Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

Consistently wrong since 2002

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

Celebrate the fucking wins.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

I’m more christian than these people and i’m an atheist.

Let’s show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

Today in our ongoing national embarrassment…

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Dear elected officials: Trump is temporary, dishonor is forever.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War for Ukraine Day 834: Russia Is Undertaking an Assault on Ukraine on D-Day

War for Ukraine Day 834: Russia Is Undertaking an Assault on Ukraine on D-Day

by | 35 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , , ,

A painting by Ukrainian artist NEIVANMADE. The words "NEVER AGAIN" are repeated over and over, from left to right and top to bottom, in a faded, washed out black against a white background. Red, the color of blood, runs and drips down across 2/3rds of the painting. "WHILE YOU TOLERATE TYRANTS" is written/painted in the bottom white corner below the three rows of "NEVER AGAIN".

Some quick housekeeping notes. First, so far Rosie is still doing very well since her chemotherapy treatment on Monday. She’s active, eating well/has an appetite, wants attention. Basically normal. Thank you all, again, for the good thoughts, prayers, well wishes, and donations.

Second, I was informed that I misnumbered last night’s post. I have fixed that – it is now 833 – and this is 834.

Third, as I begin this update at 6:13 PM EDT, air raid alerts are up or are going up over 2/3rds of Ukraine. Alerts just went up for Poltava and Sumy Oblasts a minute ago.

Air raid alert map of Ukraine at 6:14 PM EDT on 6 JUN 2024. Air raid alerts are posted for all oblasts (regions) of Ukraine except for Chernihiv in the north and the western oblasts/3rd of Ukraine.

Today is the 80th anniversary D-Day commemoration. President Zelenskyy and First Lady Zelenska travelled to Normandy for the occasion, which is why there is no daily address today. However, this happened:

Here is the President’s address at Normandy. Video followed by the English transcript. (emphasis mine)

Remarks by PresidentBiden Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of D-Day | Collevile-sur-Mer, France

Normandy American Cemetery
Colleville-sur-Mer, France

2:01 P.M. CEST

THE PRESIDENT:  The hour had nearly come.  Monday, June 5th, 1944.

The evil of (inaudible) Third Reich was devastating the world.  Nazi Germany had subjugated the once-free nations of Europe through brute force, lies, and twisted ideology of racial superiority.

Millions of Jews murdered in the Holocaust.  Millions of others killed by bombs, bullets, bloody warfare.

Hitler and those with him thought democracies were weak, that the future belonged to dictators.

Here, on the coast of Normandy, the battle between freedom and tyranny would be joined.  Here, on that June morning, the testing was at hand.

President Macron, Mrs. Macron, Secretary Austin, Secretary Blinken, distinguished guests.  Most of all, our honored veterans, who met that test to the ages — a test of ages to that moment 80 years ago — 80 years ago today.  (Applause.)

On behalf of the American people and as Commander-in-Chief, it’s the highest honor to be able to salute you here in Normandy once more — all of you.  God love you.  (Applause.)

Winston Churchill called what happened here, quote, “the greatest, most complicated operation ever,” end of quote.

After years of planning, Operation Overlord was ready to launch just as soon as the weather turned.  Across the choppy Eng- — choppy Eng- — English Channel, the Supreme Commander of the Allies, Dwight D. Eisenhower, waited.  The largest force ever of its kind, built by 12 nations — men, guns, planes, naval craft of every description — waited.  The world, captive and free, waited.

Finally, Eisenhower’s forecasters said there was a window in the weather.  It would open briefly on Tuesday the 6th of June.

The general weighed the options and gave the order: At dawn, the Allies would strike.  The “Great Crusade” to free Europe from tyranny would begin.

That night, General Eisenhower drove to the English town of Newbury to visit paratroopers of the 101st Airborne.  They were men from all over America.  It was estimated that 80 percent of them would be killed within hours.  That was the estimate.  But they were brave, they were resolute, and they were ready.

One soldier told General Eisenhower, quote, “Don’t worry, sor- — sir.  The 101st is on the job.  Everything will be taken care of.”  That’s what he said.

And because of their courage and their resolve, because of the courage and resolve of their allies, it was taken care of.

From the sea and sky, nearly 160,000 Allied troops descended on Normandy.  Many, to state the obvious, never came home.  Many survived that “longest day,” kept on fighting for months until victory was finally won.  And a few, a noble band of brothers, are here with us today.

Kenneth Blaine Smith is here.  On that day, under heavy artillery fire, he operated a range finder and radar on the first American ship to arrive at Normandy’s coast, providing direct gunfire support for the Rangers scaling the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc on their daring mission to take out the German batteries.

Bob Gibson is here.  He landed on Utah Beach about 10 hours after the invasion began.  Bullets flying everywhere.  Tracers lighting up the sky.  Bob drove an M4 tractor with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on top, providing critical protection for the infantry against the German air force.  On that day and for many days after, he continued.

Ben Miller is here.  A medic with the 82nd Airborne.  At 3:00 a.m. on June 6th, he and 13 other medics flew over the Channel in a rickety glider.  Its wings were ripped off by giant poles that the Germans buried halfway in the ground to stop them from landing.  They crashed, but they survived.  And they did their duty: dragging injured soldiers to safety, treating wounds, saving lives while the battle raged.

Every soldier who stormed the beach, who dropped by parachute or landed by glider; every sailor who manned the thousands of ships and landing craft; every aviator who destroyed German-controlled air fields, bridges, and railroads — all — all were backed by other brave Americans, including hundreds of thousands of people of color and women who courageously served despite unjust limitations on what they could do for their nation.

Louis Brown is here.  Part of the “Red Ball Express,” a truck convoy made up mostly of African American drivers.  They landed at Normandy in the wake of D-Day.  They rushed supplies to the rapidly advancing frontlines.

Woody Woodhouse is here.  Members of the legendary Tuskegee Airmen, who flew over 15,000 sorties during the war.

Marjorie Stone is here.  She enlisted in the women’s branch of the Naval Reserve, became an aircraft mechanic, spent the war keeping American planes and pilots in the air.

Theirs has always been the story of America.  Just walk the rows of this cemetery, as I have.  Nearly 10,000 heroes buried side by side, officers and enlisted, immigrants and native-born.  Different races, different faiths, but all Americans.  All served with honor when America and the world needed them most.

Millions back home did their part as well.  From coast to coast, Americans found countless ways to pitch in.  They understood our democracy is only as strong as all of us make it, together. 

The men who fought here became heroes not because they were the strongest or toughest or were fiercest — although they were — but because they were given an audacious mission knowing — every one of them knew the probability of dying was real, but they did it anyway.  They knew, beyond any doubt, there are things that are worth fighting and dying for. 

Freedom is worth it.  Democracy is worth it.  America is worth it.  The world is worth it — then, now, and always. 

The war in Europe didn’t end for another 11 months.  But here the tide turned in our favor.  Here we proved the forces of liberty are stronger than the forces of conquest.  Here we proved that the ideals of our democracy are stronger than any army or combination of armies in the entire world.

We proved something else here as well: the unbreakable unity of the Allies.

Here with us are men who served alongside the Americans that day, wearing different flags on their arms but fighting with the same courage, for the same purpose. 

What the Allies did together 80 years ago far surpassed anything we could have done on our own.  It was a powerful illustration of how alliances — real alliances — make us stronger — a lesson that I pray we Americans never forget.  

Together, we won the war.  We rebuilt Europe, including our former enemies.  It was an investment in what became shared and a prosperous future. 

We established NATO, the greatest military alliance in the history of the world.  And over time — (applause) — you got it; it is — and over time, we brought more nations into NATO — the NATO Alliance, including the newest members: Finland and Sweden.  (Applause.) 

Today, NATO stands at 32 countries strong.  And NATO is more united than ever and even more prepared to keep the peace, deter aggression, defend freedom all around the world. 

America has invested in our alliances and forged new ones — not simply out of altruism but out of our own self-interest as well.

America’s unique ability to bring countries together is an un- — undeniable source of our strength and our power.  Isolationism was not the answer 80 years ago, and it is not the answer today.  (Applause.)

We know the dark forces that these heroes fought against 80 years ago.  They never fade.  Aggression and greed, the desire to dominate and control, to change borders by force — these are perennial.  And the struggle between a dictatorship and freedom is unending. 

Here, in Europe, we see one stark example.  Ukraine has been invaded by a tyrant bent on domination.  

Ukrainians are fighting with extraordinary courage, suffering great losses, but never backing down.  (Applause.)

They’ve inflicted on the Russian aggressors — they’ve suffered tremendous losses, Russia.  The numbers are staggering — 350,000 Russian troops dead or wounded.  Nearly 1 million people have left Russia because they can no longer see a future in Russia. 

The United States and NATO and a coalition of more than 50 countries standing strong with Ukraine.  We will not walk away — (applause) — because if we do, Ukraine will be subjugated. 

And it will not end there.  Ukraine’s neighbors will be threatened.  All of Europe will be threatened. 

And make no mistake, the autocrats of the world are watching closely to see what happens in Ukraine, to see if we let this illegal aggression go unchecked.  We cannot let that happen. 

To surrender to bullies, to bow down to dictators is simply unthinkable.  (Applause.)  Were we to do that, it means we’d be forgetting what happened here on these hallowed beaches. 

Make no mistake:  We will not bow down.  We will not forget. 

Let me end with this.  History tells us freedom is not free.  If you want to know the price of freedom, come here to Normandy.  Come to Normandy and look.  Go to the other cemeteries in Europe where our fallen heroes rest.  Go back home to Arlington Cemetery. 

Tomorrow, I will pay respects at Pointe du Hoc.  Go there as well and remember: The price of unchecked tyranny is the blood of the young and the brave.

In their generation, in their hour of trial, the Allied forces of D-Day did their duty.  Now the question for us is: In our hour of trial, will we do ours?

We’re living in a time when democracy is more at risk across the world than at any point since the end of the World War Two — since these beaches were stormed in 1944. 

Now, we have to ask ourselves: Will we stand against tyranny, against evil, against crushing brutality of the iron fist? 

Will we stand for freedom?  Will we defend democracy?  Will we stand together?  (Applause.)

My answer is yes.  And it only can be yes.  (Applause.)

We’re not far off from the time when the last living voices of those who fought and bled on D-Day will no longer be with us.  So, we have a special obligation.  We cannot let what happened here be lost in the silence of the years to come.  We must remember it, must honor it, and live it.

And we must remember: The fact that they were heroes here that day does not absolve us from what we have to do today. 

Democracy is never guaranteed.  Every generation must preserve it, defend it, and fight for it.  That’s the test of the ages. 

In memory of those who fought here, died here, literally saved the world here, let us be worthy of their sacrifice.  Let us be the generation that when history is written about our time — in 10, 20, 30, 50, 80 years from now — it will be said: When the moment came, we met the moment.  We stood strong.  Our alliances were made stronger.  And we saved democracy in our time as well. 

Thank you very much.

And may God bless you all.  And may God protect our troops.

Thank you.  (Applause.)

2:17 P.M. CEST

Japan:

Here’s the machine translation:

At the request 🇺🇦 of the government, the Ministry of Defense 🇯🇵 and the Self-Defense Forces 🇯🇵 provided 🇺🇦 a series of vehicles in a decision taken in May 2023.

A batch of 101 cars arrived in Poland on June 5 and was then handed over 🇺🇦 .

🇯🇵 will continue to support 🇺🇦 .

🇺🇦🤝🇯🇵

France:

France24 has the details:

“Tomorrow we will launch a new cooperation and announce the transfer of Mirage 2000-5” fighter jets to Ukraine made by French manufacturer Dassault and train their Ukrainian pilots in France, Macron told French TV.

Macron said he would offer Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky when the two meet for talks at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Friday that the pilots be trained from this summer.

“You need normally between five-six months. So by the end of the year there will be pilots. The pilots will be trained in France,” he said.

He did not specify how many of the fighter jets would be delivered. Contacted by AFP, the defence ministry did not elaborate.

Macron said Ukraine was facing a “huge challenge” training soldiers as it sought to mobilise tens of thousands more troops to go to the front.

He said France would equip and train an entire brigade of 4,500 Ukrainian soldiers so they can defend themselves when they return to Ukraine from training.

Kyiv has been pushing Europe to increase its military support, with Russia in recent months gaining the upper hand on the battlefield.

Zelensky’s visit to France, where on Thursday he attended ceremonies for the 80th anniversary of D-Day and crossed paths with US President Joe Biden, is seen as a crucial time to drum up more help.

Macron said Ukraine has asked its Western allies to send military instructors to train its forces on its soil to meet the growing challenge to build up troop numbers.

“The Ukrainian president and his minister of defence asked all the allies — 48 hours ago in an official letter—saying ‘we need you to train us quicker and that you do this on our soil’,” Macron said.

There had been speculation that Macron could swiftly announce the sending of French instructors to Ukraine, even after his talks with Zelensky on Friday.

But he said France and its allies would come together and decide and also emphasised that he did not believe any such moves by Paris were “escalatory”.

“We are working with our partners and we will act on the basis of a collective decision,” he said.

Macron has decided that he is going to do everything possible to get to yes in terms of support for Ukraine.

If you’re wondering about the F-16s and the pilot training, Politico has the unpleasant details: (emphasis mine)

Ukrainian officials are pressing the U.S. and other countries to ramp up their F-16 pilot training, saying the current pipeline isn’t producing enough aviators to fly the jets that will be soon donated to Kyiv.

Ukraine says it has 30 pilots who are eligible to start training in the U.S. immediately. Yet the Biden administration has told Kyiv it lacks the school seats in its Arizona-based program to accept more than 12 pilot trainees at a time, according to three people with direct knowledge of the request. Two other facilities in Denmark and Romania have a similar issue with available training spots.

It’s the latest hurdle in the drawn-out effort to get modern F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. Kyiv began pushing for the aircraft in the months following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, but was repeatedly rebuffed by the Biden administration. In May 2023, President Joe Biden greenlit other countries’ requests to send their F-16s, but logistical challenges repeatedly delayed the training. Further complicating the effort, it took months for Western countries to agree to send their own aircraft to Ukraine.

Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium plan to ship more than 60 U.S.-made F-16 jets to Kyiv this summer. Ukrainians argue that the ability to fly more F-16s will help Kyiv push back Russian forces from the frontlines in places such as Kharkiv, where Moscow has advanced in recent weeks. Yet the U.S. has said it does not expect the jets to be a game-changer on the battlefield.

This story is based on interviews with eight former and current U.S., Ukrainian and European officials and lawmakers, many of whom were granted anonymity to speak about sensitive diplomatic conversations.

In a series of meetings and calls over the last several weeks, Ukraine has officially requested the U.S. train the additional pilots at Morris Air National Guard base in Tucson, Arizona. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, have also pressed the administration to approve the additional training. The pair, along with several other lawmakers, wrote the Pentagon a letter last month asking the administration to prioritize the issue.

But the U.S. has told the Ukrainian military that in addition to limited space, other countries are in line for F-16 training at the base and that it cannot break its commitments to those nations.

“We understand they don’t want to break those contracts, but they could move their American pilots to a different base for training,” said Sasha Ustinova, a Ukrainian lawmaker who has advocated for the training.

The National Guard is planning to train 12 Ukrainian pilots total by the end of September at the Tucson location, according to Air Force spokesperson Laurel Falls. Aside from Arizona, the training facility in Denmark also has limited space and is preparing to shutter in November. A third program, which is located in Romania and will be run by contractors, is not yet up and running.

“Dozens” of pilots from several countries are conducting basic flight training and F-16 training in the U.S. and Europe, said Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Charlie Dietz, declining to confirm specific numbers.

“We have developed and are implementing a training plan that meets forecasted aircraft fielding timelines, which are ultimately shaped by a number of factors, including maintenance and sustainment needs, infrastructure and support equipment requirements, and aircraft sourcing timelines, as well as pilot throughput,” Dietz said.

Maj. Erin Hannigan, a spokesperson for the Arizona National Guard, confirmed that space in the program is limited due to commitments to other countries’ training requests, funding and the completion by potential students of English language requirements.

“On top of the Ukrainian students, there are multiple other countries that have reserved training throughout the year,” Hannigan said. “The number of foreign student pilots and where they come from is not determined by our schoolhouse, there are many other factors that play a part in the numbers such as funding, country requests, graduation of students from English learning and allotment.”

The Air Force also trains F-16 pilots at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, and Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, but those programs also have limited spaces for international students. Those spots are typically reserved well in advance for pilots from other countries that operate the F-16.

Another eight Ukrainian pilots are being trained in Denmark, according to a former DOD official involved in the program. But that facility is set to close next year and will no longer participate in the training, as Denmark’s Air Force transitions to the stealthy F-35.

Meanwhile, F-16-maker Lockheed Martin and its subcontractor, Draken, are also preparing to train pilots at a facility in Romania, but that program is expensive and also will have limited spots, according to the former official and a person familiar with the program. A Lockheed spokesperson referred questions about the Romania facility to the governments of the U.S., Romania and the Netherlands.

A total of 20 Ukrainian F-16 pilots are expected to graduate by the end of this year — half of the 40 needed to operate a full squadron of 20 jets, according to the former DOD official. Eight new pilots are scheduled to begin training in Romania, and eight more will soon arrive in Tucson, the former official said. The facility in Denmark will not accept any additional pilots.

Among the training facilities, only four slots will be open for Ukrainian pilots through the remainder of the year, according to the person familiar.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials have warned for months that the F-16 will not make a huge difference on the battlefield for Ukraine.

While the jets “will give the Ukrainians an increment of capability that they don’t have right now … it’s not going to be a dramatic game-changer as far as I’m concerned for their total military capabilities,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said last year.

In the Kharkiv area, for example, one U.S. official said Ukraine will not be able to fly the jets to the border with Russia or into Russian territory, because Moscow’s air defense systems will easily spot them and shoot them down.

But officials involved in the program said the aircraft will still provide a significant advantage for Kyiv, eventually. When Ukraine initially gets its F-16s and pilots, they will likely be able to fly only limited missions, for example, against drones and cruise missiles on the front lines, the former DOD official said. Once they get a full squadron worth of aircraft and pilots, it’s “completely realistic” to fly the F-16s to the border and shoot into Russia given the jet’s radar, targeting system and missiles — all of which are superior to Ukraine’s Soviet-era fleet.

But at this rate, Ukraine won’t have a full squadron of trained pilots until the end of 2025, the former official said.

Another issue is the weapons the planes will be carrying.

Ukrainians plan to use the jets to knock down Russian cruise and ballistic missiles fired toward Ukrainian infrastructure and civilian targets.

Those missions require precise air-to-air missiles that belong to the U.S. and dozens of NATO allies. Many of those countries are hesitant to part with their expensive weapons, one NATO official said.

The production capacity for the AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, made by RTX, has increased from around 500-800 per year to over 1,000, company officials said last year, in order to keep with demand. Ukraine has already used an older version of the missile with the ground-based National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System to hit Russian missiles.

But the worry from capitals is that the new requests from Kyiv could begin to put a strain on countries’ stocks, and talks among alliance members are looking at who might be able to part with their missiles, and how many, and when, the official said.

2025! Sometime in 2025! C’mon man, give me a break!

Again, we are 2 and 1/2 years into this current large scale operations portion of this war that started in 2014 and we still can’t get any of this sorted out. This isn’t because it is hard, it is because there is a lack of a coherent policy, a feasible, acceptable, and suitable strategy to achieve that policy, and the political will to actually do what needs to be done. I have no doubt there are other countries’ pilots in the queue ahead of Ukraine’s. There’s two reasons for that. The first is the Biden administration jerked Ukraine around for almost two years on the provision of F-16s, training pilots to fly them and air crews to service them. The second is that unless those other countries whose pilots are in the training rotation ahead of Ukraine are fighting existential wars of survival against a genocidal re-invasion by their larger and more militarily powerful neighbor, then we can prioritize better and they can wait! There are only three options for this stupendously ridiculous situation: 1) incompetence, 2) cowardice, or 3) a combination of the two.

Speaking of anniversaries:

On this day a year ago, russian occupiers blew up the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant’s dam.

As a result of this deliberate crime, thousands of people were affected, and hundreds of thousands were left without access to clean drinking water. Also, irreparable damage was caused to the environment.

The occupiers continue inflicting pain and suffering on the Ukrainian people. They must be punished for such crimes. The world should help Ukraine achieve a just peace and protect our people.

📹:
@United24media

And heroism under fire far from home:

From The Globe and Mail: (emphasis mine)

The Ukrainian military helicopter had been shot down about seven kilometres behind Russian lines, crashing in a field browned by winter, on the edge of a leafless forest. Those aboard were scattered dead and mortally wounded across the burning landscape of southern Ukraine weeks after the Russian invasion.

Trying to reach the casualties – the crew of the helicopter, plus fighters who had been rescued from the besieged port city of Mariupol before the craft was shot down on its return trip – would be something close to a suicide mission. The last person who should have taken the assignment was Nazar Borovytskyi.

The helicopter missions into Mariupol were seen as so risky that each team – usually a pilot, a mechanic and two special-forces fighters from Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence service – was only supposed to make the trip once. The soldiers joked among themselves that they were volunteering for seats on a one-way flight.

Nazar, 28, had already flown two such missions in the spring of 2022, escaping both times with a handful of injured fighters from a surrounded steel factory in a shattered city slowly falling under Russian control. Now one of the missions had gone awry, necessitating an even more dangerous rescue.

It was definitely not his turn, but when the commander asked for volunteers, Nazar asked to be sent back in.

In the framed photograph on the wall of the HUR headquarters, Nazar, muscular, with chiselled cheekbones and a dark blond beard, stands in the back row wearing a black T-shirt under his camouflage bulletproof vest.

The image, displayed outside the Kyiv office of Lieutenant-General Kyrylo Budanov, captures a group of Ukrainian soldiers in what was then one of the most dangerous places in the world – the Kabul airport in the summer of 2021. The soldiers were members of a specially assembled unit that flew multiple missions to rescue Ukrainian nationals, as well as one of The Globe and Mail’s translators and his family, from Kabul ahead of the anticipated Taliban takeover. An inscription in the corner reads “26.08.2021, Kabul, Afghanistan.”

In all, there were 32 operatives – 30 men and two women – on the ground in Kabul that day, plus the pilots and crew of the military cargo plane. All except the pilots were experienced HUR officers.

When the team landed in Kyiv after flying the third and final planeload of evacuees out of the country, they would be greeted by Gen. Budanov, as well as President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff. Medals would follow.

The mission is remembered fondly by the team because it was short, the team accomplished what they needed to, and they came home to a hero’s welcome. In other words, it was everything the current war with Russia is not.

A few days after the rescue, I flew to Kyiv to assist the Afghans – and to thank the team of strangers who had carried out the mission.

An officer code-named Markus had been my point of contact throughout the rescue. I didn’t know him, but he had been co-ordinating from Kyiv as the Ukrainians ventured outside Kabul airport on Aug. 27, and escorted the families of Sharif Sharaf, The Globe’s long-time Afghan news assistant, and Jawed Haqmal, a translator who had worked with the Canadian military. Markus and I met for drinks along with Dima Logginov, a medic and communications specialist who had been on the ground in Kabul and had taken part in the mission.

Five months later, as Russia was amassing its forces ahead of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I ran into both Markus and Dima again separately as they helped prepare their country’s defences. I came to understand that the HUR special-forces team that had been deployed to Kabul in the summer of 2021 were indeed the country’s elite, and I became intent on covering their struggle to defend their country.

Markus eventually introduced me to Gen. Budanov, who agreed to give The Globe unprecedented access to his top fighters, a group brought together for the 2021 mission but usually serve in different, smaller units deployed on the hottest sections of the front line in Ukraine. I was taken to the secret base of the special-forces fighter code-named Shaman, and debated God and the rules of war with the leader of the most feared battalion fighting on the Ukrainian side of the war against Russia. I was given permission to meet one of the founders of a unit that had led the defence of Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv – and found him deeply worried about what comes next.

I spoke to Lieutenant-Colonel Iryna Andrukh, a military psychologist who played a very different role on the ground in Kabul – and who nearly became a casualty there.

Eventually, I met Maks, the commander of the team in Kabul, who today heads his own unit as it contends with a dwindling supply of ammunition on Ukraine’s southern Zaporizhzhia front. I spent hours talking to Cesar, one of Gen. Budanov’s deputies, who played a lead role both in Kabul and in designing the overall strategy in the country’s war against Russia and who wonders whether the West has the stomach for what’s to come.

I also met with members of the Kabul Team who have been wounded, family members of one who has been killed, and heard whispers of discontent from inside the ranks about how they have been pushed to the limits – and beyond – over the 27-plus months since Russia invaded their country.

This is the story of their war.

Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence service was born in 1992, shortly after independent Ukraine was itself reborn from the ashes of the Soviet Union. Ukraine’s early security and defence policies were often indistinguishable from Moscow’s, and soldiers and spies who had served the Soviet Union dominated Ukraine’s new security services.

All that changed in early 2014, when a popular revolution on the streets of Kyiv overthrew the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych. A furious Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered masked troops to seize the strategic Crimean Peninsula, in the south of Ukraine, which Mr. Putin annexed shortly afterward. Other Russian operatives appeared in Donbas, a largely Russian-speaking region in Ukraine’s southeast, stirring up a proxy war that would kill 14,000 people between its outbreak in 2014 and the start of the full-scale invasion.

At the beginning of the Donbas conflict, the country was unprepared to fight its giant neighbour, one many Ukrainians had a hard time even perceiving as an enemy. But attitudes quickly hardened. In 2016, then-president Petro Poroshenko unveiled an overhaul of HUR that included a new logo – an owl plunging a giant sword into a map of Russia. It surely wasn’t missed in Moscow that the mascot of Russia’s own military intelligence service was a bat, and owls are one of the few creatures that prey on bats.

The logo captured the spirit of a service that quickly became the backbone of the new fight for Ukraine’s full independence.

Nazar Borovytskyi always wanted to be a soldier. When he was in the fourth grade, he was bullied; he took up sports and started training “so that he could push back,” his mother, Lesya, recalled in September, 2023, when I visited the family home in Pashkivka, a tiny farming town in the Poltava region. Nazar grew up there after his parents and older sister Oksana were relocated from their former home on the edge of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster zone.

Sports and fitness became an obsession for Nazar. Oksana recalls her brother, while doing pull-ups on a bar their father had set up for him in the garden, asking her to throw a basketball at his stomach as hard as she could. He wanted it to hurt, to build up his tolerance for pain.

He had good grades, Lesya said, but when he graduated from high school he applied only to the academy of the country’s SBU security service. Before he had even graduated, Nazar responded to a call for volunteers, and found himself fighting in the proxy war.

It was on the battlefields of Donbas in 2016 that Nazar, then a member of a different special forces unit, first encountered the HUR team, when his unit was assigned to work with them. Nazar ended up fighting side-by-side with Ivan, a fighter from western Ukraine who was the same age and who had also bucked his parents’ wishes and joined the military.

The mission was a success, though the skirmish is likely to go unremembered in the long history of Russia’s war on Ukraine. Ivan and Nazar became fast friends and later that year Ivan helped recruit Nazar to a unit that would be sent to the United States for a three-month training course. Nazar’s friends dubbed him “Universal Soldier” after the 1992 Jean-Claude Van Damme movie about the half-man, half-cyborg perfect fighter. A hero who was supposed to be impossible to kill.

After the events of 2014 – as Russia faced sanctions for annexing Crimea – Mr. Putin’s Kremlin came to see itself in a struggle not just with Ukraine, but the entire West. Though Western governments wanted to avoid direct conflict with Russia, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency began looking for ways to covertly join the battle against its Cold War adversary.

In 2016, the CIA reached out to HUR with an offer to train top operatives in the United States; in exchange, the newly formed Unit 2245 would share what it learned on the battlefield – including any technology it captured – with the CIA so that it could better understand their shared adversary. The training covered everything from how to provide close protection to their country’s political leaders to more advanced types of spycraft.

Gen. Budanov was one of the initial Unit 2245 members – as was Maks, a 41-year-old with deep brown eyes and a square jaw, whom Gen. Budanov selected to lead the initial reconnaissance mission into Kabul in the summer of 2021. He was a natural choice, having served in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010 as a member of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. He had also fought as part of Unit 2245 in Donbas, preceding Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Maks had only a couple of days to prepare after Gen. Budanov asked him, on Aug. 13, 2021, to head a team tasked with evacuating hundreds of Ukrainian citizens living in Afghanistan.

The crack 10-member unit landed in Kabul for the first time on Aug. 15 to a scene of utter chaos: tens of thousands of desperate people trying to get into the tightly guarded airport.

The team also had a pair of side missions: to rescue a group of Ukrainian security contractors, as well as Fatema Hosseini, a freelance journalist who had worked for USA Today. Like other Afghan translators, she feared for her safety under renewed Taliban rule. The risks were even higher for Fatema, as a woman who had worked for Westerners and taken to dressing like them during the 20-year U.S. military presence in her country.

Fatema was put in contact with Col. Iryna Andrukh, a military psychologist and hostage negotiator who was added to the Kabul Team to deal with unforeseen circumstances that might require her skill set. Throughout the night of Aug. 19, 2021, they messaged back and forth.

“Last night I woke up several times having nightmares,” Fatema wrote. “I will die.”

“You will not die,” Iryna responded.

She told Fatema to get as close as she could to the East Gate of the airport, and then the HUR team would come out and get her.

After some tense moments as she pushed through the desperate crowds – and just after she had talked her way through a pair of Taliban checkpoints – Fatema received another, starker, text message from Iryna. Fatema now had to make her way instead to the North Gate of the facility. And the plane was leaving in 30 minutes. “Either you make it or you don’t.”

People were shouting, shoving, trampling. Someone shot a woman beside her. Fatema decided to return home and accept her fate.

Just then her phone rang. This time it was a male voice on the line. “Fatema, I bribed this Taliban to come out and take you. Where are you?”

At the assigned meeting point, Fatema shouted the name she had been given. “Ivan!” She could see safety – and a better life – just on the other side of the airport fence.

Ivan spotted her and sent Nazar into the crowd. He pulled her from peril and into the airport.

There is much more at the link.

I want to highlight and emphasize this part:

Gen. Budanov was one of the initial Unit 2245 members – as was Maks, a 41-year-old with deep brown eyes and a square jaw, whom Gen. Budanov selected to lead the initial reconnaissance mission into Kabul in the summer of 2021. He was a natural choice, having served in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010 as a member of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. He had also fought as part of Unit 2245 in Donbas, preceding Russia’s full-scale invasion.

When NATO, especially the US which built and led ISAF, needed Ukraine’s help in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ukraine stood up! Ukrainians were wounded and killed in action in Afghanistan in support of US goals and NATO’s support of the US as a result of the Article 5 invocation in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. Even though Ukraine wasn’t bound by NATO’s collective defense agreement, they came to help us! But when Ukraine asks for a clear path to ascension to be delineated so they can join NATO once they defeat Russia, the President, who spoke so eloquently about Ukraine in his remarks at Normandy today, had this to say: (emphasis mine)

So what is the endgame though in Ukraine and what does peace look like there? 

Biden: Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO, it means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future. But it is not, if you notice, I was the one when—and you guys did report it at TIME—the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.

It should not, it is not—I spent a month in Ukraine when I was a Senator and Vice President. There was significant corruption. There was a circumstance that was really difficult. And so, the point is, though, that if we ever let Ukraine go down, mark my words: you’ll see Poland go, and you’ll see all those nations along the actual border of Russia, from the Balkans and Belarus, all those, they’re going to make their own accommodations.

I was there and had to try to keep a straight face and look the Soldiers of the 33rd Shavnabada Battalion in the eyes when the US betrayed Georgia and sacrificed it to Putin’s megalomania. I was there when they begged us to come and help them. That one was on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If Ukraine is not going to get into NATO once they defeat Russia, as the President stated clearly in his interview with Time Magazine, then this American betrayal is on Joseph Robinette Biden.

Tatarigami has posted a long assessment about how Europe’s largest war since the end of World War II came to be at EuroMaidan Press:

After the end of the Cold War, terms like atomic diplomacy and nuclear blackmailing seemed to become obsolete. Yet, it took less than two decades for them not only to resurface but also to re-enter mainstream discourse, raising questions about the real risks of nuclear escalation.

In 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin lamented, “The collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” These words encapsulated Russia’s revisionist agenda, signaling growing ambitions to reestablish once-lost influence.

In less than a decade, Russia officially annexed territories of another independent state in Europe. These ambitions have continued to grow, now aiming to reshape the post-Cold War security order in Europe, challenging NATO’s current structure.

Given Russia’s diminished power compared to the Soviet Union and the economic, demographic, and military superiority of NATO countries, it seemed improbable for Russia to coerce the West or assert its will over it.

How did Russia manage not only to annex territories but also to emerge as a real threat to the security of the West?

To answer these questions, we must understand the evolving role of nuclear weapons in Russia’s strategy, the risks of escalation, and the principles that transform these weapons into tools for exerting influence and political leverage rather than for actual warfare.

Escalation management and Russia

Escalation management is a strategic concept that aims to prevent conflicts from escalating into more widespread and destructive confrontations, such as nuclear warfare.

By exploiting vulnerabilities in the West’s current political establishment’s approach to escalation management, Russia has influenced the quantity and quality of Western aid to Ukraine through a tactic known as reflexive control.

This tactic involves presenting specific information to an opponent to influence their decisions in favor of the initiator’s desired outcome.

In the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials have timed nuclear drills or threats to coincide with critical Western decisions about aid to Ukraine, aiming to deter support for Ukraine.

Such tactics also played a significant role in 2014-2015, convincing European leaders like Angela Merkel to pursue peace resolutions in Ukraine on Russia’s terms. Fearing conventional or even nuclear escalation, these leaders adopted what they considered “responsible” politics.

Thanks to reflexive control, each successive step on the escalation ladder is perceived as more disadvantageous to the United States and Europe than to Russia. This allows Russia to retain the initiative in terms of timing and location of escalation, deterring the West from taking actions that Russia deems undesirable.

Unlike escalation dominance, where one side can decisively win, both Russia and the US are equally capable of destroying each other (mutually assured destruction, or MAD), ensuring no winner.

So where does Russia’s escalation advantage come from? It stems from Russia’s perceived readiness to escalate and use non-strategic or strategic nuclear weapons in response to actions it might deem as leading to its strategic defeat. This approach can be especially effective against risk-averse adversaries unwilling to escalate to preserve the status quo.

As a result, Russia perceives this situation as a window of opportunity that should be exploited until the response from the West outweighs the potential benefits of Russia’s actions.

In the case of Ukraine, Russia claims that the country is vital for its national security and part of its sphere of influence, justifying nuclear escalation in response to any interference.

The designation of entire countries as vital parts of a sphere of influence can be largely subjective and is often used as political leverage and justification for aggressive action. For example, Russia might argue that previous NATO expansions pose an existential threat, demanding that NATO’s borders and memberships revert to their pre-1999 stage.

However, such overt and assertive threats to the West on core issues like NATO’s existence are unlikely to yield any tangible results for Russia. Therefore, to manage escalation while achieving geopolitical goals, Russia employs what experts term “Salami slicing tactics” — tactics involving incremental, limited actions to expand influence while mitigating the risk of escalation.

In such a situation, Russia’s small territorial gains may initially appear insignificant compared to the risk of nuclear warfare. To better understand this dynamic, we need to examine the timeline of escalation.

Reflecting on the past decade of Russian aggression

n 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, Putin warned unnamed Western leaders that Russia was ready to set its nuclear forces to combat readiness, a fact he later admitted in a 2015 interview. After the successful occupation of Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine, Russia continued to deter the West from providing substantial aid to Ukraine by threatening to escalate the war further.

Besides official statements, Russian domestic and international channels like Russia Today, along with pundits and sensationalist journalists, continued to spread the nuclear threat narrative and the fear of nuclear escalation. Aggressive demands coupled with nuclear threats were presented as “reasonable negotiations,” branding any country that refused to respond to these subtle threats as unwilling to engage in diplomacy

Timeline of Russian escalation from 2014 through to the present. Dates are in the left column. The center is a stepped listing of each escalation. The right column is the US/Western response. Timeline of escalation: Russian aggression vs Western actions. Image by the author

These threats were backed by showcasing new strategic capabilities and an updated nuclear triad, including the Avangard, Kinzhal, Poseidon, and Sarmat systems. During the presentation of the Sarmat ICBM, Putin even played a mock video of a nuclear attack on Florida. This aggressive and irresponsible saber-rattling became more frequent and bold yet received little pushback.

Demands peaked on 17 December 2021, when Russia submitted documents requesting the rollback of NATO military force deployments in Central and Eastern Europe, the refraining from any further NATO enlargement, including Ukraine, and the limitation of troop and weapon deployments.

Russia knew these demands were unacceptable to the United States and other NATO members. This wasn’t done with an honest intent to establish a dialogue but rather to portray the West as unwilling to exercise diplomacy and negotiate.

Despite these de-escalatory actions, limited aid to Ukraine, and the normalization of relations between Russia and many Western countries, including the restoration of trade despite sanctions, Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

Just a few days later, on 27 February 2022, President Putin ordered Russian strategic deterrence forces to be placed on “high combat alert” to further deter the West from taking decisive actions.

Is Russia likely to use nuclear weapons?

In 2020, Russia officially released a document titled “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” outlining scenarios for nuclear use.

Most scenarios presented in this document do not apply to the situation in Ukraine. For example, Russia considers the use of nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with conventional weapons when the state’s very existence is in jeopardy.

The notion that Ukraine could threaten the existence of Russia is highly unrealistic, given that Ukraine faces significant challenges in liberating its own occupied territories, let alone occupying a substantial part of Russia and its command and control centers in Moscow.

However, it would be naive to rely solely on published documents or doctrines, especially in a country where decisions are made by an autocratic leader and his close inner circle. Therefore, this situation should be analyzed from a cost-benefit perspective.

Before using tactical nuclear weapons, Russia must consider whether such an action will be beneficial and whether it will leave Russia in a better position.

From a battlefield perspective, the use of tactical nuclear weapons is unlikely to yield significant results. A potential strike on Ukrainian fortress towns like Kurakhove, Vuhledar, or Chasiv Yar might decimate multiple battalions or even a brigade, but it is unlikely to provide a strategic advantage. Strikes on training centers or airfields could result in hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries, and the destruction of a few aircraft, but it would not be sufficient to change the course of the war.

Similar to Russia’s campaign of bombing civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, which did not result in Ukraine’s surrender, striking Ukraine with a nuclear weapon is unlikely to force submission—there are no guarantees of such an outcome.

Western countries would react extremely negatively to such an escalation, likely responding to Russia in more tangible ways, potentially even considering the use of conventional weaponry against Russian targets in Ukraine.

The risks of submitting to coercion are greater than those of a strong response

Almost every serious arms delivery or new weaponry to Ukraine has been met with threats of serious escalation, including subtle nuclear threats and warnings.

Whether it was HIMARS in 2022, tanks in 2023, or long-range ATACMs in 2024, the messaging remained the same. This has played a negative role for Ukraine, as many weapons remained unavailable in 2022 when Ukraine could maximize its gains against Russia’s undermanned and overextended units.

HIMARS arrived with range and geographic target limitations, and ATACMs were delivered to Ukraine to target Russian air bases with helicopters in the South only after Ukraine’s failed counter-offensive.

The problem is that by limiting Ukraine’s opportunity to significantly shift the balance during the first year of the war, the United States has found itself in a situation where it is forced to provide more potent weaponry every time Ukraine faces a dire situation, like in Kharkiv, instead of providing such weaponry and permission to engage targets before the situation deteriorates.

Such an approach has resulted in the prolongation and geographical expansion of the war. In 2022, the war was primarily between Russia, with limited support from Belarus, and Ukraine, supported by the West.

By 2024, the war had expanded to include Iran, North Korea, and partially China on Russia’s side, as Russia desperately sought to expand its industrial capacities to meet the demands of a long-term war of attrition.

Addressing the threat

The fundamental goal is to deter adversaries by showcasing resolve and preparedness to counter any escalation. Russia must grasp that the potential consequences of escalation would be unfavorable, thereby discouraging it from initiating such actions.

An overly cautious Western approach, seen as weakness and indecisiveness, is the greatest reason behind these escalations.

Effective measures could include issuing stern and specific warnings directly to Putin and his inner circle, both officially and unofficially. The Kremlin should not monopolize the public discourse surrounding nuclear use.

Nuclear threats must be countered with a reminder that Russia is not the sole nuclear-capable country. Security organizations like NATO must demonstrate readiness to react even in the face of nuclear threats instead of sending ambiguous signals which are interpreted as weakness.

Moreover, in response to escalations, the West should leverage its capacity to equip Ukraine with resources capable of significantly shifting the balance on the battlefield, such as relaxing restrictions on target selection.

The reason states typically avoid yielding to terrorist demands is that it incentivizes future incidents. Similarly, Russia is not actively seeking nuclear war, but if it perceives a lack of resolve from the West, it will continue pushing boundaries until it encounters firm resistance.

Consequently, Russia will keep escalating threats, forcing the West to make a difficult decision: either respond more harshly to Russian nuclear provocations higher up the escalation ladder to defend its vital interests later or take firmer actions now to prevent further escalation. This pattern has been demonstrated multiple times, with Moscow interpreting Western de-escalatory steps as weakness.

There is more at the link.

Russian occupied Crimea:

Here’s the full text of the second tweet above:

/2. What is more interesting for me than the destruction of the tug in this attack is the passage of a naval kamizaze drone through the sea barrier at the entrance to the port.

I would even suggest that the primary objective of the attack could well be to test the capabilities of kamikaze drones in breaking through such barriers. As preparation for more complex and large-scale operations.

These two facts exist in the same universe:

1. Russia wants to have navy drills in the Caribbean “to project its naval power around the world”, according to U.S. officials.

2. Russia has managed to have lost a third part of its Black Sea Fleet (including the flagship) to Ukraine, which in its turn has as many as 0 major warships.

Bucha:

The main street of Bucha just tonight, about 11 pm local time.

Yet another power cut in most of the city (but suddenly not at my place for some reason!)

Most places that are fully autonomous on diesel generators are now closed for the night, so many youngsters now hang out at the UPG gas station that works 24/7 and serves very good food and drinks until midnight.

Wartime life in the age of energy technologies.

Kharkiv Oblast:

Kreminna:

Bakhmut:

Urozhaine, Zaporizhzhia front:

Rostov on Don:

Here’s the full text of the third tweet:

/3. Russians publish photos from the Novoshakhtinsk oil refinery, which was attacked by drones. According to Russian media, after the strikes of the UAVs, two AVT installations caught fire.

Novoshakhtinsk oil refinery – is/was the only operating refinery in the Rostov region. There were two AVT units, each with a capacity of 2.5 million tons of oil per year, for a total of 5 million tons per year. If both were damaged it might mean that the unite oil refinery is disabled.

That’s enough for tonight.

Your daily Patron!

There are no new Patron tweets or videos, so here is some adjacent material:

That last one may not be to scale.

Open thread!

Reader Interactions

35Comments

  1. 1.

    Gin & Tonic

    If Ukraine is not going to get into NATO once they defeat Russia, as the President stated clearly in his interview with Time Magazine, then this American betrayal is on Joseph Robinette Biden.

    QFT.

  2. 2.

    Adam L Silverman

    I’m going to work out, get cleaned up, and then rack out. I’ll check back in later.

  8. 8.

    Jay

    As always, thank you Adam.

    I am only part way through the “Grope and Flail” article, it’s rare to find anything good there.

  9. 9.

    wjca

     I was the one when—and you guys did report it at TIME—the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine. 

    I would interpret that to mean only that Biden is not prepared to bring Ukraine into NATO now, while the battle is raging.  Which, politician-speak being what it is, is a ways from saying he (or his successor, if God forbid this war takes several years more) wouldn’t support bringing Ukraine in once the war ends.

    Bringing Ukraine in now amounts to a joint declaration of war on Russia.  Pretty obvious why that isn’t going to fly.  Announcing that Ukraine is a candidate for membership will only feed Putin’s most rabid fantasies about the whole situation.

  11. 11.

    YY_Sima Qian

    I asked yesterday & I ask again today, why is Biden suddenly foreclosing the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO after the war?! I had thought there was already a consensus since around the middle of last year?

    I am a person who believes that the European common security architecture should have been reimagined post-Cold War, rather than holding on to NATO & expanding it east. Doing the former might have helped to prevent someone like Putin from coming to power, or at least make the consolidation of Russian elites around a maximalist revanchist enterprise more difficult. I think that history has been conveniently forgotten in most parts of DC & Brussels, & we are doomed to make similar mistakes going forward.

    However, given where we are today, given that Putin has consolidated the Russian elite around the maximalist revanchist enterprise, & given the transparent malice w/ which he acts in the fUSSR states, in Europe, & around the world, how could Ukraine not be in NATO after the war?! Even if that is something Ukraine & its Western supporters are willing to bargain away in an eventual peace settlement, why surrender the bargaining chip now, when the prospect of serious peace negotiations are so remote as to be invisible?!

    BTW, I think European common security architecture still needs to be reimagined, rather than trying to sustain a NATO dominated by the US. All of the contradictions & incoherence before Feb. 2022 have not disappeared, only submerged by the clear & present danger from Putinist Russia. But, that will have to wait for a time when Russian revanchism is no longer a threat.

  12. 12.

    gene108

    Russia/Putin operates like the mafia or a terrorist organization more than as a nation-state. If they aren’t scared, they’ll see what they can get away with.

    I also think NATO is a paper tiger. I doubt the major NATO countries would mobilize enough forces to defend the Balkans, for example. Whatever combine leadership NATO has will be held back by individual nations for political concerns about a bunch of dead Frenchmen, Germans, Brits, etc. dying for Estonia.

  13. 13.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @wjca: Biden, unless he himself completely misspoke, clearly means Ukraine will not be in NATO even in the future when there is “peace”. Then again, I found his comments on this subject, both here & in the TIME interview, to border on rambling incoherence, it was very difficult for me to understand his train of thought. Likewise about his comments on the PRC in the TIME interview.

  15. 15.

    Villago Delenda Est

    The clip of the vet and Prez Z is priceless. Let the MAGAts whine. The vet is a true American patriot, unlike MAGAt scum.

  16. 16.

    wjca

    @YY_Sima Qian: Biden, unless he himself completely misspoke, clearly means Ukraine will not be in NATO even in the future when there is “peace”.

    I don’t read it as foreclosing Ukranian membership period.  Just that he doesn’t support it right now.

    Admittedly, divining the actual meaning of a particular politician’s particular statement is chancy, at best.

  17. 17.

    Jay

    @YY_Sima Qian:

    IMHO, Biden’s comments on Ukraine and NATO are about now, not the future.

    Ukraine still has corruption issues, Ukraine still has ruZZian moles in it’s political, governmental and military structures that are still being rooted out. Ukraine still has “Soviet thought” in parts of it’s structures.

    And in reality, until Ukraine is restored, and at peace, any “talk” of Ukraine in NATO is aspirational.

  19. 19.

    Jay

    @Another Scott:

    Gene 101 was talking about European NATO members not being willing to commit soldiers to defend Estonia, (Baltics), not Kosovo or Macedonia, (Balkans).

  20. 20.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @wjca:

    @Jay:

    I’ve read Biden’s answer backwards & forwards several times know, & I admit that the answer is extremely confusing. However, the questions was what does “peace” (meaning sustainable after the end of the war) look like, & Biden answer suggests “peace” does not mean Ukraine in NATO. He then suggested there other arrangements for Ukraine than joining NATO to preserve the peace.

    Nobody is or has been talking about Ukraine joining NATO in the middle of the war. That’s a nonstarter. If Biden really meant no Ukraine in NATO now, that’s batting down a straw man.

  22. 22.

    Jay

    @YY_Sima Qian:

    Right now, all we know is that “peace” means Ukraine restored and no war, because that is Ukraine’s current position.

    Can Ukraine achieve this? Who knows?

    Will ruZZia give up or will they continue to interfere? Who knows?

    ruZZia has since the fall of the Soviet Union been “allowed” to create “frozen conflicts” across the globe. Will Ukraine wind up being another ruZZian “frozen conflict”? Who knows?

  24. 24.

    Another Scott

    @YY_Sima Qian: He apologized early in the TIME interview for having a cold.

    I think you have to look at the potentially concerning Ukraine/NATO remarks in the context of what he was talking about before. He was reminding the TIME people of what VVP said in February 2022 that the war was about.

    […]

    So understanding Putin’s aims, the world, the West, the United States, and you find yourselves facing a difficult situation in Ukraine. The war is stalled. Every day, an average of 42 Ukrainian civilians are killed or wounded. Is Russia’s proposal for, to end the war in Ukraine, the best that Ukraine can hope for at this point?

    Biden: No, it’s not. And by the way, I don’t know why you skip over all that’s happened in the meantime. The Russian military has been decimated. You don’t write about that. It’s been freaking decimated. Number one.

    Number two, NATO is considerably stronger than it was when I took office. I put it together. Not only did I reestablish the fact that it was the strongest alliance in the history of the world, I was able to expand it. While I was in one of the G7 meetings in Europe. when I got back I called on the President of Finland because when I had met earlier in the year with Putin, he said he wanted to see the Finlandization of NATO. I told him, he’s gonna get not the Finlandization, the Natoization of Finland. And everybody thought, including you guys, thought I was crazy.

    And guess what? I did it. I did it. And we’re now the strongest nation. We have the strongest alliance in all of America, all of history. In the meantime, what we keep skipping over is what the consequence of the success of Russia in Ukraine would be. That’s why I brought this along. You probably haven’t read it. Most people haven’t read it. He says this is part of reestablishing the Soviet Union. That’s what this is all about. It wasn’t just about taking part of—He wanted, he wanted to go back to the, to the days when there was NATO and there was that other outfit that Poland, everybody belonged to. So that’s what it was about. And in the meantime, what happened was, we were able to—and by the way, we spent a lot of money in Ukraine, but Europe has spent more money than the United States has, collectively. Europe has spent more money in taking on Russia.

    So what is the endgame though in Ukraine and what does peace look like there?

    Biden: Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO, it means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future. But it is not, if you notice, I was the one when—and you guys did report it at TIME—the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.

    It should not, it is not—I spent a month in Ukraine when I was a Senator and Vice President. There was significant corruption. There was a circumstance that was really difficult. And so, the point is, though, that if we ever let Ukraine go down, mark my words: you’ll see Poland go, and you’ll see all those nations along the actual border of Russia, from the Balkans and Belarus, all those, they’re going to make their own accommodations.

    I want to switch to Israel. But on that last point, is there a danger that NATO is on a slippery slope to war with Ukraine—with Russia, as things stand?

    Biden: No, we’re on a slippery slope for war if we don’t do something about Ukraine. It’s just not gonna…anyway…

    […]

    I read him as being pissed off and having his “Irish up” in talking with the TIME people, apparently for good reason.

    I also read him as saying that first VVP must leave Ukraine. That’s the first goal. And the US and western Europe are doing a lot to help that happen. He’s saying that he rejects VVP’s picture of the world divided up into NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The US can and will support friends that aren’t in NATO.

    He’s saying Ukraine joining NATO while VVP is fighting in the country isn’t going to end the war.  He doesn’t support the “NATOization” of the war in Ukraine. The end of the war comes first. He said there “was” corruption and all the rest. He’s saying other things have to happen before he would support Ukraine joining NATO (with all that entails, Article 5 and all the rest). He’s not vetoing Ukraine joining NATO in the future.

    My $0.02. FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  25. 25.

    wjca

    @Another Scott:

    Biden says: “Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like.”

    Which, to me, means that Russia gets booted out of Ukraine.  (And, presumably, isn’t firing into Ukraine either.)  And that’s peace — peace doesn’t require Ukrainian membership in NATO.

    Which is not to say that, once peace is achieved, Ukraine couldn’t join NATO.  In fact, I’d say it’s pretty much guaranteed that they will apply.  (I suppose actually joining will depend on how big a bribe Orbán demands to consent.)

  26. 26.

    Bill Arnold

    @YY_Sima Qian:

    Biden, unless he himself completely misspoke, clearly means Ukraine will not be in NATO even in the future when there is “peace”.

    I’m going with misspoke/partial lack of clarity as a possibility. The NATO accession process is clearly broken, due in large part to the veto power of Viktor Orban, pro-Russia former bagman for the Russian mafia (Bratva), but any member (e.g. Türkiye) can veto or extract major concessions. And the no active territorial disputes aspect is real, which Russia has been abusing since the mid 2000s at least.
    So in that context, Biden’s words can be interpreted as saying NATO membership is not and should not be the only path to Ukrainian security, since there are serious obstacles in the path and Russia will use the tools that it has available to prevent it, including corrupted-by-Russia Western politicians and election interference,
    A reporter should/must ask for clarification, though. As you say, it was rambling and presented as incoherent.

  27. 27.

    YY_Sima Qian

    BTW, now I understand why the Biden team’s PRC policy has been so incoherent, tactical & reactive. His comments in the TIME interview shows Biden to be extraordinarily poorly briefed on the PRC, or his team has an extraordinarily bad assessment of the PRC’s current situation. My apologies in advance about the long post that follows:

    I put together a quad that never existed before. I put together—I mean personally put together—worked on it, I put together AUKUS with Great Britain and Australia. I put together an agreement between Japan and the Philippines dealing with making sure that we know the international rules of the road pertaining in terms of air and water and territorial integrity.

    It is widely acknowledged even among DC think tanks that the Quad (the US, Japan, India & Australia) has been languishing, & has struggled for relevance. Even though I personally think it could prove effective in certain spheres, such as helping coastal/maritime states pushing back against aggressive/environmentally destructive fishing in international waters or EEZs by PRC fishing fleets, if the DC “Blob” would downsize their expectations a bit.

    AUKUS is also wobbling because of extraordinary complexity of the deal, the dire shortage of nuclear attack submarine (SSN) production capacity in the US, the extraordinary technical challenges of building & maintaining SSNs present to Australia’s limited industrial base, & the prospect of eye watering costs to the Australian budget for decades to come. At least among some quarters in Australia, there is the concern about loss of sovereignty having the country be so tightly entwined w/ the US in the military sphere. The ADF envisions operating alongside the USN, off the coast of the PRC, in a TW contingency to attack the PLAN & raid PRC shipping, & possibly lob Tomahawks at targets on the Mainland. That is not where the majority of Australians are necessarily willing to go.

    The US has been successful in consolidating its traditional “hub & spokes” alliance structure in the Asia-Pacific into “minilateral” groupings to counter/contain PRC power, almost all involving some combination of Japan, Australia & more recently the Philippines, w/ South Korea & India part way in (but only part way). OTOH, few others in the Asia- or Indo-Pacific is bandwagoning w/ either the US or the PRC.  Laos & Cambodia have essentially bandwagoned w/ the PRC, & Thailand perhaps halfway in despite being a US treaty ally. Everyone else is hedging, leveraging the US to hedge against the PRC’s rising coercive power, while also maintaining burgeoning relationships w/ the PRC & warning against US attempts to contain the PRC economically or technologically.

    There has been progress in engineering a SK-Japan entente, but such entente is what happens when the conservatives control the executive in Seoul, & SK currently has a right wing reactionary for President (who is extremely unpopular in part due to the rapprochement w/ a Japan under LDP still unrepentant about its WW II crimes). The historical trend since SK’s democratization has been of SK-Japan entente under right wing governments in Seoul, & estrangement under left wing governments there. Sooner or later, a left wing government will win an election, or the most unapologetic of revanchists in the Japanese right wing will say or do something that will limit the domestic political space for even a right wing government in Seoul to draw closer to Tokyo.

    You said on multiple occasions that you would use US forces to defend Taiwan. What does that mean? Is it boots on the ground? What, what shape would that take? 
    Biden: It would depend on the circumstances. You know, by the way, I’ve made clear to Xi Jinping that we agree with—we signed on to previous presidents going way back—to the policy of, that, it is we are not seeking independence for Taiwan nor will we, in fact, not defend Taiwan if they if, if China unilaterally tries to change the status. And so we’re continuing to supply capacity. And, and we’ve been in consultation with our allies in the region.

    Well, it’s good that Biden is trying to return to the sensible “Strategic Ambiguity” that has been the US policy toward the ROC/Taiwan for decades, but after “gaffes” on 4 previous occasions (each surely against the advise of most of his FP team), not sure the message is still credible to Beijing.

    But Mr. President, won’t your newly announced tariffs raise the prices on American consumers?
    Biden: No, because here’s the deal. There’s a difference. I made it clear to Putin from the very beginning that—I’m not, we’re not engaging in…For example, Trump wants a 10% tariff on everything. That will raise the price of everything in America. [Editor’s note: Biden appeared to mean Xi here, not Putin.]
    What I’m talking about, I said, we’re gonna play by the same rules. You tell me if I want to, if an American corporation wants to invest in China, it has to give 50% ownership, 51% ownership to a Chinese operator. And that goes on from there. And I said, so you’re gonna do that to us? (unintelligible) We’re going to do the same thing if you want to invest here. We’re not putting a tariff on. We’re just saying, if you want to do that, well, we’re gonna do that. And you cannot change the market in a way where you flood the market by—ignore all Chinese government subsidies to undercut their ability as to deal with electric vehicles. And we’re not going to put up with it. That’s the thing we talked about. And that’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about tariffs across the board.

    After 3+ years, Biden has not ended the trade war w/ the PRC that Trump started, certainly has not dropped or reduced any of the broad tariffs that Trump imposed. Nor has Biden ended the trade disputes w/ the EU on steel & aluminum, nor reversed Trump’s strategy of rendering WTO dysfunctional so that the US can continue to impose the unilateral tariffs & trade restrictions that violate WTO rules. At this point, I don’t think Biden can credibly run against Trump on trade protectionism or economic nationalism during the election campaign.

    It is great that Biden is willing to welcome Chinese investment in EV or green tech manufacturing int he US, under JVs (& presumably tech transfer & domestic content requirements). Turnabout is fair play, & that is smart industrial policy. However, that is not the effect of the actually written laws & regulations, which are clearly designed to minimize participation of Chinese players as much as possible, even indirectly via 3rd countries, even via JVs & licensing agreements w/ US companies, despite these Chinese companies being current leaders in tech., cost & scale. The political zeitgeist in the US is also allergic to anything remotely Chinese, & nothing in Biden’s PRC policy is shifting that zeitgeist.

    You know, you’re talking, everybody talks about how, how strong China is and how powerful they are. Name me—Would you trade places with Xi Jinping and any other country? Not a joke, I’m being deadly earnest, a rhetorical question. But would you? You’ve got a population that’s considerably older than the vast majority of the youth in Europe, that is too old to work. And they are xenophobic. Where is it coming from? Where is it going to grow? You’ve got an economy that’s on the brink there. The idea that their economy is booming? Give me a break.

    The PRC’s economy is not booming, it is weak & set to remain relatively weak for a few more years, as the real estate bubble deflates & the excess housing stock is absorbed, while the CPC regime attempts to shift economic gears to advanced manufacturing, services & domestic consumption. However, it is hardly on the brink, either. That narrative is so H2 ’23. There are sectors of the PRC industry absolutely booming & poised to dominate, or already has dominated, the world. The population has indeed peaked & is aging fast (relative to others). However, due to the massive expansion of higher education over the 2 decades, the total number of workers w/ tertiary education will continue to expand through at least 2030, which will continue to improve the competitiveness of PRC economy & industries. The PRC can also easily further cushion the impact of work force aging by delaying the retirement age (right now 55 for women & 60 for men). Also not a coincidence that the PRC has accounted for > 50% of global demand for industrial robots & other automated equipment for the past several years. (SK & Japan have shown the way here.)

    Most parts of Europe are challenged w/ falling birth rates & aging populations, too. So I don’t know what Biden is talking about. South Korea, Japan & Taiwan are even further on the aging curve than the PRC (having been on that curve for longer), & SK in particular has even lower birth rates. India has fallen below replacement level birth rate, SE Asia is lower still, & births are falling even in most parts of Africa. The only reason populations in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada & France are not aging as fast is because of immigration. OTOH, SK & TW show that economies can remain & indeed boost their competitiveness despite falling/aging population, w/ the right education, economic & industrial policies. (Also, they & Japan/Singapore show how foreign guest workers can be employed & exploited to cushion the affect of aging/shrinking work force.)

    The vast majority of the people aging out of the Chinese work forces right now are unskilled/semi-skilled manual laborers, either in agriculture, construction, or labor intensive manufacturing (fairly fungible across these 3 sectors). Perhaps a good thing, then, that the PRC has “pre-built” so much modern housing & infrastructure to satisfy much of its needs for years & decades to come, when such a huge army of experienced/skilled construction workers was/is available for relatively cheap. The last of the cohort are hard at work building new factories, wind farms, solar farms, hydroelectric dams & nuclear power plants.

    By the way, the cost of China to build their military is multi-billions of dollars. And guess what they’re, you know, they’re, they’re…what they call it? Going around the world? The Belt and Road initiative? It’s become a nuisance graveyard initiative. I’m serious. Think about it. I’ve been saying this for three years, and you guys write, “No, China’s on the right—China’s gonna break through.” Where are they, where are they breaking through? And look what’s happening in Africa.

    Best estimate of PRC’s military (not domestic security) spending is ~ 1.6 – 1.9% of GDP, the US is spending 3+%, & pushing its allies to spend to 2+%. What we are witnessing is the PRC going about its military modernization using a moderate amount of resources available, not one on war preparation footing a la pre-WW II Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/USSR. What has DOD planners greatly concerned is by all indications the PLA is getting far more bang for a buck of military spending than the DOD or other US allies are, which ultimately goes back to the breadth & depth of industrial base, not so much labor cost. Plus, what good is Japan boosting military spending to 3% of GDP, when the JSDF faces dire shortfalls in recruitment while spending only 1.5% of GDP?

    As for the BRI, as I mentioned before, the PRC has pivoted away from financing expensive megaprojects in infrastructure or mineral extraction, that sometimes turn into white elephants or liabilities, & has shifted focus from Sub-Saharan Africa to S/SE Asia, MENA & LATAM. The Chinese policy & commercial banks now favor financing smaller projects on digital connectivity, data centers, public health, agriculture, light manufacturing, etc. The nature of the BRI is changing, but it remains quite relevant to the Global South countries & their developmental needs. People in DC still have no idea of the nature of the PRC’s evolving engagement w/ the developing world, through 4 administrations now. Meanwhile, the successive (& successively rebranded) alternatives presented by the US & the EU have had very difficult times gaining momentum.

    Overall, Biden’s comments read more like election year chest thumping, & I am not sure these words are necessarily reassuring to countries in the Indo-Pacific, allies, partners or neutrals. (Yes, I know the interview is for domestic consumption, but it will not stay there.) They indicate a US administration not in touch w/ the realities on the ground, which is something the countries in region have been concerned about for years/decades. Not going to prevail in the Great Power Competition w/ the PRC that way.

  28. 28.

    Bill Arnold

    Re Tatarigami’s long screed about nuclear risks: the reflexive control aspects in the piece are fine and accurate. IMO the USA and others should regularly respond tit-for-tat (i.e. with counter-threats) to Russian threats. Or maybe two tits for tat. (e.g. a high-production-values video of the destruction of the Russian Federation in the nuclear fireballs of a counterstrike.)
    The table stakes, according to one recent estimate, are 4-6 billion humans dead following a major-powers thermonuclear war, mostly through starvation due to crop failures, supply chain/transportation breakdowns, and ocean phytoplankton decline. That is numerically (i.e. not considering the evils of genocide) similar to 200 to 600 holocausts. (Such pieces should acknowledge this in the first paragraph, IMO)

  29. 29.

    Another Scott

    @YY_Sima Qian: Thanks for your perspective.

    I think in short – it’s complicated.  The rise of China’s economy has been a good thing for hundreds of millions of people, and the US and east Asian countries enabling that over the decades has been a good thing.

    However, along with that, the international security order of the last 75+ years has been a good thing as well and Xi’s aggressive moves in the SCS and elsewhere have to be resisted.  And part of resisting that is making sure that he doesn’t not achieve technological breakthroughs to go with the superior numbers that the PLA can bring to bear in any potential conflict.

    And along with that, Covid showed us that Just In Time with long supply chains is brittle and dangerous.  And Gazprom and Ukraine showed us that having critical inputs controlled by adversaries is dangerous.  We need to have multiple suppliers and domestic capabilities.

    Getting the balance right in all aspects all the time is impossible.  The “Blob” and old thinking is hard to resist, but they are not wrong about everything.  And alternative views often don’t seem to have a coherent answer either, IMHO.

    Maybe a coherent picture isn’t possible because humans aren’t coherent and logical – we’re all often driven by contradictions. Maybe piecewise problem solving is the best we can do at the moment.

    Anyway, we’re faced with a binary choice again.  Biden and the Blob, or the fascist chaos agents.  Easy choice! while we work to make things incrementally better. 🤪

    To end on a lighter note, I noticed that the US and China are talking more and are working on areas of disagreement.  I expect that to continue, but we’ll see.

    Thanks again.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  30. 30.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Another Scott: I have written plenty about what I think the U.S. (& the PRC) should be doing. In the above comment I was evaluating Biden’s words against the on the ground reality, & against the on the ground impact of the regulations his administration has put in place & the legislations he has signed into law.

    I have always maintained that, for anyone sane, there is only one choice this Nov., & that is straight D. Just not voting for the reactionaries is not enough in this most important rear guard action.

  31. 31.

    Another Scott

    @YY_Sima Qian: Although I see it came off as a criticism of your post(s), I didn’t mean it to be.   I was just intending to give my general impressions of the overall situation, using your post as a jumping-off point.

    Thanks again.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  32. 32.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Another Scott: I didn’t take it as criticism.

    However, navigating through the nuances, the shades of grey, & the complexities, thinking through the downstream 2nd/3rd order effects are exactly the job of the President & his administration. Otherwise, any schmuck can think in absolutes, & you can design an AI model to make binary choices

    BTW, all of the “de-risking”, “friend shoring” & “near shoring” have accomplished so far is to lengthen the supplier chain w/o reducing the dependence on PRC supply. PRC export to the US has dropped by almost exactly as much as PRC exports to Vietnam, Malaysia, India, Mexico & others have increased, & almost exactly as much as exports from these countries to the US have increased

    The supply chain to the US has become longer, more complex, less transparent, & in fact more brittle, but still as dependent on Chinese content as ever. Meanwhile, routing Chinese components through 3rd parties for final assembly or mere rebadging has significantly increased the economic integration between the PRC’s economy & those of the 3rd parties, since all of the final assembly work is being done by PRC companies invested into these countries.

  33. 33.

    wjca

    …navigating through the nuances, the shades of grey, & the complexities, thinking through the downstream 2nd/3rd order effects are exactly the job of the President & his administration.

    Say, rather, that it’s half the job.

    The other half is explaining those complex realities in terms simple enough to be understood by the vast majority of the nation who mostly don’t even pay attention.  And certainly don’t have access to all the information needed to comprehend the nuances.

    Just because his statements don’t reflect the details doesn’t, necessarily, mean that he isn’t aware of them.  Just as the fact that he doesn’t hold all of his discussions with foreign leaders in public doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.

  34. 34.

    YY_Sima Qian

    Very tough to read:

    Inside the Base Where Israel Has Detained Thousands of Gazans
    Since Israel invaded Gaza, the Sde Teiman military base has filled with blindfolded, handcuffed detainees, held without charge or legal representation.
    By Patrick Kingsley and Bilal Shbair
    Patrick Kingsley, from Israel, and Bilal Shbair, from Gaza, spent three months interviewing Israeli soldiers who worked at Sde Teiman and Palestinians held there. Patrick Kingsley visited the site.
    June 6, 2024

    The NYT saved the accounts of the most horrific abuse to the end of the article.

  35. 35.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @wjca: Very little of the Biden administration’s actions, policies & policies proposals present evidence of nuanced understanding of the dynamics in the Indo-Pacific, nor do the feedback from FP elites in the Indo-Pacific region. This is not limited to the Biden Administration, but going back to at least the Clinton presidency, & every administration since.

    However, you are right that in the TIME interview Biden is in campaign form for the domestic audience, & we all know how he can get hyperbolic w/ his riffs. I guess I much prefer Obama’s much more disciplined style.

Comments are closed.