain to me how launching a revanchist war of aggression, which you are woefully unprepared for, against a neighbor, who has not even joined the EU let alone NATO, is somehow in the VITAL national interest of Russia? Even from a Russian point of view this war was an overly aggressive unprovoked atrocity for which Russia was utterly unprepared to fight.
So you speak for the Russians, now, do you? C'mon. My point (based on (thanks to a career in the Army) years of graduate and post graduate study of Russia and the FSU, advanced language proficiency (reading, listening and speaking) in Russian (invaluable in better understanding the Russian worldview), and years serving in the FSU and Eastern Europe (in uniform) as well as interacting in an official capacity on the ground with Russians, Ukrainians, etc. etc. and serving within the US Interagency) is that you gotta look at issues from the other's vantage point to understand the other's motivations and actions. No, I'm no Russophile but, then again, I'm no Russophobe either. Oh, yeah, and whether or not the Russians were "prepared" or have acquitted themselves well in the current war has zero relevance to whether they look at the future of Ukraine to be in their vital national interest. That's simply a fact. Having fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan myself, I can attest to the painful reality that national "ends" can be completely disconnected from "ways" and "means."
LOL Your first post called for an explanation as to the Russian perspective and now you chastise me for giving one.
How about instead of giving an argument from authority, you actually make a point; why was invading Ukraine a VITAL national interest for the Russians?
Every time I hear someone talk about "the US Interagency" my thouhgts run to Vindman, who thought "the interagency", not the President, made US foreign policy. I hope you don't take Vindman's position.
I absolutely don't. In fact, like most regular Army soldiers, I loathe the guy (known derisively as "The Fat Colonel" by average Joes) and have only contempt for his opinions (for that is what they are) and his delusions of grandeur. Vindman is a thoroughly unprofessional and partisan hack, who should have been nowhere near the NSC, much less promoted to LTC. He committed the cardinal sin of Foreign Area Officers, which is to "go native" and to forget who you represent and where your fundamental loyalties lie (it must always be to the US and never to the country or region about which you may claim some measure of expertise) and to forget for whom you work (e.g., the established chain of command). I got to know a lot of squared away uniformed professionals in my time working within and with the Interagency who knew their stuff and stayed in their lane. Are their legions of issues and problems with the US Interagency and its processes (especially in this overly politicized era)? Absolutely, but I'm not going to tar the lot of those who work there (especially those in uniform) with an overly broad brush. At least during my time serving within the senior Army hierarchy, Joint world or Interagency, we uniformed types knew that we did not set or establish policy; we were there to help inform policymakers and to support and execute established US national security policy. Vindman never appeared to "get" that fundamental obligation.
Defacto they do. They'll wait out a President who acts slow, and try to get rid of one who puts up a fight. Like Schumer said ,“they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." Huge problem.
Since 1993 NATO & NATO countries have:
Bombed Serbia
Invaded & occupied Afghanistan (a punitive expedition was warranted here, no more).
Invaded & occupied Iraq (Research the Federal Reserve's involvement in Iraqi finances)
Invaded & occupied parts of Syria
Caused the destabilization of Libya
Placed facilities in Poland & Romania that are capable of launching cruise missiles.
Overthrew the government of Ukraine and replaced it with a puppet regime.
You're right, Russia is overreacting.
Sorry, I missed in that timeline when Ukraine joined NATO? I also missed when Russia invaded Georgia unprovoked in 2008 and Crimea in 2014?
You also forgot to mention the attempts by Obama and Bush to hit the reset button with Putin.
"Overthrew the government of Ukraine"? Putin didn't like that his puppet lost an election and was driven out of office by his own people. That's tough, but it doesn't excuse an invasion.
Russia didn't just overreact. They are completely acting in bad faith and launched an unnecessary war of aggression.
I guess you missed Merkel admitting that the Minsk treaty was meant to buy time for Ukraine to arm up.
Yeah, no bad faith there.
"who has not even joined the EU let alone NATO, "
Oh, please. NATO et al. have been, and are still, frothing at the mouth to get Ukraine into NATO. Not to mention Finland and Sweden. And Georgia. Hell, if some people had their way they would get The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago into NATO if they thought it would irritate Russia.
And these same people squeal with outrage at the prospect of China building an intelligence gathering facility in Cuba.
"Oh please" what? Did Ukraine join NATO? No. Were they likely ever to be invited to join NATO before this invasion? No. Biden even today said that Ukraine would not be admitted into so long as this war goes on. You need to stop drinking the Kremlin' koolaid.
Finland and Sweden didn't join NATO until AFTER the Russian invasion. That was another unforced error by Putin. Turns out invading your neighbors in unprovoked wars of aggression is a great way to get the rest of your neighbors to ally against you.
And Georgia, when did Georgia join NATO? I don't blame them for trying given how Russia invaded their country in another unprovoked war of aggression in 2008.
Those people "who squeal with outrage at the prospect of China building an intelligence gathering facility in Cuba" are not calling for an invasion of Cuba...key difference there.
"Those people ... are not calling for an invasion of Cuba."
Perhaps they should. It would be a start in clearing the problems at US' borders.
I'm sure that two countries with meager armed forces who routinely fail to spend 2% of GDP on defense are keeping Vlad up at night.
Those two countries just signed up to be US vassals, I hope they enjoy the ride on the US foreign policy crazy train.
https://youtu.be/CgTc3cYaLdo?t=478
Multiple billions of US cash and arms with no accounting as to where it is and what it it is being used for seems like #2 priority is slipping in importance.
The U.S. needs to implement this in our "higher, higher" within the DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I saw Vietnam start while in Elementary school and ended up there by 19, it started like Ukraine did, border war left over from WW2, first aid, money, weapons, ammo then somehow a Torpedo boat attack which triggered JFK (D) to start US boots on the ground, then the draft of High school graduates and straight to Nam.
After that the Boxes of body bags started streaming in, along with the sick, maimed, blinded Veterans.
All who got crapped on by those who didn't go.
And we shall see this in Ukraine, any time now, a sudden torpedo boat will blow up a Nuke plant and put down your books and pick up a gun ,here we go again.
Ukraine is NOT a US Problem, let those cousins decide their war without us.
Contrary to popular belief in the over 50 crowd, not everything in life is comparable to the 1960s.
LOL OK ya young fellow.
Just because you are too young to watch Vietnam start don't mean this silly war in Ukraine will be any different.
When your children end up in boxes you may understand an old man's fears for his grandchildren due to some Third world bunch of Slavic oligarchs stupid wars with an even more criminal NATO.
I saw Vietnam, Mogadishu, Afghanistan, Iraq, my brother, and nephews and Son was in those wars and a cousin died in Iraq.
For what?
NOTHING.
I was old enough to live through Afghanistan. That was a more comparable to Vietnam than the war between Ukraine and Russia. Even though the reasons for getting involved in Afghanistan were far more directly related to the US national interest. Even if the US is drawn into this war, the tactics or type of enemy would not be the same as Vietnam.
This seems to have less to do with whether or not a war is comparable to how the Vietnam War was fought and more about your generally anti-war position. To which, I'd respond unfortunately some wars need to be fought in order to prevent far worse conflicts. The generation that survived WWI were so traumatized by their loss that they adopted isolationism and appeasement in order to avoid another war, even when faced with expansionist authoritarian dictatorships. And the result of their anti-war policies was a war far worse than any that had come before and any that would follow it for almost eighty years. Isolationism and appeasement have their own bloody costs. Some wars are worth fighting.
Funny how you leave out the causes that gave rise to the expansionist authoritarian dictatorship.
Well, at least the errors weren't repeated the second time around.
Such as, perhaps, the provocation and humiliation of Germany by laying exclusive blame on it for WWI in addition to massive territorial and financial penalties?
The Versailles Treaty does not excuse Hitler or those who failed to oppose him earlier in the 1930s.
Those "causes" do not excuse the conduct of the Third Reich nor does it excuse the failure to oppose it earlier in the 1930s, so why do they matter for the purposes of this discussion.
"That was a more comparable to Vietnam than the war between Ukraine and Russia."
True. How come you smart young folks never noticed? We might have saved 20 years of blood and money.
"your generally anti-war position."
As opposed to what, a pro-war position? Any sane person is "generally anti-war".
And I will bet you think the rest of your trite pro-war, over-simplified drivel are profound and original.
Us smart young folks, weren't of voting age in 2001. Nor were we in any position to make strategic decisions during much of that war. It was the generation that fought the Vietnam War as JOs that failed to learn its lessons. But I remember 9/11 all the same, I doubt any President would've keep the US out of war in 2001. You don't just kill nearly 3,000 Americans and get away with it.
As opposed to some wars maybe necessary position. If you disagree, please tell me how WWII was unnecessary?
Another intellectual idiot. Learned it all in school, did you? How about actually go to these places instead of judging from a keyboard.
Turd
And where did you serve? Civilians are nothing but parasites, and you sound like one
You talking to me?
"not everything in life is comparable to the 1960s"
True, but people are. The individuals may change, but human nature doesn't. And we in the "over 50 crowd" have managed to learn a bit about it. Perhaps you have heard phrases such as "He who doesn't learn history is doomed to repeat it", or "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose", etc., or "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Yes, learn history. But you should actually compare similar situations. There is no comparison between Vietnam and Ukraine. One is a guerilla war fought in a jungle against a developing power. The other is a conventional fight over mostly open terrain against a regional power that has nukes.
While an argument can be made that stopping communism in Vietnam was in the national interests of the US, there's little to support US involvement in Ukraine promotes valid US national interests, and plenty to support it is a source of corruption in the US.
I will half agree with you. I think keeping Ukraine free of Russian domination and occupation is in the US interest. I understand the point is arguable.
Regarding 'a source of corruption in the US', yes definitely. I would love to see an accounting of all the money and shady deals through Ukraine, plus an explanation of the biolabs that seem to exist or not exist based on State's mood at the time.
Tinfoil hat, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of that money & resources are being used to keep "European Allies" in lock step with Deep State policy. What is USAID & Samantha Powers doing in Hungary (a NATO country)? Why did arms allocated to Ukraine turn up in France? Crazy, right?
Lots of things are in the interest of the US. The question is are those interests important enough to get us involved, and how much.
No, Vietnam was only partly a guerilla war. By 1963 it was evolving, per Mao Tse Tung, into a conventional war. By 1964-65 with the entrance of NVA regular units it became both a conventional war and a guerilla war. By 1972 the guerilla part was distinctly secondary.
There are always comparisons. There are also always differences.
perhaps the example was already set by one General Marshall when he cleaned house prior to WWII, cause right now it sure seems if anyone has confidence in the General/Admiral crews and their civvie counterparts over the services right now, well god bless them, cause this is one big corporate set of who leads the most straight line path and stays connected to the voted weasels gets the highest rungs of the ladder. Challenge it in anyway and well, there is a job awaiting the bright ones in the defense industry as a bright spot. The bright person out there that fixes it can even use the very big abused phrase "divest to invest" to get these bright minds in place now.
People in their thirties today are not Gen X but Millennials. Generally, demographers consider those born between 1965 and 1980 as Gen X.
This makes me wonder, if the reason US Navy transformation efforts were such a miserable failure was because the leftover Cold War leaders were running things, Now with the Cold War well in our wake we see the USMC transforming, creating change, with notible success.
"with notible success."
That remains to be seen. Depending, of course, on your definition of "success".
US Navy transformation efforts have been an unmitigated success. Problem is, what the Navy has transformed into is not very useful for national defense.
It's a task, quite an undertaking, to maintain factory production while under repeated assault. Still, in his book "Inside the Third Reich" Albert Speer described how he was able to keep factory production up, even under the heavy Allied bombing. Even though the aerial photography showed devastating direct hits, getting production back up to 85% was often only a matter of a couple weeks. What Speer wrote wasn't just him blowing a lot of smoke. The US Strategic Bombing Survey had come to the same conclusions.
Perhaps we could borrow a few of these people to get our factories producing armaments at somewhere near the levels we need.
Well, Congress, Clinton, Bush and Obama told the military to tear those factories down.
Yeah. The wonderful "Peace Dividend".
I wonder is any retired UKR FOGOs are involved in their defense industry?
Perhaps if we fired all the FOGOs involved in ours and replaced them with kids in their thirties we might not do any worse. Ditto for the 535 idjits in Congress.
Bet they're very involved (follow the money).
"his nation is in the middle of an existential fight"
"existential"?
Well, you know how disagreeable I am. Perhaps you can show me some evidence of Russia's goal to eliminate Ukraine, as opposed to a limited goal of taking territory it considers to be Russian.
The biggest threat to the Ukrainian people is not Russia, it's Zelensky and his handlers. Watch them keep sending Ukrainian men off to die.
"Young men deeds, middle-aged men plans, old men farts".
Did AI-assisted lookup on pithy phrase from this article.
Effort evolved into AI-prompted “social network analysis”
Revised key phrase became: “CDR Salamander” “real name”
Chose images to display search results:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&sxsrf=AB5stBhGrqs3qcQi-ZcFvDiAlZreYyabGg:1689046169918&q=%E2%80%9CCDR+Salamander%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9Creal+name%E2%80%9D+2005&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic9t2n24WAAxVgjYkEHQNRBs4Q0pQJegQIDBAB&biw=1128&bih=732&dpr=2
This one appears to be pick of the image-inspired litter:
https://www.usna.edu/Museum/_files/documents/2020_NavyCon_Program_final.pdf
+++
Another interesting note on Oleksandr Kamyshin…he previously ran UKR Rail, achieving a 90+% on-time rate.