NamEndedAllen

This what Putin is counting on. Really, his only hope for redemption is being re-embraced by a newly elected president Trump: Sanctions lifted immediately, resumed threats to leave NATO, verbal attacks on all USA allies as before, and leaning towards foreign dictators (again). With a Republican House of Representatives bent on spending cuts, a return to threatening to withhold Ukraine military support unless it agrees to various demands is probable. Demands many here would find appalling. At which point Putin and Xi announce their “Peace Plan”, with loud Trump endorsement. Europe in disarray not just over the war, but much more fundamental, over what they feared four years earlier. USA no longer a reliable partner, perhaps in anything. Not trustworthy. The end of the Atlantic Alliance. This isn’t a prediction! It’s a possible scenario with more than a 50/50 probability because it is based in many aspects on past behavior. So, all the more reason to underscore the critical need for providing Ukraine with *everything* it needs to win convincingly on the battlefield this year. To deliver such a major Russian battlefield defeat that the Russian military in Ukraine is finished. And no one can doubt the fact. Because the only reasonable guarantee of ending the threat of future Russian attacks is full NATO membership. And the only way all NATO members might consider this is the convincing, devastating Russian defeat. Gambling *anything* about NATO until after 2024 is gambling Ukraine’s lives and future.

Another triumphant Putin victory! (sarcasm) “To better cope with threats emanating from Russia, the countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have created a unified Nordic air defense alliance, pooling the resources of their air forces. They have upwards of 300 fighter jets between them as well as training, transport and surveillance fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Those four nations on Friday announced they signed the first Nordic Air Commanders' Intent last week during a meeting at Ramstein Air Base in Germany’. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/nordic-air-defense-pact-combines-forces-of-hundreds-of-fighter-aircraft

Without comment!

An interesting question I’ve been considering. We know Russia is providing more modern aircraft upgrades to Iran’s decrepit air force, in exchange for drones, ammunition, etc. But what does Russia have besides raw materials that China might want to cherry pick? Besides much longer development and experience with nuclear weapons of all classes (which is not trivial)? Nuclear submarines. Just speculating, but Russia/Soviet Union has a long history of developing and deploying generations of attack and ballistic nuke subs. It also has a vast trove of data derived from encounters with USN sub and surface fleet. And in all facets, what worked, what didn’t. It’s possible that China would welcome significant nuclear sub technology in exchange for…?

Yes, thank you. It’s a big IF! Excellent points, especially regarding the cultural/political differences. Many have suggested that China is facing a brief window to invade Taiwan. A lot of reasons are discussed, including the fact that the USA military does eventually apply what it learns. I’ve been thinking about something more fundamental on the Chinese side, the future of China’s formal long term goal to militarily equal or surpass the USA military dominance, across the board by 2050. If we focus on the past decade and China’s rapid modernization program, China arguably has been growing far faster than its opposition. Consider China’s mountains of money poured into platform building programs and technological advances, fueled in part by espionage/theft. The literature is filled with impressive developments in both naval and Air Force. BUT…that was then. In the not too distant future, the costs of maintenance for these recent platforms arriving is going to balloon at the same. This is crushing in the West, and China’s costs in the future will likewise be far steeper. That time will be approaching soon for its first construction wave. Equally challenging will be the ending of the huge advantage China enjoys in personnel expenses. As the current platforms age, so will the personnel. As will expanded needs for more highly educated personnel. China will begin face what the West has been coping with for years. Competition from industry and the civilian sector. Yes, China’s industry is more integrated with its military than the case in the West. But China’s economy inevitably is shifting from the less tech heavy low wage industries that initially fueled its export/capital rise. Those are moving into other countries following China’s footsteps. More advanced industries require higher education levels and…higher salaries. Otherwise the river of export profits that helped fuel its military growth will stagnate. So military salaries and investment costs will rise regardless of the heavy hand of the government. Worse, the costs of next generation ships, planes, missiles, tanks, radars, drones, and the rest will all be much higher than yesterday. Not equalizing the costs in the West, but certainly shrinking the vast current gaps. Oh, don’t forget China’s demographic squeeze! Back in the USA, its military has been facing these challenges for a long time. Although there aren’t any magical solutions, decades of experience making these choices and compromises is not to be trivialized. At the same time, that experience has been coupled with the experience of a number of wars, now capped with major war in Ukraine. While I agree with everything you said about the social framework differences, these experiences cannot be bought by China. All of which suggests that the relative gains by China in the past will not be at nearly the same rate in the future. Nor will that rate hold steady. Even if that 2050 parity date is pessimistic, it shows China’s realistic recognition of how far it has to go. And the current USA military/technological dominance is a moving target. China’s military knows this. So the point of greatest danger of war is calculated in USA Navy and Air Force circles, and the time of greatest opportunity for China is calculated in Beijing. I don’t know how closely they line up. But they can’t be too far apart. As well, there is Taiwan’s own non-trivial military and technological effort and what IT is learning from Ukraine. My opinion is that China is sobered by the enormous cost of every kind that Russia has already paid, and the low probability of any worthwhile recovery, and the immediate and forceful stiffening of Western resolve, even at significant costs to all the nations. The conclusion must be that any invasion of Taiwan would have to result in a quick, irresistible and decisive victory, and before whatever enabling window closes. Wouldn’t it be both cheaper and wiser to let time reach a peaceful rapprochement? Now back to the war in Europe.

Agreed! And I’ll pile on even more: On the first day of the invasion I looked at my loving, beautiful, fiercely patriotic (angry) Air Force brat wife and said, “I don’t see how Russia ever comes back from this, let alone Putin himself.” Not because I knew anything resembling even a feather’s weight fraction of your knowledge, but because I believed in the reaction of the USA, NATO, Europe in general. The Western Alliance. Battered as it was by years of indifference and internal dissensions. Why? Because I live in that bubble of outmoded old-fashioned optimism about the balance between decent humans and those that embrace fascism’s siren call. I did know that besides the Biden Administration rather surprising and openly sharing classified intelligence, it had been lining up Allied support well before Day One. But most of all, I believed that Europe would be shaken by the Russians crossing the Rubicon. That the USA would flood Ukraine with weapons. And that NATO would rediscover its core purpose was indeed real and knocking on the door. That “this shall not stand”. Pure emotion and vaguely informed opinion. No expertise. Blind faith that all the decades since the horrors of WWII had cemented a shared foundation of values that really meant something to our cultures, however varied and disputational we all may be. Will cracks develop if this goes on and on? Probably. We are but human. Yet without any of the deep, specific military knowledge you and others have, I believe in our ideals, however flawed we all are. Further, I believe in the other side of the Russian collapse coin. That this war is existential for us. That should the Western Allies’ will crumble and Ukraine be abandoned, the “West” itself will have committed cultural suicide. That we will have no foundation, no core, and our time in the sun will be past.

This is certainly a detailed and disturbing scenario! And I’m not disagreeing with it at all. But are you describing how a future conflict between two equally advanced adversaries might play out? Or the result for an attacker well-equipped but only in the manner of pre Russian-Ukrainian War Western militaries? Not having absorbed the lessons of this war and not having developed any of Ukraine’s and the West’s doctrines, methods and technologies? NATO or USA of say 5 years ago or slightly more? Put another way, wouldn’t the Chinese face the same problems you describe, while trying to fight a nation fighting like Ukraine? Especially if that nation is supported by the Western Allies? This seems in abstract to be a symmetrical situation. Aren’t these the general challenges any opponent would face if attacking a country fighting like Ukraine? Or are you suggesting the Chinese have already learned all the lessons, developed and equipped the new technologies, while the USA military, NATO nations are woefully behind? Or willfully ignoring the lessons, and have not applied doctrine and equipped the advanced technologies already owned or in the pipeline?

Difficulty with this scenario is that there are no international means for China, the UN or any nation to require anyone to stop doing anything, short of war. If there were, this war would already be over.

The Presidential race is the only national election. Remember, it’s the MAGA base that is anti-Ukraine, that favors Putin over Biden, focuses on China not Russia. And the MAGA base controls most Republican primaries. Anti Ukraine support is *not* the position of the majority of Congressional Republicans. But neither Trump nor Gov. DeSantis care much about Congress at the moment, only those MAGA primary voters. So, anti-Ukraine spending lines up nicely with federal debt outrage, spending waste etc, however disingenuous that may actually be. The more sky-is-falling fear rhetoric that can be ginned up the better, whether about nuclear war with Russia or all the other extremist favorite hits. Railing against *another* War In Europe is a way for these candidates to distinguish themselves from opponents. Ukraine isn’t their central argument, but it is a strong supporting point. And as the ever popular Western “war weariness” sentiment it gains strength. All this is a one more indicator that ensuring a sustainable victory by Ukraine sooner, not later is of greater importance than ever.

Making headlines and read on Fox/Carlson. Underscoring the growing divide between pro Ukraine/USA Senate Republicans, and the noisy rump group of Russia leaning House Republicans plus popular Presidential hopefuls Trump and DeSantis. Polls of Republican voters show a very narrow margin favoring support for Ukraine. Will it matter in the 2024 Election? “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is dismissing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a “territorial dispute” and says protecting the European nation is not a vital U.S. interest, firmly putting the potential presidential candidate on the side of Donald Trump and at odds with top congressional Republicans. DeSantis delivered his foreign policy opinion in response to a questionnaire from Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host, foe of U.S. aid to Ukraine and frequent critic of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Carlson read DeSantis’s statement on his Monday night program in which he also shared responses from the former president and former vice president Mike Pence, among other potential White House candidates.” - Washington Post, By Leo Sands, John Wagner, Dan Lamothe and Meryl Kornfield March 14, 2023 at 1:07 p.m. PT

ISW has quite a long and intense analysis of the tense situation of Prigozhin, the Russian military, and Putin. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-12-2023

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-leopard-1-tanks-will-arrive-this-spring ”One of NATO’s legacy Cold War tanks will soon be on the way to Ukrainian units, with the Danish Ministry of Defense announcing the first of its Leopard 1A5DK tanks will be delivered by spring. Acting Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen, along with German Defense Ministry State Secretary Thomas Hitschler, visited Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft (FFG) to speak on the planned transfer. FFG is renovating the formerly Danish, Dutch, and German Leopard 1A5s before their delivery. The plan calls for two tank battalions, or approximately 80 tanks, for Ukrainian forces. While the standard Leopard 1 entered service in the 1960s, the 1A5 upgrade variant began its career in the 1980s with a modern fire control system and all-weather night sights. While the Leopard 1 and its derivatives, including the Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, remain in service in several countries, Germany retired its last Leopard 1s in 2003. “

New homegrown Ukrainian long range munition just reported: With little fanfare, Ukraine has developed and used a guided artillery rocket in combat with a longer range and heavier warhead than the vaunted Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) munitions provided by the U.S. and allies. Called the Vilkha-M, it is a modified 7.6m (25-foot) long Soviet BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) artillery rocket. The Vilkha-M has a range of 110km (68 miles) and a 300mm, 485-pound warhead that can hit targets with great accuracy, Ivan Vinnyk, first deputy head of the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries, told The War Zone Tuesday. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-is-using-guided-rockets-with-more-range-than-himars-launched-ones

Well now. This could get quite interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/28/world/russia-ukraine-news/blinken-to-meet-with-counterparts-in-central-asia?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare A U.S. diplomatic push arrives in the heart of the former Soviet sphere. The diplomat, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, opened a two-day visit to Central Asia by meeting with the president of Kazakhstan and the country’s foreign minister, both of whom expressed a willingness to work with the United States and a commitment to protecting their national sovereignty, an indication of wariness toward Russian aggression.

That is an excellent question. Unfortunately it isn’t a simple answer, and Congress’s rules are often irrational. The process starts in committees, has to be voted out of committee to be considered by the Speaker (or the Senate Majority leader) for a vote by the full Chamber. But bitter debate and horsetrafing to get the bill in shape in committee will be even worse with the new House Rules. Same when a bill reaches the House floor (if!). Any member can then offer amendments far more easily under the new rules. Whatever passes has to go to the Senate. Different Party majority there. They will not pass the House version. Then the bill goes to Conference Committee, for work by both Chambers to try and get something the fommittee agrees on. Lots of crap and horsetrading because members know there are those in both House and Senate who will demand either more of this, or less of that. If they can pass a joint bill out of Conference, both Senate and House have to debate and vote again. Plus, the debt limit will have to be raised by summer when Treasury can no longer juggle paying the past due bills and default looms. Want to get on whether foreign aid is going to be part of that fight?

That was then, this is now. Remember, this Party just changed a LOT of the House Rules. If you are saying aid will be passed, you are agreeing with my belief. But if you are betting on it sliding through quickly, in as large or larger amounts, and no demands for ideological concessions attached just to get out of committee…we’ll, we’ll have ringside seats. The vote you mentioned was legislation with a different majority Party. This is now. The “other Party”. With the Speaker warning of putting on the brakes, “no blank checks”, etc. He has bizarro members that you mentioned. This Party is different, prefers to put forward only legislation it can pass with its own votes. Using the other Party’s is considered compromising. And betrayal etc. As I said, I believe Ukraine aid will indeed pass. But watch for it taking longer, for vicious debates and the extraction of ideological concessions in order to make it so. I’d rather you were right! But…that was then. This is now.

McCaul is one of the solid guys, and glad he is chair of an important committee.. But if you are talking about actual aid legislation in the House, yes of course. Remember the agonized voting for the Speaker? The tiny majority of Republicans in the house? Five defections out of the 18 or so nay sayers many of whom openly embrace Putin or Russia…no aid for Ukraine. This party only puts legislation forward that will pass with its own party’s votes. So, yeah. You\ should be concerned about new billions for Ukraine passing the House, where spending legislation must originate. That’s the way the Congress works. I do think some legislation will continue to pass, but it will likely be both less in total and only after extended negotiations for concessions for the radicals whose votes are required. That’s what happens when the majority hangs by a thread. The leadership has very little power, and any handful of representatives hold a ton.

Yes, let’s hope so. The political stuff going on in NATO back rooms *might* be leaking a bit though. Talks about one (or two?) members unwilling to budge on admitting more new candidates, whether Sweden or Ukraine. So some members float an alternative way forward for Ukraine. And also as a kinda sorta semi-concession for Russian face-saving for a potential peace plan. I haven’t heard any talk at all for a very long time about NATO membership for Ukraine. So possibly some members are trying out compromise possibilities? I think we all agree that so long as the Western military aid continues to flow, Ukraine should be growing stronger, while Russia struggles to tread water. It’s that caveat about political will and how it varies in each country that is always a bit worrisome the longer the war continues. We all know that is the wild card, the only one that Russia can hope for to get something out of the deep mess it’s mired in.

Understood! I just recall your outlining a similar scenario (not your endorsement of it as the only possibility), along with cautions about taking back all the post 2014 oblasts, and stressing the importance of negotiation for ending the war. Well short of a dangerous collapse of Russia into several warlord-ish states, with nukes. Whoever these NATO officials are, they seem to be saying we are with you for *just* one more major offensive. Not your wise “at least” one more. And oh, no NATO membership. My concern is how dangerous it is to tell Ukraine - and Russia! - that Ukraine MUST win this next offensive, big time. Fire all the guns at once, roll the dice NOW. Good luck, because that’s all of your country that you’re going to get back. Even if it doesn’t turn out all that well. Because “we” are done. A message like that is dangerous before the spice, er, major new NATO type weapon systems are REALLY flowing in. Fully trained up-gunned brigades and support systems, much better air defenses.. Let alone what so many wise heads from Western militaries are saying to also supply - as many here have urged. Bottom line, it does matter what Ukraine says. And any peace plan has to be voted on by the citizens of Ukraine. Lastly, given President Biden’s near simultaneous and opposite public statements to these officials…well, it smacks of a possible crack in the house’s foundation. We do not want that. But Russia and China do.

Biden AND DNR puppet both reject China’s plan. Also from today’s ISW: US President Joe Biden rejected China’s 12-point peace plan as Russian sources continue to capitalize on the announcement of the plan to vilify the West and Ukraine. Biden stated that the Chinese peace plan is only beneficial for Russia and that it would make no sense for China to participate in negotiations on the war in Ukraine.[7] Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) head Denis Pushilin argued that China’s peace plan is a fundamentally different approach to the war in Ukraine from the West’s as the West demands the fulfillment of preconditions while exacerbating the conflict through supporting Ukraine.[8] Pushilin nevertheless also rejected the Chinese plan because it would prevent Russia from achieving its maximalist goals in Ukraine.[9] Russian officials and propagandists continue to assert that Western aid that helps Ukraine resist Russia’s illegal invasion protracts the war and to ignore the role that Russia’s determined pursuit of its maximalist aims plays in prolonging the conflict. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-25-2023

Well here is a timely, if somewhat disappointing update on NATO and Ukraine, from today’s ISW: Deleted most - DesertFox just posted the link. But the explanation does seem important and troubling. “The Wall Street Journal noted that these officials expressed reservations about the West’s ability to sustain a prolonged war effort, the high casualty count that Ukraine would sustain in such a prolonged war, and Ukrainian forces’ ability to completely recapture long-occupied territories like Crimea, however. The Wall Street Journal contrasted these officials’ private reservations with US President Joe Biden’s public statements of support—which did not mention peace negotiations—and with Central and Eastern European leaders’ concerns that premature peace negotiations would encourage further Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is willing to compromise on his stated maximalist goals, which include Ukraine’s “neutrality” and demilitarization—as well as de facto regime change in Kyiv, as ISW has consistently reported” These officials appear to be leaning towards @The_Capt’s ending scenario of territorial concessions by Ukraine due in part to the steep costs of liberating Crimea and the Donbas, and that Western pockets and willingness are not infinite. Iirc, he stipulates granting Russia relief by lifting sanctions, but requiring reparations. Possibly some sort of liminal status of the conquered territories annexed by Russia. Have to say, this all feels pretty murky for Ukraine to accept, unless they find out for themselves that they just can’t get to the finish line.

Yes! Especially if Ukraine after thrashes what’s left down to a pathetic grubby stub. So let’s have the West get on with whatever arms and training it takes, and quickly! Not China slithering around the edges.

I guess it would, and I hope that would get enough votes despite the high hurdle. But I was referring to any *new* treaties, not NATO.. Because someone suggested that a new military alliance could be formed to guarantee Ukraine against yet another Russian invasion. I think that’s unlikely. .

Well yeah! That’s the point in this little series, along with dealing from a position of strength. Any military guarantees for Ukraine following some sort of negotiated end of the war better be in addition to Ukraine owning a position of inescapable strength: significant battlefield defeats of the Russians. NATO membership is the ideal guarantee, but China’s “peace plan” is unlikely to see Russia willing to accept Ukraine in NATO. Not to mention the complete withdrawal from Ukraine. Both would mean a total Russian defeat, even with the sanctions lifted. So instead of NATO membership someone suggested a new, smaller military alliance could make guarantees to protect Ukraine. That’s why it’s important to understand how the USA actually makes treaties, and its very high bar and lengthy process. Regardless of all this, I think many here are skeptical of any real juice behind China’s attempt to score international points. AFAIK, they’re amateurs in brokering peace. My hopes are pinned on Ukraine with the Western Allies assistance forcing Russia out of the war by inflicting significant defeats on the battlefield. Then come peace agreements, and NATO membership. Not by China weaseling some sort of shaky agreement during a stalemate that let’s Russia start this cycle all over again. All that is a different discussion.

True except the debt vote used to be pro forma until recently. Now it is an excruciating annual game of chicken used to extract ideological concessions. But to the point, the Constitution requires the Senate and only the Senate to ratify treaties. And I was wrong about needing 60 votes. It’s worse. Two thirds, 66 votes. So, very low probability of getting a new military alliance treaty ratified, committing to another war in Europe in any reasonable amount of time. If ever. I. Treaty Power The Constitution provides, in the second paragraph of Article II, Section 2, that “the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”