November 9 — Day 990a — Feckless Yankees, Big Battalions and Big Bux, The Concert of Europe Tunes Up?
HI all!
OK, that’s the US Presidential election out of the way.
The only reaction to Trump’s victory and Harris’ defeat that I’ll offer here, is that my job and the job of people like me got a lot easier, because now that the voting is done it will be a breeze to compare what was promised or threatened during the campaign — and that’s both sides — with actual reports from actual real life. It’s already started, actually.
On the ground I would say the most significant developments on the front this week have a Russian push in Kursk region, probably without North Korean help; and a slowdown or maybe better started a redirection of Russian attacks in Donbass.
But on the general Ukraine news front I’d say the main story is the Trump administration’s scrambling to keep their candidate’s promise to end the war immediately, as in “24 hours”, after getting elected. His words not mine.
This is not a reporter playing “gotcha” nearly as much, as the case I will make below that US credibility on Ukraine is poor and it seems like it will not improve. My guess is that reality will drive the war in new directions.
Also, as an administrative note, I am informed that KP might translate this review for the first time ever into Ukrainian.
I suspect the idea the idea came really before they understood how much I can type if uninterrupted on a Saturday, so we’ll see.
But if you do read this in Ukrainian: “Welcome!” and “Don’t keep your opinions to yourself!”
UKRAINE’S AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
This section is swiped partially from an answer I wrote to a reader who asked about Ukrainian reaction to the Republican victory in the US. I think it’s reasonable to kick off the discussion on what’s happening in ceasefire/peace negotiations and what comes next, by looking at things through Ukrainian eyes first, it’s their country and their blood.
The Ukrainians want more than anyone for the death and destruction to stop. But, I would say the view that simply stopping shooting and trusting foreigners things will be OK would be worse than more war, is pretty much total across society.
My view, it might be possible to trick the Ukrainian public into a peace deal that says it will protect them from Russia that does not actually do that. But Ukrainian media is pretty energetic and Ukrainian officials have to defend what they do, which includes signing peace deals. Me, I don’t see any way at this point to get the Ukrainians to accept a peace deal that won’t absolutely guarantee their safety. Otherwise they will fight.
I’m aware outside Ukraine this view that nothing is possible unless Ukrainian security is absolutely and totally guaranteed seems irrational and suicidal to some.
Almost any Ukrainian would answer: You are outside Ukraine, you aren’t being attacked and you don’t have to live with the possibility of a future attack from Russia. And this isn’t bad news like your stocks lost value or you lost your job. This is death, destruction, mayhem, families ripped apart and uprooted. We would love for the war to end. But we aren’t going to sign off on some agreement that allows Russia to attack us again. If that’s the only option, then we have no choice, we have to keep fighting. At least that way the Russians can only attack us with a damaged army, and every time they do it we kill more of their soldiers who, obviously, can’t ever attack us again.
From the Ukrainian perspective, there is a big problem with American ideas about a ceasefire with Russia. The thing is, the US has sold Ukraine down the river repeatedly. It is an established pattern, it is a known quantity, it isn’t theoretical. It’s true not just the Ukrainians have been thrown under the bus, but that doesn’t make things better.
My point is, it’s not about morality or Ukrainian stubbornness. It’s just that Ukrainians remember American actions most Americans are ignorant about, or would just prefer to forget, and they point to a pattern that, if ignored, is a direct threat to Ukrainian national security.
This is all straight-up recorded history so, for those of you who know this, certainly skip a bit.
In 1991 shortly after Ukraine declared its independence, no less than George H. Bush took told the Ukrainians they needed to stay loyal to Russia. In his view Russia had Ukraine’s best interests at heart. This later became known as the “Chicken Kiev” speech. It’s arguable the US stance towards Ukraine didn’t shift substantially in the next 30 years. Foodie image attached.
In 1994–6 Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for American assurances Ukrainian independence and sovereignty were inviolate. That was the Clinton administration.
From 2003–2008, in one of the first combat deployments by a military by any former Soviet republic, in history, Ukraine deployed troops to Iraq to support the US-led war there. Ukrainian soldiers were killed. It was not lost on the Ukrainians that in 2008, when Russia attacked Georgia, the Americans took no meaningful steps to intervene or contain Russian invasion of a neighboring state. That was the George W. Bush administration. Image.
Russian soldiers relax during their invasion of Georgia in 2008
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Then they annexed Crimea. The Obama administration’s response was to lateral the problem to the Europeans, take no steps to assist the Ukrainians, and make clear Ukrainian sovereignty and European security are not US priorities.
In 2015, after declaring the use of chemical weapons a “red line”, the Obama administration watched and failed to act as the Syrian government used poison gas to attack Kurdish fighters that were American allies. Some had fought alongside the US military when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. The Ukrainians (and the Russians and Europeans) saw that.
The Trump administration, in power in 2016, after some delay sent a few hundred Javelin missiles to Ukraine. Then the Trump government stopped all arms deliveries to Ukraine for more than a year to try and leverage a renewal of arms shipments into a Ukrainian for an investigation into a US political rival.
The Ukrainians don’t care Trump was impeached for this. For the Ukrainians, the key point was that Trump, like Obama, saw Ukrainian security and safety as so unimportant, it could be thrown away, much like a cheap poker chip. Also, it wasn’t like Trump started sending Ukraine tanks, fighter jets and artillery. Pretty much it was HUMMVs and medkits.
As I pointed out during the election campaign, anyone arguing Trump understands Putin and Russia must explain how the Trump administration from 2016–2020 did not discourage further Russian aggression. HUMMVs and medkits and a few hundred Javelin missiles are useful, but we’re talking deterring authoritarian Russia, on the heels of its invasion of Georgia and then Ukraine.
If that were not signal enough, the Trump administration on Dec 19, 2018 ordered all US troops out of Syria, effectively abandoning Kurds living in the region to main force attacks by the Syrian AND the Russian militaries. (Image)
Then the US pulled out of Afghanistan. (Image) When Russia invaded Ukraine a second tme, in 2022, the US advice to the Ukrainians, now Biden administration, was to surrender most of their country to Russia and fight a partisan war. Since then that administration saw fit to place avoiding risking confrontation with Russia ahead over the Ukrainians’ ability to defend themselves. This has even extended to US weapons bought and paid for by other countries that wanted to give those weapons to Ukraine.
The message to the Kremlin, now fighting a war of destruction with the objective of annihilating the Ukrainian state was clear: Use nukes in Ukraine and the US will intervene seriously. Use anything less than nukes, and the US won’t oppose Russia seriously.
As the war ground on, US officials kept on declaring “Agression will not stand” and that “America has Ukraine’s back”, and “As long as it takes”. Then, from Dec. 2023-April 2024, the US cut off all arms deliveries to Ukraine.
From the Kremlin point of view, it’s obvious, the US talks a lot but when push comes to shove the US backs down. Over and over. Not just in Ukraine.
From the Ukrainian perspective, American appeasement of Russia is bipartisan, it is ingrained in DC institutions, it is the way the Americans have treated Ukraine for generations and it is not something that will change any time soon.
The point is, in any future negotiation, by any state, even formal security promises signed by a US President and ratified by the Senate, aren’t necessarily to be trusted. Past US behavior allows no other interpretation.
I promise you, in any talk on a deal in which a US negotiator suggests Ukrainian concessions in exchange for US commitments, the Ukrainian response “Well, what about the Vietnamese capitalists? The Iraqi democrats? The Bosnian refugees? The Kurdish allies? The Afghan women? How did relying on American promises of undying support to democracy and freedom and a rules-based international order work out for them?”
My point is, demonstrated US fecklessness and lack of credibility in an international security agreement, will be the Ukrainian starting point in any talks involving the US and ceasefire negotitions with Russia. Vietnam iconic image attached just to hammer in the point.
As the Ukrainians see it, the Americans are not reliable, they have really never been reliable, and they absolutely do not see Ukrainian national sovereignty and prevention of Russian attacks on Ukraine as particularly in the US national interest.
When you start seeing the US mainstream complaining about the stubborn Ukrainians, that’s your answer why.
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE US SALES PITCH
As we have seen in the news one set of peace deal terms being floated by the Trump administration, to wit by three unnamed officials of unclear rank to the Wall Street Journal, is that the way to get to a ceasefire is to freeze fighting lines and place European tripwire forces between the Russians. Meanwhile the US would fund a really combat-capable Ukrainian army. But no US troops on the ground and no US commitment to use force to guarantee Ukrainian security.
The Zelensky administration, unsurprisingly, has politely called the idea rumors in the press. For Kyiv it was mostly just another opportunity to point out that a ceasefire not absolutely protecting Ukraine from another Russian invasion is something Ukraine can’t agree to, it would be stupid. This official Kyiv view is nothing new so the WSJ article made only a minor ripple in Ukrainian news cycles.
But, for those of us in the English-language sphere outside Ukraine, I think it’s worth it to dig into how utterly absurd, ridiculous, idiotic, uneducated, naive, fantastic, childish, moronic and detached from reality (no thesaurus) the proposition of a big Ukrainian military financed by the US, and screened by the Europeans is.
First place, the potential adversary needing to be deterred is the second- or third-largest military in the world. Right now, the Russians are fielding and sustaining an army of, perhaps, 250,000–300,000 men, backed by tanks, air force, artillery, missiles the works, in Ukraine.
It’s worth asking, what would it take to deter the Kremlin from unleashing that force, or a bigger one, again against Ukraine?
It would have to be a serious Ukrainian army. This is not Afghans with AKs trained and paid to kick in doors so the US special ops guys don’t have to that we’re talking about. This would have to be a modern, combined arms army first and foremost built of brigade combat teams capable of sustained conventional war combat.
According to open sources, right now Ukraine has more or less, maybe 150,000–200,000 men in arms. Possibly less due to casualties. Maybe 100 or so combat brigades, effectively all with serious personnel and equipment shortages, are on the line any one time.
There is no need to guess what this force is capable of, as we can see right now, this force is able to inflict heavy casualties on the Russians and prevent a total collapse of defense.
But it’s unable to prevent small-scale Russian advances, or prevent continuing friendly losses that are hard to replace. These weaknesses are primarily due to a lack of training, particularly combat and staff officers. Equally lacking is firepower, both in weapons systems and ammunition. Obviously, in it’s present strength the UAF is insufficient to deter the Russian army from attacking. Which is what you need to deter.
So what’s the price of a good brigade? According to the US government, to field ONE combat capable combined arms brigade, for 365 days, in 2017, US taxpayers were shelling out about $2.5 billion. TOE image attached.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51535-fsprimerlite.pdf
Admittedly 2022 dollars aren’t 2017 dollars, and Ukrainian soldier salaries and training costs aren’t the same as Pentagon employees, but on the other hand that USG figure wasn’t planning for the brigade to be capable of long-term, sustained combat against the Russian army.
As we have seen munitions fired and combat vehicle losses, and costs for that, are orders of magnitude greater in Ukraine than in Afghanistan.
Primitive math is why I say the claim “Well, we the US will just guarantee Ukrainian security by paying so that Ukraine can defend itself” is so absolutely idiotic.
As we have seen, due to the size of the battle space and the combat power of the enemy, most likely around 100 full-strength, war-ready combat brigades is what Ukraine would need to make Russia’s next invasion of Ukraine so bloody, that Russia probably would think twice before attacking. Minimum.
Do the math. The price tag for that would put US taxpayers on the hook for a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Every year. Just for the ground force, Ukrainian air forces, civil defense and navy forces would be extra. This is just the by-year cost for keeping the formation in the field combat-ready. It doesn’t include one-time costs like raising the brigade and arming it.
Anyone who wants to argue the Ukrainians need less than that in terms of a ground force, will have a problem making a strong argument, because we can see right now what happens when the Ukrainian army has less than that. No need to guess..
So, even were the Ukrainians to believe American diplomats actually were serious with the line “We have your back, we will buy you a first class military so you can be neutral and not join NATO”, the Ukrainians are not fools.
They know US taxpayers would never support paying for a force that size, not least because the President they just elected, has promised them he will end the war in Ukraine on the cheap.
But more seriously, they also know the size of the combat force Ukraine would need to have on its own, in order to be neutral and join no alliances, and at the same time deter Russia, is orders of magnitude more than the United States is capable of paying for, even if the Americans were willing to do that, and they aren’t.
to be continued…
The Syrian government used gas attacks on Arabs, not Kurds. The Kurds of Syria and Iraq are on friendly relation with both Russia and US - it's Middle East so complicated. The Kurds needed US protection against Turkey, not Russia or Siria.
In Europe, we are more and more getting the feeling that this Russian-Ukrainian war is the American Suez...