(Image by NEIVANMADE)
Slow news day, huh?
Horrible news from Israel. My condolences go out to everyone who lost relatives or close ones in the terrorist attack. We have faith that order will be restored and terrorists will be defeated.
Terror should have no place in the world, because it is always a crime, not just…
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) October 7, 2023
Horrible news from Israel. My condolences go out to everyone who lost relatives or close ones in the terrorist attack. We have faith that order will be restored and terrorists will be defeated.
Terror should have no place in the world, because it is always a crime, not just against a specific country or this terror’s victims, but against humanity in general and our entire world.
Anyone who resorts to terror commits a crime against the world. Whoever finances terror is committing a crime against the world. The world must stand united and in solidarity so that terror does not attempt to break or subjugate life anywhere and at any moment.
Israel’s right to self-defense is unquestionable.
All details surrounding this terrorist assault must be revealed so that the world knows and holds accountable everyone who supported and helped carry out the attack.
All Ukrainian citizens who remain in the risk zone must carefully obey all orders issued by local security services and remain vigilant. Please be cautious. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our embassy in Israel are ready to assist in any situation.
To support Ukrainians in Israel, we established an operational headquarters. If you require assistance, please contact any of our diplomatic or consular offices in any convenient and accessible manner.
Every life is valuable! We condemn all forms of terrorism.
Here is President Zelenskyy’s address from earlier today. Video below followed by the English transcript after the jump.
When terrorists attack, everyone who values life must stand in solidarity – address by the President of Ukraine
7 October 2023 – 21:32
Dear Ukrainians!
Today, since morning, I have been in constant contact with our diplomats and intelligence.
Due to the terrorist attack on Israel and the threat to our citizens in Israel, an operational headquarters has been established under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. All agencies and our embassy are monitoring information about Ukrainian citizens who may be in danger.
As of now, the information about the possible death of one Ukrainian citizen is being verified and the search for two of our citizens is underway.
As soon as the details regarding these people are verified, Ukrainian diplomats will announce it to the public.
Please, dear Ukrainians, if you are in Israel now, be as careful as possible. Follow the instructions of the security forces and take care of yourself and others around you. If you need anything, please contact our embassy by any means available to you – Ukraine will help all its people, no matter what.
Today, the whole world has seen horrific footage from Israel – footage of terrorists abusing women and men, taking even the elderly hostage without mercy… My condolences to all those whose loved ones have been killed! I wish a speedy recovery to everyone wounded.
When such a terrorist attack occurs, everyone who values life must stand in solidarity.
We in Ukraine are particularly sensitive to what has happened. Thousands of missiles in the sky of Israel… People killed right in the streets… Riddled cars with civilians… Abuse of hostages… Unfortunately, terror has also brought all this to the streets of Ukrainian cities and villages… Our position is absolutely clear: anywhere in the world, anyone who brings terror and death must be held accountable.
Today’s terrorist attack on Israel was thoroughly prepared, and the whole world understands which sponsors of terror could have encouraged and organized this attack.
Israel has every right to protect itself from terror. So does any other state. And it is very important for the whole world to respond to terror in a united and principled fashion.
No support for terrorists! Wherever they aim their missiles and whomever they attack, terrorists must lose. And this is important for the whole world. Human life, peace and tranquility of nations are equally important everywhere – in Asia, Europe, Africa, America and Australia. Everywhere.
Let the value of human life and the intolerance of terror be the principles that will finally unite the whole world.
Glory to Ukraine!
💥Again, Volodymyr Zelensky does Benjamin Netanyahu a solid Netanyahu never did for him https://t.co/AzbybbGx47
— Noga Tarnopolsky נגה טרנופולסקי نوغا ترنوبولسكي💙 (@NTarnopolsky) October 7, 2023
“Time is not our friend. We have enough funding authorities to meet Ukraine’s battlefield needs for a bit longer, but we need Congress to act to ensure that there is no disruption in our support,” said NSC spokesperson John Kirby.
via @JamesPoliti https://t.co/fnojnkGjZ3— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) October 7, 2023
Here’s the details from The Financial Times: (emphasis mine)
The White House and pro-Ukraine lawmakers are growing increasingly alarmed about the future of US funding for Kyiv in the wake of Kevin McCarthy’s ousting as speaker of the House of Representatives, which has left military aid in limbo.
The risk of a lapse in American aid to Ukraine within a few months — a worst-case scenario for the Biden administration which has until now seemed unlikely — has risen in the past few days as chaos has enveloped the Republican party in Congress.
It has also triggered soul-searching in Washington over the impact of US political dysfunction on the administration’s foreign policy goals, as it tries to forge global alliances to counter Russian aggression and rising threats from China.
“Will we appease Putin and cut off aid to the Ukrainians? If we do, it will be our problem,” said Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a speech on the Senate floor this week.
“It just breaks the heart to see that we cannot put the national security of the country itself above the partisanship here in Washington,” said Heather Conley, president of the German Marshall Fund in the US.
Concerns have been compounded by the fact that Jim Jordan — one of the two leading candidates to replace McCarthy as speaker, who is backed by former president Donald Trump — has been openly sceptical of Ukraine aid, if not hostile towards it. Steve Scalise, the other top contender for the speaker job, has backed Ukraine funding in the past. But if he prevails it is unclear whether he would defy the right flank of the party with a vote to bolster aid to Kyiv.
“Jim Jordan is a real candidate to take over the House speakership and he voted against Ukraine funding. So I would be worried if I were [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and his team watching US domestic politics unfold from afar,” said Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, referring to the Ukrainian president.
Worries about the future of Ukraine funding mounted when it was omitted from legislation last Saturday to avert a government shutdown, at least until mid-November. President Joe Biden has tried to reassure American supporters of Ukraine and allies around the world that it would ultimately be approved.
Once McCarthy was removed from his post by a small group of Republican rebels and all Democrats in the House, though, it was harder for the White House to remain upbeat.
“Time is not our friend. We have enough funding authorities to meet Ukraine’s battlefield needs for a bit longer, but we need Congress to act to ensure that there is no disruption in our support,” John Kirby, co-ordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council, told reporters.
Biden has noted that a majority of members of the House and Senate in both parties say they back continued funding for Ukraine. But he conceded that he needs to make a more concerted defence of US support to the American public.
“I’m going to be announcing very shortly a major speech I’m going to make on this issue and why it’s critically important for the United States and our allies that we keep our commitment,” he said.
The US president then convened a meeting of his top national security team to discuss Ukraine.
Biden is facing mounting pressure, particularly from Republicans in Congress who support aid to Ukraine, to deliver a much more definitive explanation of the US strategy in the war to help sustain public support.
“Your administration has failed to articulate a strategy outlining how US assistance to Ukraine will help them achieve victory over Russia, while also prioritising and advancing American interests,” Jim Risch, the top Republican on the Senate foreign relations committee, and Michael McCaul, the chair of the House foreign affairs committee, wrote in a letter to Biden on Friday.
“A pledge to support Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’ is not a strategy,” they added.
The ramifications for Ukraine’s war effort of a possible reduction or lapse in funding are serious.
I have only been hammering on this point since March of 2022. Specifically that the US needed to get everything it could to Ukraine that Ukraine might possibly need and do so before the current Congress was sworn in last January. And I have been hammering on it precisely because it was both entirely possible that the GOP would retake the House and then the most extreme elements would cut off US support to Ukraine. Which is exactly what happened. Yes, the Republicans are ultimately to blame here as they’re the ones that want to cut off support and use the US’s support as a wedge issue against the Biden administration and Democrats going into the 2024 elections. But the Biden administration also cannot escape the blame here. They acted as if they had all the time in the world and that even a change in one or both chambers of Congress would make no difference. It wasn’t like the GOP caucus didn’t tell everyone what they were going to do:
The Biden administration’s handling of this is strategic and political malpractice. It’s articulated strategy towards Ukraine is all over the map. Secretary of Defense Austin has made it clear that the US seeks an outcome that would prevent Russia from ever doing something like this again. The President and his other senior national security appointees have stated that they do not want any outcome that leads to Putin’s removal, Russia’s dissolution, or both. Those two policy outcomes – Secretary Austin’s and the President’s – are in opposition and cannot be reconciled. Do not get me wrong, Trump would be worse on this as would every Republican running to replace him. However, simply not-being Trump and being better than Trump is not a claim to success.
Kharkiv:
Kharkiv. The aftermath of the russian terrorist attack.
📷 Amadeusz Mikolaj Swierk / Anadolu Agency pic.twitter.com/1eFRA5Dfn7
— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) October 7, 2023
Russian occupied Zalizniya Port, Kherson Oblast:
Is @MargaretAtwood aware that the dystopian characters in her works of fiction have left their pages and come to life?#TheHandmaidsTale pic.twitter.com/gCf5t3FqXH
— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) October 7, 2023
Russian occupied Dzankoi, Crimea:
Explosion and Russian air defense activity reported in Dzankoi, Crimea. pic.twitter.com/pBaRiloFk7
— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) October 7, 2023
Zaporizhzhia:
Spectacular Destruction of the Russian TOS-1 220 mm MRLS, as a result of a HIMARS strike. By the Security Service of Ukraine. Zapozizhzhia front. https://t.co/RlWqpAQiva pic.twitter.com/XA52hV63j6
— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) October 7, 2023
Obligatory:
For you drone enthusiasts.
Drones of Victory pic.twitter.com/ivx3f8RYvk
— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) October 7, 2023
Russia’s response:
Meanwhile , 🇷🇺Medvedev responds to the Hamas attack on Israel by calling for a civil war inside the United States. https://t.co/SvzAnhyGBw
— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) October 7, 2023
Machine translation of Medvedev’s statement:
The outbreak of clashes between Hamas and Israel on the day of the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the – Doomsday War event that could be expected. That’s what Washington and its allies had to do. The conflict between Israel and Palestine lasts decades. And the USA is a key player there.
But instead of actively working on a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, these morons climbed into us and help neo-Nazis with might and main, pushing two close peoples.
What can stop America’s manic passion for fueling conflict throughout the planet?
Apparently, only a civil war in the United States.
Russian state propaganda supports a terrorist attack on Israel
Correspondent of the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" Dmitry Steshin writes that he has no pity for the murdered women and children
State channel host Sergei Mardan writes that the massacre in Israel is beneficial to Russia pic.twitter.com/iypFUDSVyL
— Денис Казанський (@den_kazansky) October 7, 2023
That’s enough for tonight.
Your daily Patron!
Terrorists are trying to take over this world. I'm sure they won't succeed, but they won't stop trying. pic.twitter.com/vPLPH6nW2B
— Patron (@PatronDsns) October 7, 2023
And a new video from Patron’s official TikTok!
@patron__dsns Коротко про мій стан, коли мене не беруть на виклик :(
Here’s the machine translation of the caption:
Briefly about my condition when I am not taken on a call :(
Open thread!
Adam L Silverman
Been a busier Balloon Juice day than I’d planned on. I’m going offline for a bit.
jackmac
Adam,
Thank you for working overtime today, first with your comprehensive reports on Gaza battles and your always excellent information and analysis on Ukraine. I always feel better informed thanks to your outstanding reporting and links. Please take a well-deserved breather!
Nukular Biskits
Posted in the other thread but applies here as well:
Adam, I know I sound like a broken record but well done and thank you.
Baud
I don’t often participate in these threads, but I appreciate the work you put into getting information out there.
Nukular Biskits
Agreed. 100%.
Nukular Biskits
@Baud:
I always thought you were ubiquitous, if not omnipresent.
;>)
Alison Rose
Oh go absolutely fuck yourself with a splintered broom handle coated in cayenne pepper. Which is it: Is this asshole is really too stupid to understand how the US giving Ukraine money and weapons “will help them achieve victory”, or is he pretending not to because, as I said on last night’s update, he doesn’t fucking care. THEY DON’T CARE. The party of life, of family values, blah blah, they don’t give a shit that thousands of people are being killed or having their lives completely upended. And I don’t know how we get around that, how Biden or anyone else is supposed to work with people who literally do not give a single shit about the lives of anyone who isn’t 1) them, or 2) someone who gives them money?
I should’ve moved to Copenhagen when my friend did during the Bush years.
I don’t have anything else even slightly coherent to say, except thank you as always, Adam.
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: You’re most welcome. Thank you for the kind words. And you are always welcome to comment if you like. There’s certainly no issues here.
Did you see our discussion of your pants on Bluesky the other day?
Adam L Silverman
@Alison Rose: Unfortunately, that’s actually an accurate point despite who made it.
Nukular Biskits
@Adam L Silverman:
With respect to your reply to Alison, no disagreement here.
Having said that, though, (and rehashing the Iraq War), it’s ironic to see a Republican say this:
Adam L Silverman
@Nukular Biskits: Consistency, hobgoblins, little minds.
Baud
@Adam L Silverman:
Thanks. The information you present is often beyond my ken and it’s not a good subject for snark. Plus you often post past my bedtime.
I missed the Bluesky thread. I’ll look for it.
Adam L Silverman
And there it is:
Machine translation:
Alison Rose
@Adam L Silverman: In what way? The aid we give them will help them achieve victory by keeping them supplied with ammunition, weapons, medical care, etc. Taking the aid away, as you’ve said many times, will make their fight exponentially harder.
Adam L Silverman
@Adam L Silverman:
Adam L Silverman
@Alison Rose: What they’re complaining about is the inability to articulate a coherent objective or set of objectives beyond “we will support them as long as necessary.” SecDef has articulated one objective, the President another, and members of senior nat-sec team have both reiterated his and articulated related ones. As such, we’re all over the map.
Another Scott
@Nukular Biskits: and @Adam – I’ll tentatively play devil’s advocate again. Biden in FTFNYT in May 2022:
I think that’s a sensible statement of US goals in Ukraine. I don’t think it could be much clearer, and I don’t see that it contradicts Austin’s comments about defeating Russia in Ukraine (even with a defeat, a treaty has to come if there is to be a lasting peace).
As much of a monster as VVP is, the US has a really, really, really, really bad track record when it comes to “regime change” and that should not be an overt US goal.
My $0.02. FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Jay
For those interested, wingnuttia is currently claiming that the release of the Iranian hostages in exchange for seized funds and the supplies of US weapons to Ukraine that Ukraine sent to Hamas is what powers the Hamas attacks.
We live in the stupidest timeline.
Jay
Oh, and as always, thank you again Adam, two sane and informative posts.
Alison Rose
@Adam L Silverman: Okay, I can see that. But that’s hardly a reason to stop all aid and throw them to damn wolves.
Nukular Biskits
@Adam L Silverman:
LOL! True dat. And, perhaps, unfair of me, given I do not know their respective positions regarding the Iraq War.
That opens up what I suppose is more a philosophical question: Short of complete destruction and massive loss of lives (i.e., WWII, Germany & Japan) and arguably committing war crimes, how is it even possible to NOT have a “never-ending war”?
Adam L Silverman
@Alison Rose: I’m not saying it is a good reason to stop aid. I’m just saying they are asking the right question.
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: There is not a single articulatable policy objective in that statement. There is no: “the US supports Ukraine because of X and in order to achieve Y” statement in President Biden’s remarks. There is in the SecDef’s where he makes it clear the goal is to ensure Russia can never do this again. But SecDef doesn’t set the overall US policy.
Adam L Silverman
I’m really going off line for a bit now.
Jay
@Adam L Silverman:
and the reality is, it’s up to Ukraine to decide how this war ends, not anybody else, and Ukraine has said the war will end when all of Ukraine is free and RuZZia stops attacking it.
What happens in RuZZia when Ukraine achieves it’s goals, is up to RuZZia.
The more aid we give to Ukraine, the shorter the war and the better off Ukraine will be.
Another Scott
@Adam L Silverman: I, personally, don’t think that it makes sense for the US to have more than big-picture public goals in Ukraine. The US isn’t doing the fighting. We don’t, at this point, want the war in Ukraine to turn into some sort of proxy (genuine shooting) war between the US and/or NATO and VVP.
WashingtonPost.com (from April 2022):
I think Biden said basically the same thing (if Ukraine is strong enough to protect itself and deter russia, then russia is necessarily weaker than it was on February 2022), but maybe Biden said it more diplomatically. ;-)
I think the US position with respect to supporting Ukraine is similar to the Lend-Lease (3 page .pdf) legislation of the 1940s. It is in the US big picture defense interest to supply materiel for Ukraine to defend itself and preserve the international order (especially in Europe).
(I’m not saying you’re arguing this:) This isn’t a “when you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna” kinda thing with definite goals and success/failure metrics that the GQP seems to want from Biden – especially when the US isn’t doing the fighting (and when Ukraine has its own interests and goals and constraints and timelines that don’t perfectly match ours). Similarly, Lincoln’s goals were really big picture stuff – “preserve the Union”.
My $0.02, FWIW.
Thanks, Adam.
Cheers,
Scott.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
Thanks for the update, Adam. I can’t imagine the mental fortitude it takes to write these posts everyday
Traveller
I wanted to do a fun post on how much I enjoy Alison Rose. Adam is great of course, but Ms Rose is also fabulous and seeing her writing almost always puts a smile on my face…so I hope she keeps on keeping on with her rage and biting intelligence…lol & a grin.
However, this thread has taken a more serious turn than the fun I was hoping to play with…
Another Scot and Alison has moved the conversation substantially and I think I will have to disagree with Adam…Sec Austin’s formulation that…”that Russia can never do this again….” is much to specific and triumphalist…..
The fortunes of war are always too variable to give immediate and real goals…and this is certainly true in this case. The range of possible outcomes are far too broad at this time to…say where this war is going, where it will end…I never expected Hamas to have to command & control demonstrated today, likewise from the utter collapse of Russia to the Extinction of Ukraine…at this time who knows (?) and so a certain impression in goals is, in my opinion, warranted. Best Wishes, Traveller
Another Scott
KyivIndependent.com:
Interesting.
Cheers,
Scott.
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: What you’re keying on in these statements are ways and means, which are the components of strategy that allow one to achieve one’s articulated ends/objectives. The ends/objectives come from policy. What we don’t have are either ends/objectives that have been clearly stated or we have contradictory ones as different senior officials make different statements. This creates strategic incoherence.
Policy cannot ask of strategy that which policy will not provide. Specifically, clearly articulated ends/objectives to develop ways and means to achieve.
ETA: Secretary Austin’s statement is one of ends/objectives. But he doesn’t set policy for the administration and his statements have been contradicted by other senior appointees. Which is part of the problem.
MaryLou
@Another Scott: Thanks for your clear reiteration of Biden’s position, Scott. I was getting confused.
wjca
Time was when we were at war with Mexico. Time was, we were at war with Spain. In fact, time was we were at war with England. Somehow all those wars ended without complete destruction and massive loss of life.
But perhaps you meant “how is it even possible to NOT have a “never-ending war” any more?”
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
Hey Adam, are we cool?
Adam L Silverman
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): As far as I know. Why do you ask?
Or maybe I should ask: what did you do?
😱🤣
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Adam L Silverman:
LOL, nothing I guess. I don’t know, I suppose I thought maybe I had pissed you off back in April
Adam L Silverman
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): I don’t recall that, but April and May were terrible months for me, so if you did I definitely do not remember. So we’re good.
wjca
It seems like our goals about Ukraine are pretty simple (if not, perhaps, very clearly articulated):
“We want Ukraine to win, and recover all its stolen territory. (Also its stolen children.) It is not our goal that Russia lose. Russia can merely take their marbles and go home. Or they can “declare victory” and go home. Of course, if they insist, they can just lose — their choice.”
Andrya
I gave a lot of serious thought to to Adam’s criticism of the Biden administration’s strategic incoherence, and came to the conclusion that a coherent strategy is a really difficult problem to solve. SecDef Austin’s “make it impossible for russia to ever do this again”? How do we do that? The fundamental problem is that as long as putin is president, he will be coming back a few years later for another bite- no matter how badly the war has gone for russia up to that point. As for any kind of peace agreement, putin’s word is garbage, not worth the paper that it is written on.
So do we go for regime change? That is the one thing that (in my opinionated opinion) would trigger a nuclear war. Carlo was correct in saying the other day that putin’s top priority- almost his only priority- is regime survival. putin undoubtedly has a furherbunker deep under Moscow, where he thinks he could survive a nuclear war. And he would prefer to be president of a smoking ruin than a former president of a workable country.
The best solution is “push russia back to the 2013 borders, plus Ukraine joins NATO” but that has a critical flaw. Unless the Republican party radically changes course, a future Republican president will break faith with NATO under russian pressure- certainly in the case of russian pressure on Ukraine, but probably in the case of Poland, Finland, or the Baltic states as well.
It’s a hell of a problem.
Bill Arnold
@wjca:
The Biden administration’s consensus goals, perhaps.
There’s the Lloyd Austin camp, and there are some who would prefer an outcome that involves the disintegration or partial disintegration of the Russian Federation.
Gin & Tonic
On point:
wjca
Going for regime change per se only makes sense if you have some reason to think Putin’s successor might be any different on the subject of expansion by whatever means works. Is there any such reason? It’s understood that Putin has worked hard to make sure no obvious successor exists. But even so, why would a different Russian be any different?
Best case might be to somehow convince Russia to take another shot at Afghanistan. Why not do the same thing and expect a different result?
wjca
That’s not a goal. A “nice to have” perhaps, but not really a goal.
Ruckus
@Adam L Silverman:
I can see a possible rational here, given the opposition of a too large part of one of our political parties. Being too open about the concepts of why we are doing this COULD give the republicans a wedge to use to try to cut off support. Not saying it would but they are way too far into the woods and seemingly have an open and direct line to vlad and their popular unhinged prospect for president next election (although I think he is or will be ineligible to run by then – and that may not be a particularly desired point by an unreasonable sized group of the opposition) so I wonder if this lack of a solid announced plan of attack is a more studied plan than it first appears.
Adam L Silverman
@Gin & Tonic: The worst people. Completely missing the point.
Adam L Silverman
@Bill Arnold: @wjca: I’m not sure there’s anyone more aggressive, for lack of a better term, in terms of potential objectives than Secretary Austin. But even SecDef was careful in how he said what he said. What is left unstated is there is no way for Russia to not be able to ever do this again without either a change in government, the disintegration of the Russian state as currently constituted, or both. And this is the problem. Without clearly articulated objectives, you can never have effective strategies because whatever ways and means you’ve developed do not have ends to tether to.
Adam L Silverman
@Ruckus: They’re already using the policy incoherence as a wedge because they can just make up whatever they want to fill space left by not having clearly stated objectives. They were going to just make stuff up anyway, because that’s what they do, but why make it any easier on them.
Jay
The whole “Grand Strategy Bullshit” pisses me off.
We give Ukraine what they need to reclaim all of Ukraine and rebuild.
If RuZZia signs a treaty and adheres to it, great>
If they don’t, we give/aid Ukraine to respond to continued RuZZia Terrorism.
That’s step 1.
RuZZia’s problems if either happen, are RuZZia’s problems. A bridge to be crossed when we get there.
Gin & Tonic
@Adam L Silverman: Boy, I thought you were logging off “for real this time.”
Ruckus
@Adam L Silverman:
Not sure I was clear enough. There seems to be more communications and sucking up from our conservative side than since, well ever with vlad. Our last president seemed to be at least willing to be on their payroll and is leading the other side of the aisle towards his possible reelection. Now I give him – and them, a slim chance and if that meant vlad having to contribute to 45’s reelection to pad his chances (on the very slim likelihood he can run) I’d bet he’d do it. Would this be kosher? I think not but then SFB is between a bunch of rocks and their hard spots and he may see this as his only way out. My point is that the quiet from the administration may be a plan to keep those that think they would be better off on the side of Russia than on the side of the US from making that play.
Another Scott
@Adam L Silverman:
Nearly all modern states mind their own business and even, at their craziest, don’t invade their neighbors because of deterrence and the ability to defend themselves (and make it too costly for an invader to succeed).
I go back to Biden’s FTFNYT OpEd:
We, and Ukraine, aren’t going to change russia’s government or disintegrate the state. We’re going to support Ukraine so that it’s strong enough to deter and defend itself to make it too costly for another attempt.
(Of course, that support may be insufficient. But the future is unwritten.)
I’m sorry, but I am still missing the problems you see with Biden’s statement.
Cheers,
Scott.
Carlo Graziani
@Andrya: In my opinion, what Austen is talking about is not really inconsistent with what Blinken, or Biden have said. They are just using different time horizons to frame the problem.
Austen is talking about containment. He’s pointing to the same model that the US and NATO used to frame the policy that ultimately wrecked the USSR. But it took 45 years for that policy to succeed. It could take that kind of time for a new containment framework to check Russia’s chaos-actor malignant influences on the world that we’d like to live in. A decade, at least, now seems like a conservative estimate. But containment is not a bad policy model given the nature of the problem, and the unhinging of Russian energy policy has given us a very good start on that.
When the discussion turns to the war, however, time horizons are much foreshortened, for military, political, and economic reasons. This is necessary, but it seems to me a category error to conflate the month-to-month evolution of policy towards Ukraine with the long-term strategy that the US adopts towards handling Russia.
In point of fact, the US released a National Strategy document in 2022 that whatever its faults, at least placed the Russia problem in a reasonable perspective, as an “acute” threat requiring containment in contradistinction to China’s persistent illiberal challenge, which calls for competition. The document has some value in the context of this discussion, in that it reminds us that while the war in Ukraine is the only concern for Ukrainians, it is necessarily part of a larger picture to the US, and defining the policy-to-strategy cascade exclusively in terms of the war misstates the problems that confront the US NatSec establishment.
Ruckus
@Another Scott:
What we as a country normally do in these situations is lay out our goals/desires in doing what we are doing, not necessarily saying exactly what that will be. And this time we aren’t doing that. Now some of that may be the other side of the aisle is rather dysfunctional at this time – and seemingly getting worse not better and giving them what they consider ammunition to fight with might not be a desired thing. Or may bring them to fight actually doing anything. A not insignificant part of the other side of the aisle is bug fuck nutty and seemingly wants to regress to powered wigs and semi automatic muskets. Not giving them more to further bug fuck nutty themselves may be a rational response here.
Adam L Silverman
@Gin & Tonic: Every time I think I’m out…
Adam L Silverman
@Jay: I’m not even talking about grand strategy. As in an overarching strategic narrative we could call the Biden doctrine. All I’m saying and have been saying is that the US has failed to state a coherent objective or set of objectives in regard to Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s re-invasion. And that failing to do so combined with the administration’s risk aversion has caused some minor to medium sized problems so far and, unless they can pull a rabbit out of a hat regarding getting Ukraine funding through the House, may soon cause a major sized problem.
Jay
@Adam L Silverman:
we keep sucking you back in,……..////
Jay
@Adam L Silverman:
yeah, I know.
I am a tactic’s guy. planner guy.
Step one, stop the bleeding.
Step two, did we stop the bleeding?
One thing at a time. step by step.
Gin & Tonic
@Carlo Graziani: I do not agree that containment “ultimately wrecked the USSR.” I believe the USSR ultimately wrecked the USSR. The combination of political repression and economic stagnation simply proved to be unsustainable. But it’s late and I don’t have the energy to give 800 words on this now.
way2blue
@Another Scott:
Unless the premise of ‘negotiation’ is intended to signal discussing the best method to remove Russians, their mines & other booby traps from Ukraine—it’s a term that sticks in my craw.
Chetan Murthy
@Gin & Tonic: In Judt’s _Postwar_ he describes how Russia and the Warsaw Pact had to borrow greater and greater amounts of money from the West in order to keep their economies going in some minimal fashion. Their industrial sector was value-subtracting, turning raw materials into things that nobody wanted and nobody would buy. They were unable to grow enough food to feed their populations. None of that had to do with our policy of containment, but rather with the basic contradictions of their command/corrupt economies.
Andrya
@Carlo Graziani: Thanks for very detailed, solid analysis. Unfortunately, I see one hole in it- at least a potential hole, but I evaluate it as a probable hole.
This is the problem: Cold War containment was totally bipartisan. No American administration, Republican or Democratic, was going to deviate from containment, and the Soviets knew this. Likewise with NATO members in Western Europe.
Not so now. Certainly if (G-d forbid) TIFG is elected, he will throw Ukraine to the wolves immediately. Hopefully that won’t happen. But assuming TIFG goes away after 2024, how likely is it that we will have only Democratic presidents for the next 30 to 50 years? Given that a large portion of the Republican base is rabidly pro-putin, how likely is it that a future Republican administration will continue a policy of containment and military aid to Ukraine?
Adam L Silverman
@Jay: But tactics without stragegy are going to be a mess.
Sally
@Adam L Silverman: Dr. Silverman, what would be, in your opinion, a good national strategy for President Biden to adopt? (Hopefully you are not still reading and this is a Q for another evening)
way2blue
@Adam L Silverman:
How about: Ukraine joins NATO; Ukraine joins the EU; Ukraine develops enough in-house weaponry to defend itself against Russian aggression going forward. Can the U.S. state such goals unambiguously without triggering the usual suspects? (In addition to supporting implementation of Ukraine’s peace plan of course.)
Ruckus
@Jay:
On a personal level one can do the one part, one step at a time way.
On a country and especially a military involved level, there are almost always far more parts/segments to each step. There is just too much complexity in being part of a multi nation process. This was true over 50 yrs ago when I was in the military. It has not in any way gotten any simpler since. There are just too many moving parts.
Jay
@Adam L Silverman:
@Ruckus:
as a Master Production Scheduler, my job was “this month, this quarter, this year, next year, 5 years out”.
This month plus this quarter, plus a huge mass of various economic/industrial/tech inputs, effected my planning and forecasts.
The key thing I learned was fixing stuff in the short term, created “slack” for fixing stuff in the long term.
I also learned to understand our clients. Their goals mattered.
Ukraine want’s to be free, have all it’s territory back, all it’s people back,………
And some kinda peace.
For me, that is the short term goal. What happens after that, well, that’s what happens after that, could be a 100 different things, but what happens in RuZZia is up to RuZZia.
StringOnAStick
I was at a private invitation music event last night , and the performer did a lovely acoustic guitar version of the Ukrainian national anthem and asked for support for Ukraine. It’s a small thing but it shows that support is out here.
Martin
House/Senate dems need to hold their vote for Israeli aid unless it’s a package deal with Ukrainian aid. That shouldn’t be difficult position to state and defend.
YY_Sima Qian
Biden Administration’s strategy becomes more internally coherent if Austin’s words is changed to “prevent Russia from doing anything like this again any time soon”, rather than “ever again”. The former is achievable & being achieved, the latter really does require destruction of Russia as a nation state. Eternity is a long time, & no words uttered along those lines should be taken literally.
I think the incoherence in the Biden strategy, as executed over the past year & half, is that preventing Russia from doing anything like this any time soon would only require Russia to be stuck in the Ukrainian quagmire, not outright Ukrainian victory & peace on favorable terms. I do not believe for a second that the Biden Administration is driven by such cynical calculations, but the way they have slow dripped the release of weapons systems to Ukraine has had this effect. & the contrast to the expected aid to Israel will indeed be stark, doubly so because Israel has been a much more compromised actor in its conflict w/ the Palestinians.
bjacques
Looking back, it seems to me that the Biden administration’s incoherence has been unavoidable, at least partly to avoid spooking the allies, who have their own political issues, not to mention dealing with the post-pandemic issues of inflation and supply chain restoration, with less resilience than the US, along with the rise of the Putin-friendly far right and German, Hungarian, and Swiss sandbagging. And the goddamn Saudis during Putin’s energy blackmail. We Americans aren’t the only audience for the administration’s statements.
Bill Arnold
@Martin:
Yeah, agreed.
Another thought:
Ukraine has been continuously and specifically asking for Israeli Iron Dome defenses for Ukraine vs Russian missiles since the beginning of the current invasion. Israel has been refusing because it does not want to deal with S-400(s) and other Russian air defenses in Syria in its regular air attacks on Syrian territory. Israel has been refusing to supply Ukraine with defenses against Russian terror missile strikes.
That Netanyahu is requesting money for reinforcement of Israel’s Iron Dome is eye-catching.
A play involving better anti-missile defenses for Ukraine seems possible.