March 29 — Day 1129b — continued
CIA Boss Points Out Yes, the Ukrainians Will Fight
On Wednesday during the Signal scandal fracas multiple administration officials were getting hauled over the coals in front of Congress, and among them was John Ratcliffe, America’s top spy. He did his share of you can’t pin that on me copper tap dance (“ I just don’t recall” and “I didn’t say that” and “Well, maybe it was sensitive information but it wasn’t the same as classified information”, when legislators tried to pin him down on the giant security breach the Signal scandal was. But also, almost in passing, he said this:
”With regard to the Ukrainian resistance, the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military have been underestimated for a period of several years now. And ultimately, from my reflections in observing, from an intelligence standpoint, I’m convinced that they will fight with their bare hands if they have to, if they don’t have terms that are acceptable to an enduring peace.”
This is of course diametrically opposed to the position of the Vice President, who told Voldymyr Zelensky to his face that Ukraine is defeated and Ukraine should surrender. Congress didn’t ask Ratcliffe directly, he volunteered the statement. This is a pretty serious crack in the Trump administration’s official narrative on Ukraine. It could be Ratcliffe sees the administration’s policy of selling Ukraine down the river will fail and he’s trying to distance himself from it, and it could be that his boss, the Hawaii National Guard MP Major Tulsi Gabbard, isn’t passing on that evaluation to the White House and talking to Congress was a way for Ratcliffe to bypass here.
But bottom line, if you look closely the Trump team isn’t monolithic, it’s individuals and power groupings competing for the dictator’s favor. Image of Gabbard and Ratcliffe.
General Zaluzhny Thinks NATO is Sort of Funny
General Valery Zaluzhny the former ZSU top commander was giving a talk in Europe somewhere this week and the discussion came around to Russia strikes against Ukraine spilling into Romania, and more generally, how effective he think NATO’s Article 5 is at protecting a country in the Atlantic Alliance.
Zaluzhny is known for a well-developed sense of humor and this is what he said: “There is no Article 5. They called me from Romania, and they asked not to say that the Russians were sending Shahed drones against us (Ukraine) that were hitting Romania. The Romanians said ‘Why are you jamming the Russian drones? They’re flying into our air space!’.
“I told them ‘Shoot them down yourselves, you have 40 F-16s standing by, why are you asking me to defend NATO?….The Baltic countries understand that there is no Article 5 of NATO (on collective defense) and never was. Poland understands this, where periodically our missiles fall, then Russian ones. Romania understands everything, but is silent.”
I would say Zaluzhny’s view is very much the conventional wisdom on NATO among people who think about it these days. Honest people point out that Russia’s theoretical casus belli and justification for war- that Ukraine might join NATO — is obsolete and irrelevant, because NATO credibility to stand up to Russia already was weak, and that was before the US government changed and the Trump administration threw NATO and American commitment to NATO under the bus. So why invade Ukraine to keep Ukraine out of NATO if NATO is useless?
Yes, I noticed that Ratcliff comment and thought it was out of the official white house narrative. Why say this voluntarily?
Its purely speculation, but I think the signal gate was maybe an internal setup, perhaps by a disaffected staffer to screw this admin over and its the perfect inoculation over their favourite topic of Hilary's email breach. Or maybe they are just idiots.
On the topic of drone manufacturing in Russia, Ive seen telegram posts complaining the Ukrainians make far more and better fpv drones vs Russia and Russia gives low priority to the private groups making drones because they could be an internal threat.
NATO is an interesting entity. As a large conglomerate-like assemblage, it evolves over time through a wide range of characteristics and strengths and weaknesses…, right now there’s little to brag about.
As a pilot stationed at Hahn AB, in Germany, 1977-1983, I know we were well versed on our commitments to NATO, how it would work and why it was needed during the Cold War. There were indications that it held a consistent political respect among all member governments.
To a great extent, the threat that justified NATO’s existence went away when the Berlin Wall came down.
The “peace dividend” years turned NATO into an expensive club, but inconvenient to disband, because so many prior Warsaw Pact countries wanted in. As the Putin era reintroduced the very threat NATO was created for, the consistent political respect is no longer there. Quite a few countries preferred to ignore the threat and pursue “business as usual”. More drastically, Hungary under Orban, Slovakia under Fico and especially currently the U.S. under “what’s his name” would readily flip the bird to Article 5.
A major remake of NATO is called for. One that would go so far as to require a new name and member list. Currently, it’s potentially finally taking shape as “the willing” countries. Ukraine would be it’s finest, most important anchor member.