Thank you, Mr Deis. You wrote that DJT viewed the current system from an outsider's perspective. By that, I think you meant as an outsider to the US State Dept and Western Diplomacy in general which has long been Internationalist.
I offer that DJT was viewing this as an insider's perspective. That is, as an American, not an Internationalist.
Spot on, I believe. In particular, the point about Russia’s now demonstrated military incapacity in combined arms warfare is manifest and needs to be acknowledged. These are not the armed forces of the Soviet Union: Russia has been unable to establish air dominance, not even superiority, in its *border* oblasts: Astounding. That’s been clear from the earliest days of the incompetently managed attempt at a decapitation strike on Kiev. Russia’s blue water navy of “Hunt for Red October” fame is a distant dream. They have nuclear weapons that *may* work, an uncertainty that *both* sides need to consider. In short, it is a fantasy to think that in its present state, Russia is any military threat to NATO nations beyond the use of nuclear weapons whose functionality is uncertain: A nuclear threat countered, and then some, by existing nuclear forces of the UK and France.
Starting from their corresponding degraded states - compare the current force structure to that of 1995 for the France, UK and Germany - is their any doubt that European economies could out produce and out build by orders of magnitude a corresponding build up by Russia? If what’s left of Ukraine is a hedgehog that Russia cannot now swallow, how much more difficult to swallow that hedgehog becomes if allowed a measure of peace backed by a EU-assisted defense build up.
Trump and those politically aligned oppose Ukrainian NATO membership and they oppose extending a boots-on-the-ground security guarantee to Ukraine in any future peace agreement. Name calling isn’t going to change that reality. Waiting them out is a poor strategy because Ukraine will lose an attritive war with Russia eventually. If the common sense of this is insufficient to convince, then read Peter Turchin’s modeling using standard analysis known to militaries on all sides covered in 6 posts on his website in 2023.
At this point, Russia has achieved its principal aim by entrenching in the border oblasts and is prepared to fight on to the last *Ukrainian* knowing that Russians will still be entrenched at that endpoint. Western Europe also appears willing to fight to the last Ukrainian hoping that regime change in Moscow occurs before that end while ignoring the very real possibility that Putin’s replacement would purse a more aggressive strategy in Ukraine. Western Europe is playing its hand poorly.
Trump’s gambit is well-described: A sub rosa security guarantee in the form of a direct material interest that isn’t threatening to Russia: No western arms pointed at Russia from the territory of Ukraine being an expected Russian bottom line here rooted in history and psychology and shared by all political factions in Russia. It buys time and offers a carrot to Russia as well in that proposed development project. Given buy-in, it may even neutralize Russia in the western Pacific when pushing becomes shoving between the US and the PRC as it most likely will at some point in the not distant future. At present, this is the only Plan B on offer to current, and failing Plan A. If there is a secret Plan C for victory on Zelensky’s and his European allies’ terms, now would be a good time to reveal it.
The US taxpayers have been providing for the defense of Europe for 70 years. NATO was without a good reason to exist since the Warsaw pact ceased to exist. That's all there is to it unless you are a Europhile, which no real American is (see George Washington's farewell address).
We need those rare earth minerals, wherever and however we can get them. Some rare earth elements are used in key thermal spray coating materials (my engineering field), in both alloys and ceramics for gas turbine engine applications in aerospace and electric power generation.
The issue with access to rare earths pivots less on raw ores; it's processing which is environmentally nasty. China controls the refining by its loose enviro regs, cheap capital, and a strategic decision to collapse prices below what capitalist companies within developed world can tolerate.
Someone in the higher ranks of the CCP read Cherows Rockefeller biography a couple of decades ago...
All we get for giving the Europeans a free ride all these years is their snotty contempt. Their failing welfare states were built on our back. These brave souls are proactively surrendering to some caliphate.
Exactly right. Islam is a far greater and more capable threat to Europe than Russia (especially with the aid and comfort of European leadership importing millions from the ME). Russia has repeatedly expressed a desire to join the European poltical sphere (even asking Clinton to join NATO way back when) but not as conquerers, which was obviously never a realistic goal for them anyway, despite all the globalist propaganda to the contrary. The Europeans appear to consider Russians (not to mention Ukrainians and Americans) as lower forms of life and act accordingly. Maybe someday the Euros will wake from their slumber. Perhaps due to the machete thats at their throat.
This comment is right on and so deeply misunderstood by the reactionary left (wake up Democrats, Bernie Sanders wants US disengagement and is not that into spending billions in Ukraine) and educated classes who want to live in a world where they can vacation in the south of France once time and think they are part of a world that takes them seriously — educated, experienced, merited.
Europe is no longer a competitor — it is selling brands Lois Vuitton and BMW instead of value. They sell élan and not always quality. It is now committing environmental suicide proving a mentally challenged Greta right — the world as we know will end in 5 years — because Europe is strangling itself in mysticism.
Europe was already more or less unable to defend its borders, and then it opened them up to fill in the lack of births. Now its very existence is fracturing and a growing majority of anti-western values flooding in. Western women, feminists, are now targets of opportunity for Arab men because they dress provocatively and are haram. Trash if you will.
Russia is a reactionary, revanchist due to its history (Mongols, Cossacks, Napoleon, Hitler) and mysticism about its wealth and the Russian preternatural fear about the west’s motivations to exploit it, dating back to Constantinople traders.
The most serious risk to Russia after Ukraine and NATO is when will China encroach its borders in western Siberia — in fact this is its real risk. China claims Taiwan using its telling of history. It claims the first island chain using historical half-truths. Meanwhile, Russia appears to ignore the parallel between Taiwan and with China’s claim of Siberia which the Czar more or less seized in the 19th century. For China, Taiwan is interesting but they more or less can trade or steal what they need. It is domestic political patronizing, and a symbolic revanchist dream. Siberia on the other hand is enormous wealth.
The US role in this is distance from Europes malaise — maybe keep Britain close. Make Europe grow up. Quell Russian agitation over NATO. Find peace in Ukraine — somehow. Then have Europe reinforce its military, bunker, and cyber defense. Build some arrangement to strengthen Russia in Syria — while taking out Iran and neutering as a threat.
Then on to deal with China containment. China raises all kinds of problems for many nations — regardless of alignment. It is a dangerous partner for the 3rd world. We need to make sure this is known and where we can contained or stopped.
Oh, if you want to be a factor in the world — get a real navy, cyber, satellite, and unmanned vehicle military capable of projection to keep things over there. And make sure it is hardened at home and abroad, so you can project power. Without power, you are just talking.
Nice article! Succinct, clear, and almost completely consistent with my views (i.e. I think so too).
One quibble: the war didn't turn into a re-run of WWI trench warfare because the Russians can't handle "modern" combined arms warfare (in ""s because Russian doctrine (Operational manoeuvre groups) is less air support reliant than the American one) - it evolved into this mess in part because of political indecision (1st 48 hrs); and in part due to corruption (e.g. truck tires listed as replaced -and paid for- were actually 40+ years old) but mostly as the result of an unexpected interaction between modern scouting/intelligence gathering, 1950s soviet architecture, and mud.
Today's local commander has access to nearly total battlefield surveillance - meaning you can see what the other guy is up, where his equipment and fuel supplies are, where his men eat, sleep, and [xxx]. To beat that the defending side, hides - and the residential buildings the soviets put up made that easy because these were crudely constructed with concrete replacing engineering/architecture pretty much everywhere. As a result the Ukrainian side became expert at hiding in basements and shooting from third floors, while the Russian side became expert at knocking down entire buildings. Couple that with mud limiting off-road vehicle movement to the point that these become easy targets for drones and artillery, and it's obvious why this became a man against man trench warfare mess.
But, even during the drier months, … Russian armor is pretty much useless if employed en masse. The Ukrainians started their defense with shoulder fired weapons (tank and air defense), soon followed by drones which defeated the road limited columns — along with terrible logistics, corruption (tires 40 years old), low maintenance skills, low motivation, and terrible tactical leadership. American forces contact, dismount, engage, flank, call for fire support/air, eliminate, move on. Russians sat still, rotated turrets and got hit over and over. Infantry stayed inside IFV’s waiting for a clear sign — and when hit cooked off. BTW, America forces know that if you don’t engage, you die. Retreat is an option, but often one with heavy casualties. When hit, hit back hard.
Right. OMG doctrine works only for a very different war with better trained people - but I'd bet real money that today's Russian Army is rather different than it was 3 years ago. The eastern guard commanders (like the koreans) rotating through the front have learnt a lot.
You are right. The Russian army is better. Being slaughtered over and over does that to you. And while the Russian army is better — it is not that much. If they were so good — why the NORKS? The primary Russian tactic is surging poor, dumb, rural kids (many from the most remote parts of Russia) into drones, artillery, and fields of fire. Russia is not Germany — Russia has a limiting society and surprisingly, an overall poor education system — they are not like the British who run wild in the streets over a football club, they don’t care much for the church, they have very few social societies or markers, cynicism runs deep, …instead they identify with themselves, … this is what communism does to you. It bleeds loyalty to institutions and others. And it affects good order and discipline. Their army is probably losing effectiveness at this point. Gallons of blood per inch. The Ukrainians fight for country and out of hate. The Russians fight because they are told to fight and face prison if they don’t. Which group is better? The Russians have one advantage — hundreds of thousands, right now.
So, they lack motivation and adopt the best life they can have in a dreary existence. Alcohol and drugs are ever present. Russians are suspicious of outsiders and each other.
If Putin was leading Germans — look out. They would be marching in Paris. But he is not. Also, Russians lose interest beyond their own horizon. Many don’t want NATO’s NAZI’s on their border, but if you live in Nizhny Novograd or Vladivostok, who cares? Let the westerners deal with it.
Twenty-five years into a new century, there are a lot of (most?) experts doggedly wedded to the last century. Perhaps it wasn't until the second Roosevelt Administration that similar experts realized the 19th century was past.
Is it still accurate that Russia is weak and feckless on the battlefield? It could be argued that they began the war on that foot, not as certain that still applies.
Fully agree that Breton Woods is obsolete and needs to be revisited.
Using Prime Minister Tusk's logic and math, America would never have been needed to bring WWI and WWII to conclusion. Those wars just would have ended differently! In a perfect world. each group of peoples around the world would practice their own brand of socio-economic governance and everyone would get along.
But it doesn't work that way. Too many countries read and believe their own "Press Releases" and believe what they hear in their own echo chambers. Europeans believe what they are told by other esteemed Europeans. Logic and common sense are sometimes hard to find. An objective understanding of history as it evolves is rare. Just my opinion.
Not sure I follow your logic. We became involved in WWII because both Japan and Germany declared war on us. We didn't have an option then. Same with the Cold War after Stalin conquered eastern Europe and China flipped red.
WWI totally up for debate, but also the least useful historical construct to inform the present.
But, even during the drier months, … Russian armor is pretty much useless if employed en masse. The Ukrainians started their defense with shoulder fired weapons (tank, IFV, and air defense), soon followed by drones which defeated the road limited columns — along with terrible logistics, corruption (tires 40 years old), low maintenance skills, low motivation, and terrible tactical leadership. In contrast, American forces are trained that once in contact, dismount, engage, flank, call for fire support/air, eliminate, move on. Russians sat still, rotated turrets and got hit over and over. Infantry stayed inside IFV’s waiting for a clear sign — and when hit cooked off. BTW, America forces know that if you don’t engage, you die. Retreat is an option, but often one with heavy casualties. When hit, hit back hard.
Thank you, Mr Deis. You wrote that DJT viewed the current system from an outsider's perspective. By that, I think you meant as an outsider to the US State Dept and Western Diplomacy in general which has long been Internationalist.
I offer that DJT was viewing this as an insider's perspective. That is, as an American, not an Internationalist.
Spot on, I believe. In particular, the point about Russia’s now demonstrated military incapacity in combined arms warfare is manifest and needs to be acknowledged. These are not the armed forces of the Soviet Union: Russia has been unable to establish air dominance, not even superiority, in its *border* oblasts: Astounding. That’s been clear from the earliest days of the incompetently managed attempt at a decapitation strike on Kiev. Russia’s blue water navy of “Hunt for Red October” fame is a distant dream. They have nuclear weapons that *may* work, an uncertainty that *both* sides need to consider. In short, it is a fantasy to think that in its present state, Russia is any military threat to NATO nations beyond the use of nuclear weapons whose functionality is uncertain: A nuclear threat countered, and then some, by existing nuclear forces of the UK and France.
Starting from their corresponding degraded states - compare the current force structure to that of 1995 for the France, UK and Germany - is their any doubt that European economies could out produce and out build by orders of magnitude a corresponding build up by Russia? If what’s left of Ukraine is a hedgehog that Russia cannot now swallow, how much more difficult to swallow that hedgehog becomes if allowed a measure of peace backed by a EU-assisted defense build up.
Trump and those politically aligned oppose Ukrainian NATO membership and they oppose extending a boots-on-the-ground security guarantee to Ukraine in any future peace agreement. Name calling isn’t going to change that reality. Waiting them out is a poor strategy because Ukraine will lose an attritive war with Russia eventually. If the common sense of this is insufficient to convince, then read Peter Turchin’s modeling using standard analysis known to militaries on all sides covered in 6 posts on his website in 2023.
At this point, Russia has achieved its principal aim by entrenching in the border oblasts and is prepared to fight on to the last *Ukrainian* knowing that Russians will still be entrenched at that endpoint. Western Europe also appears willing to fight to the last Ukrainian hoping that regime change in Moscow occurs before that end while ignoring the very real possibility that Putin’s replacement would purse a more aggressive strategy in Ukraine. Western Europe is playing its hand poorly.
Trump’s gambit is well-described: A sub rosa security guarantee in the form of a direct material interest that isn’t threatening to Russia: No western arms pointed at Russia from the territory of Ukraine being an expected Russian bottom line here rooted in history and psychology and shared by all political factions in Russia. It buys time and offers a carrot to Russia as well in that proposed development project. Given buy-in, it may even neutralize Russia in the western Pacific when pushing becomes shoving between the US and the PRC as it most likely will at some point in the not distant future. At present, this is the only Plan B on offer to current, and failing Plan A. If there is a secret Plan C for victory on Zelensky’s and his European allies’ terms, now would be a good time to reveal it.
The US taxpayers have been providing for the defense of Europe for 70 years. NATO was without a good reason to exist since the Warsaw pact ceased to exist. That's all there is to it unless you are a Europhile, which no real American is (see George Washington's farewell address).
We need those rare earth minerals, wherever and however we can get them. Some rare earth elements are used in key thermal spray coating materials (my engineering field), in both alloys and ceramics for gas turbine engine applications in aerospace and electric power generation.
https://dl.asminternational.org/technical-books/edited-volume/181/Thermal-Spray-TechnologyAccepted-Practices
China has been a major source but clearly we shouldn't rely on them.
The issue with access to rare earths pivots less on raw ores; it's processing which is environmentally nasty. China controls the refining by its loose enviro regs, cheap capital, and a strategic decision to collapse prices below what capitalist companies within developed world can tolerate.
Someone in the higher ranks of the CCP read Cherows Rockefeller biography a couple of decades ago...
All we get for giving the Europeans a free ride all these years is their snotty contempt. Their failing welfare states were built on our back. These brave souls are proactively surrendering to some caliphate.
Exactly right. Islam is a far greater and more capable threat to Europe than Russia (especially with the aid and comfort of European leadership importing millions from the ME). Russia has repeatedly expressed a desire to join the European poltical sphere (even asking Clinton to join NATO way back when) but not as conquerers, which was obviously never a realistic goal for them anyway, despite all the globalist propaganda to the contrary. The Europeans appear to consider Russians (not to mention Ukrainians and Americans) as lower forms of life and act accordingly. Maybe someday the Euros will wake from their slumber. Perhaps due to the machete thats at their throat.
China seems to be the elephant in the room. Europe ought to care about them, too. Russia is not against conquest but lacks the means.
This comment is right on and so deeply misunderstood by the reactionary left (wake up Democrats, Bernie Sanders wants US disengagement and is not that into spending billions in Ukraine) and educated classes who want to live in a world where they can vacation in the south of France once time and think they are part of a world that takes them seriously — educated, experienced, merited.
Europe is no longer a competitor — it is selling brands Lois Vuitton and BMW instead of value. They sell élan and not always quality. It is now committing environmental suicide proving a mentally challenged Greta right — the world as we know will end in 5 years — because Europe is strangling itself in mysticism.
Europe was already more or less unable to defend its borders, and then it opened them up to fill in the lack of births. Now its very existence is fracturing and a growing majority of anti-western values flooding in. Western women, feminists, are now targets of opportunity for Arab men because they dress provocatively and are haram. Trash if you will.
Russia is a reactionary, revanchist due to its history (Mongols, Cossacks, Napoleon, Hitler) and mysticism about its wealth and the Russian preternatural fear about the west’s motivations to exploit it, dating back to Constantinople traders.
The most serious risk to Russia after Ukraine and NATO is when will China encroach its borders in western Siberia — in fact this is its real risk. China claims Taiwan using its telling of history. It claims the first island chain using historical half-truths. Meanwhile, Russia appears to ignore the parallel between Taiwan and with China’s claim of Siberia which the Czar more or less seized in the 19th century. For China, Taiwan is interesting but they more or less can trade or steal what they need. It is domestic political patronizing, and a symbolic revanchist dream. Siberia on the other hand is enormous wealth.
The US role in this is distance from Europes malaise — maybe keep Britain close. Make Europe grow up. Quell Russian agitation over NATO. Find peace in Ukraine — somehow. Then have Europe reinforce its military, bunker, and cyber defense. Build some arrangement to strengthen Russia in Syria — while taking out Iran and neutering as a threat.
Then on to deal with China containment. China raises all kinds of problems for many nations — regardless of alignment. It is a dangerous partner for the 3rd world. We need to make sure this is known and where we can contained or stopped.
Oh, if you want to be a factor in the world — get a real navy, cyber, satellite, and unmanned vehicle military capable of projection to keep things over there. And make sure it is hardened at home and abroad, so you can project power. Without power, you are just talking.
Nice article! Succinct, clear, and almost completely consistent with my views (i.e. I think so too).
One quibble: the war didn't turn into a re-run of WWI trench warfare because the Russians can't handle "modern" combined arms warfare (in ""s because Russian doctrine (Operational manoeuvre groups) is less air support reliant than the American one) - it evolved into this mess in part because of political indecision (1st 48 hrs); and in part due to corruption (e.g. truck tires listed as replaced -and paid for- were actually 40+ years old) but mostly as the result of an unexpected interaction between modern scouting/intelligence gathering, 1950s soviet architecture, and mud.
Today's local commander has access to nearly total battlefield surveillance - meaning you can see what the other guy is up, where his equipment and fuel supplies are, where his men eat, sleep, and [xxx]. To beat that the defending side, hides - and the residential buildings the soviets put up made that easy because these were crudely constructed with concrete replacing engineering/architecture pretty much everywhere. As a result the Ukrainian side became expert at hiding in basements and shooting from third floors, while the Russian side became expert at knocking down entire buildings. Couple that with mud limiting off-road vehicle movement to the point that these become easy targets for drones and artillery, and it's obvious why this became a man against man trench warfare mess.
But, even during the drier months, … Russian armor is pretty much useless if employed en masse. The Ukrainians started their defense with shoulder fired weapons (tank and air defense), soon followed by drones which defeated the road limited columns — along with terrible logistics, corruption (tires 40 years old), low maintenance skills, low motivation, and terrible tactical leadership. American forces contact, dismount, engage, flank, call for fire support/air, eliminate, move on. Russians sat still, rotated turrets and got hit over and over. Infantry stayed inside IFV’s waiting for a clear sign — and when hit cooked off. BTW, America forces know that if you don’t engage, you die. Retreat is an option, but often one with heavy casualties. When hit, hit back hard.
Right. OMG doctrine works only for a very different war with better trained people - but I'd bet real money that today's Russian Army is rather different than it was 3 years ago. The eastern guard commanders (like the koreans) rotating through the front have learnt a lot.
You are right. The Russian army is better. Being slaughtered over and over does that to you. And while the Russian army is better — it is not that much. If they were so good — why the NORKS? The primary Russian tactic is surging poor, dumb, rural kids (many from the most remote parts of Russia) into drones, artillery, and fields of fire. Russia is not Germany — Russia has a limiting society and surprisingly, an overall poor education system — they are not like the British who run wild in the streets over a football club, they don’t care much for the church, they have very few social societies or markers, cynicism runs deep, …instead they identify with themselves, … this is what communism does to you. It bleeds loyalty to institutions and others. And it affects good order and discipline. Their army is probably losing effectiveness at this point. Gallons of blood per inch. The Ukrainians fight for country and out of hate. The Russians fight because they are told to fight and face prison if they don’t. Which group is better? The Russians have one advantage — hundreds of thousands, right now.
So, they lack motivation and adopt the best life they can have in a dreary existence. Alcohol and drugs are ever present. Russians are suspicious of outsiders and each other.
If Putin was leading Germans — look out. They would be marching in Paris. But he is not. Also, Russians lose interest beyond their own horizon. Many don’t want NATO’s NAZI’s on their border, but if you live in Nizhny Novograd or Vladivostok, who cares? Let the westerners deal with it.
Twenty-five years into a new century, there are a lot of (most?) experts doggedly wedded to the last century. Perhaps it wasn't until the second Roosevelt Administration that similar experts realized the 19th century was past.
Experts — masters of their expertise, sunk costs. Moving one erodes value. Creating an international order provides them with many corners to hide in.
Is it still accurate that Russia is weak and feckless on the battlefield? It could be argued that they began the war on that foot, not as certain that still applies.
Fully agree that Breton Woods is obsolete and needs to be revisited.
Using Prime Minister Tusk's logic and math, America would never have been needed to bring WWI and WWII to conclusion. Those wars just would have ended differently! In a perfect world. each group of peoples around the world would practice their own brand of socio-economic governance and everyone would get along.
But it doesn't work that way. Too many countries read and believe their own "Press Releases" and believe what they hear in their own echo chambers. Europeans believe what they are told by other esteemed Europeans. Logic and common sense are sometimes hard to find. An objective understanding of history as it evolves is rare. Just my opinion.
Not sure I follow your logic. We became involved in WWII because both Japan and Germany declared war on us. We didn't have an option then. Same with the Cold War after Stalin conquered eastern Europe and China flipped red.
WWI totally up for debate, but also the least useful historical construct to inform the present.
But, even during the drier months, … Russian armor is pretty much useless if employed en masse. The Ukrainians started their defense with shoulder fired weapons (tank, IFV, and air defense), soon followed by drones which defeated the road limited columns — along with terrible logistics, corruption (tires 40 years old), low maintenance skills, low motivation, and terrible tactical leadership. In contrast, American forces are trained that once in contact, dismount, engage, flank, call for fire support/air, eliminate, move on. Russians sat still, rotated turrets and got hit over and over. Infantry stayed inside IFV’s waiting for a clear sign — and when hit cooked off. BTW, America forces know that if you don’t engage, you die. Retreat is an option, but often one with heavy casualties. When hit, hit back hard.
Tusk's observation ought to demand a response!