Ukraine

About That New York Times Article…

by

There is a lot of hubub on the nets concerning the NY Times article outlining the three-year history of the relationship between the US and Ukraine militaries during the Russian invasion. It’s fascinating, and while the larger strategic issues of the war are pushed into the background in favor of tactical and operational considerations, it fills in important details. Given the length (13,000 words) and the research involved, I’m sure there is a book in the works somewhere.

Given that, there’s something strange going on.

There is little in the article that should be shocking to anyone who has been paying attention for the past three years. It doesn’t take a proverbial “leaked Signal chat” to know that we have been providing the Ukrainians not only with supply, training, and planning support but also with ISR plugged right into the kill chain. We were everything but (officially) boots on the ground.

Problems in paradise between American and Ukrainian military planners? A staple of coalition warfare. The details are interesting, but the overall tenor is not surprising

That there were opportunities on the battlefield lost through miscommunication and political meddling? These dangers are present (and realized) in every war, and it’s the mark of a general’s ability to navigate those shoals at the highest levels of policy that gives them their place in history. George Marshall was a grandmaster at it. Mark Milley, not so much.

Read more

Questions for Our Time

by

I’ll have more of these, and there is some tangential discussion below, but these are the first few that come to mind. With the possible exception of the final one, they aren’t likely to be pursued by either the legacy media or red/blue partisans.

Read more

Investigations To-Do List

by

Regarding my previous post, I want J6 investigations to determine the numbers that engaged in the following:

  1. Attacked the defensive perimeter between the Capitol grounds and the area of the permitted Capitol protest
  2. Of those cited above, those who did and did not enter the Capitol grounds, and those who did and did not enter the Capitol building
  3. Engaged in assault to gain access to the Capitol building itself, or to areas within
  4. Other assaults by civilians
  5. Engaged in vandalism to gain access to the Capitol building or to areas within
  6. Other vandalism
  7. Entered the Capitol through unattended doorway (e.g. Chansley and his entourage)
  8. Entered the capitol through attended doorway with permission
  9. Accessed the Capitol grounds by climbing the west wall
  10. Of those cited above, those who did and did not enter the Capitol building (my own impression is that most were content to stay outside)
  11. Attempted to approach lawmakers while inside Capitol
  12. Did not attempt to approach lawmakers while inside Capitol
  13. All convictions of nonviolent persons who were never on Capitol grounds
  14. Capitol defenders lobbing tear gas canisters into the area of the permitted Capitol protest
  15. Capitol defenders lobbing tear gas elsewhere
  16. Assaults by non-civilians not involving tear gas

And now, on to other investigations the Trump administration or other parties should undertake.

Read more

Making Their Mark on the World

by

I’ve been mulling over the following question: how did each of the modern presidents from Nixon to present impact the world the most?

Richard Nixon: Opening relations with the People’s Republic of China.

Gerald Ford: The Helsinki Accords. The human rights plank encouraged the growing dissident movements in the Eastern Bloc. They took seriously what the Soviets were willing to put on paper in the albeit non-binding resolution.

Jimmy Carter: Enabling the Islamic totalitarian revolution in Iran.

Ronald Reagan: Fomenting the end of the Cold War. “Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal” – Gennady Gerasimov

George H. W. Bush: This may be a controversial choice, but I’m going with the “New World Order” speech, or rather what it represents – encouraging the United Nations to take a more active role in foreign relations. One of the legacies of the UN is the enshrinement of the ethic that wars must never be won, only fought to the point of ceasefire.

Bill Clinton: Granting the People’s Republic of China access to supercomputer technology vital to targeting manned, unmanned, and munitions-bearing rocketry. It’s the one great leap forward in China that actually worked.

George W. Bush: The Iraq War. Aside from altering the geopolitical landscape in the region, it convinced Muhammar Qaddafi to cooperate with the US to end Libya’s WMD program.

Barack Obama: Opening Iran to financial markets, thus magnifying its ability to conduct proxy wars.

Donald Trump (first term): It may be a bit early to gauge the legacy of the Abraham Accords, but opening the door to Israeli cooperation with some of its Arab neighbors is bound to have significant impact on Iran’s regional ascendency. It also breaks from the stupid tradition that any negotiations between Israel and any of its neighbors must include the Palestinians, as if Palestinian and non-Palestinian relations can’t be delt with separately.

Joe Biden: Opening Iran to financial markets, thus magnifying its ability to conduct proxy wars – assuming the Ukraine Missile Crisis does not top this. (Our own Trent Telenko is cited in the linked article.)

2024 Election Plus/Delta

by

Pluses: admittedly much the shorter list, but we did resolve a few things.

  1. Thanks mainly to vote shifts in California and New York, the popular vote outcome was not at variance with the Electoral College vote, and it wasn’t particularly close (over 4-1/2 million votes).
  2. Largely as a result, the losing side, and VP Harris herself, have indicated cooperation with formal certification and transition processes.
  3. Harris is gone. She’ll get a chunk of money for a book and retire to the lecture circuit.
  4. Walz, same, and given the likelihood that he would have been a 21st-century version of Henry Wallace, with Chinese instead of Soviet agents in his inner circle, that might be more important than getting rid of Harris.
  5. Taking a somewhat longer view, Trump is gone too (perhaps not a much longer view; see the final Delta item below).
  6. By extension, there is some chance that ’28 will not have the electorate choosing between a crook and an idiot for President.
  7. Whatever one may think of prediction markets, and there are arguments on both sides regarding their functionality, the biggest prediction market of all, the US stock market, was forecasting a Trump victory all year (not coincidentally, the same thing happened in 2016).
  8. By the way, the media will actually report negative economic news now.
  9. I could have put this in either category, but I’ll leave it here: your Cluebat of the Day is a reminder that Trump is as old as Biden was in ’20, and notwithstanding some of my more apprehensive items below, to expect anything much of him is a waste of time.
  10. Likely continuation of relatively good space-industry policy across Administrations, which should be the only thing that matters several decades from now.

Read more