右翼分子吐槽扯淡专楼
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
1473 个评论
Russia Defies Sanctions by Selling Oil Above Price Cap - WSJ
Russia notched a victory in the fight for influence over global oil markets in recent days when the price of the country’s most coveted crude traded above a Western price cap imposed to starve Moscow of funds for the war in Ukraine.
It is the first time that the price for its flagship Urals grade of oil has breached the $60-a-barrel limit since the U.S. and its allies introduced the novel sanctions policy last December, according to commodities-data firm Argus Media. It is a sign that the Kremlin has succeeded, at least in part, in adjusting to the restrictions.
The cap is part of a Western economic-pressure campaign and targets Russia’s most important revenue source. It is meant to bleed the Kremlin’s war coffers while encouraging Russian producers to keep sending petroleum to market so as not to foment inflation around the world.
......
Critics say allies started with the cap too high. Ukraine, backed by close allies including Poland, has lobbied to reduce it. Disagreements inside the European Union and concern about gas prices in Washington have stymied them.
Instead, the U.S. and EU have focused on tightening enforcement. A focus: The laundering of oil through swaps between ships at sea. Fraudulent documentation and side payments have also been used to evade the cap, according to traders.
A bigger challenge for the sanctions is the new logistics system that Russia and companies in its orbit began to build, consisting of tankers owned, insured and chartered outside the West.
Sales of secondhand tankers have swollen the shadow fleet—industry parlance for tankers that shuttle petroleum from sanctioned nations. In the second quarter, five times as many tankers worked with sanctioned producers than at the end of 2021, according to ship-tracking firm Vortexa. Almost 80% of those ships have plied the Russian market.
Russia notched a victory in the fight for influence over global oil markets in recent days when the price of the country’s most coveted crude traded above a Western price cap imposed to starve Moscow of funds for the war in Ukraine.
It is the first time that the price for its flagship Urals grade of oil has breached the $60-a-barrel limit since the U.S. and its allies introduced the novel sanctions policy last December, according to commodities-data firm Argus Media. It is a sign that the Kremlin has succeeded, at least in part, in adjusting to the restrictions.
The cap is part of a Western economic-pressure campaign and targets Russia’s most important revenue source. It is meant to bleed the Kremlin’s war coffers while encouraging Russian producers to keep sending petroleum to market so as not to foment inflation around the world.
......
Critics say allies started with the cap too high. Ukraine, backed by close allies including Poland, has lobbied to reduce it. Disagreements inside the European Union and concern about gas prices in Washington have stymied them.
Instead, the U.S. and EU have focused on tightening enforcement. A focus: The laundering of oil through swaps between ships at sea. Fraudulent documentation and side payments have also been used to evade the cap, according to traders.
A bigger challenge for the sanctions is the new logistics system that Russia and companies in its orbit began to build, consisting of tankers owned, insured and chartered outside the West.
Sales of secondhand tankers have swollen the shadow fleet—industry parlance for tankers that shuttle petroleum from sanctioned nations. In the second quarter, five times as many tankers worked with sanctioned producers than at the end of 2021, according to ship-tracking firm Vortexa. Almost 80% of those ships have plied the Russian market.
Based Harry:
When Truman Titled a Hollywood Epic—and Then Sabotaged It
...Three weeks earlier he had met the eminent Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had steered creation of the new weapon at Los Alamos, for the first time. After the usual pleasantries between the former haberdasher and the world famous physicist, Truman asked Oppenheimer to guess when the Soviets would develop their own bomb. Oppenheimer, who privately felt it would not take long, claimed he did not know. Truman knew better, predicting: “Never!” Truman also seemed to confirm Oppenheimer’s worst fear, that the U.S. intended to bully the Soviets with their new weapon instead of working for detente and arms control.
The usually confident Oppenheimer, far out of his element, grew nervous, reflective, finally muttering, “Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands.” The president, according to his own story, replied, “The blood is on my hands—I ordered using the damn thing—let me worry about that.” Other accounts would vary with some claiming the president mocked his visitor by offering him a handkerchief. (In Oppenheimer’s version, Truman simply advised him that any blood could easily be washed off.) Truman would later instruct Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson, “I don’t want to see that son of a bitch in this office ever again. He didn’t set that bomb off, I did. This kind of sniveling makes me sick.” At another point Truman referred to Oppenheimer as that “cry-baby scientist.”
When Truman Titled a Hollywood Epic—and Then Sabotaged It
...Three weeks earlier he had met the eminent Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had steered creation of the new weapon at Los Alamos, for the first time. After the usual pleasantries between the former haberdasher and the world famous physicist, Truman asked Oppenheimer to guess when the Soviets would develop their own bomb. Oppenheimer, who privately felt it would not take long, claimed he did not know. Truman knew better, predicting: “Never!” Truman also seemed to confirm Oppenheimer’s worst fear, that the U.S. intended to bully the Soviets with their new weapon instead of working for detente and arms control.
The usually confident Oppenheimer, far out of his element, grew nervous, reflective, finally muttering, “Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands.” The president, according to his own story, replied, “The blood is on my hands—I ordered using the damn thing—let me worry about that.” Other accounts would vary with some claiming the president mocked his visitor by offering him a handkerchief. (In Oppenheimer’s version, Truman simply advised him that any blood could easily be washed off.) Truman would later instruct Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson, “I don’t want to see that son of a bitch in this office ever again. He didn’t set that bomb off, I did. This kind of sniveling makes me sick.” At another point Truman referred to Oppenheimer as that “cry-baby scientist.”
The new narrative:
Is Ukraine’s counteroffensive failing? The risks facing Kyiv are growing - CNBC
Ukraine’s counter-offensive is failing, with no easy fixes - The Telegraph
Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia - WSJ
CNBC:
...“It was always intended to be a two-stage offensive, with a sort of probing first stage to try to identify weaknesses in the Russian frontline, followed by a second stage where they put their big forces into it. And we’re still on the first stage which has lasted longer than they expected,” Clarke told CNBC Wednesday.
“If this first phase lasts too long, they leave themselves insufficient time before the weather changes, before the second phase starts,” he said. Although he believed it to be an unlikely scenario, Clarke noted that time pressures could prompt Ukraine to deploy military units destined for use in the second phase of the counteroffensive sooner than planned — something he said Russia is hoping for.
“The danger then is that they will not be able to use the bulk of their forces in sufficient mass to make a difference ... to create a real punch when they decide to really start,” he added. “I’m not pessimistic about this offensive but the risks that it may not work are increasing as the days tick on.”
The Telegraph (opionion):
...So what is the main problem? Some in Kyiv are pointing to the lack of air support, highlighting the reluctance of Western partners to provide F-16 jets (though Britain has already pledged to train pilots). But this would not solve Kyiv’s immediate dilemmas.
It takes months to train and then many more months to transfer the jets. Furthermore, as America’s top general, Mark Milley, has already pointed out, “The Russians have 1,000 fourth-generation fighters. If you’re going to contest Russia in the air, you’re going to need a substantial amount of fourth and fifth generation fighters.” We must recognise two things: this is not possible in the present context, and air power is not a magic bullet anyway.
Others have suggested that Nato planners and strategists should be more involved. Yet they are already helping to a great extent, sometimes for good and sometimes for not.
WSJ:
When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
They haven’t. Deep and deadly minefields, extensive fortifications and Russian air power have combined to largely block significant advances by Ukrainian troops. Instead, the campaign risks descending into a stalemate with the potential to burn through lives and equipment without a major shift in momentum.
As the likelihood of any large-scale breakthrough by the Ukrainians this year dims, it raises the unsettling prospect for Washington and its allies of a longer war—one that would require a huge new infusion of sophisticated armaments and more training to give Kyiv a chance at victory.
Is Ukraine’s counteroffensive failing? The risks facing Kyiv are growing - CNBC
Ukraine’s counter-offensive is failing, with no easy fixes - The Telegraph
Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia - WSJ
CNBC:
...“It was always intended to be a two-stage offensive, with a sort of probing first stage to try to identify weaknesses in the Russian frontline, followed by a second stage where they put their big forces into it. And we’re still on the first stage which has lasted longer than they expected,” Clarke told CNBC Wednesday.
“If this first phase lasts too long, they leave themselves insufficient time before the weather changes, before the second phase starts,” he said. Although he believed it to be an unlikely scenario, Clarke noted that time pressures could prompt Ukraine to deploy military units destined for use in the second phase of the counteroffensive sooner than planned — something he said Russia is hoping for.
“The danger then is that they will not be able to use the bulk of their forces in sufficient mass to make a difference ... to create a real punch when they decide to really start,” he added. “I’m not pessimistic about this offensive but the risks that it may not work are increasing as the days tick on.”
The Telegraph (opionion):
...So what is the main problem? Some in Kyiv are pointing to the lack of air support, highlighting the reluctance of Western partners to provide F-16 jets (though Britain has already pledged to train pilots). But this would not solve Kyiv’s immediate dilemmas.
It takes months to train and then many more months to transfer the jets. Furthermore, as America’s top general, Mark Milley, has already pointed out, “The Russians have 1,000 fourth-generation fighters. If you’re going to contest Russia in the air, you’re going to need a substantial amount of fourth and fifth generation fighters.” We must recognise two things: this is not possible in the present context, and air power is not a magic bullet anyway.
Others have suggested that Nato planners and strategists should be more involved. Yet they are already helping to a great extent, sometimes for good and sometimes for not.
WSJ:
When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
They haven’t. Deep and deadly minefields, extensive fortifications and Russian air power have combined to largely block significant advances by Ukrainian troops. Instead, the campaign risks descending into a stalemate with the potential to burn through lives and equipment without a major shift in momentum.
As the likelihood of any large-scale breakthrough by the Ukrainians this year dims, it raises the unsettling prospect for Washington and its allies of a longer war—one that would require a huge new infusion of sophisticated armaments and more training to give Kyiv a chance at victory.
Why Ukraine's Burning Through Ammo in War With Russia
...It was estimated earlier this year that Ukraine fires as many 155-millimeter artillery rounds in about five days as the U.S. produces in a month, but that is likely a low estimate according to Guy McCardle, managing editor of Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP).
"By most accounts, Russia is firing at least four times as many artillery shells as Ukraine," McCardle told Newsweek via email. "That's significant. 20,000 rounds per day for Russia is a low estimate, as is 5,000 rounds per day for Ukraine."
Artillery is the biggest killer on both sides of the war, he added, projecting it causes about 80 percent of all casualties overall in this ongoing war. The high rates of artillery rounds being used seemingly without effort is because "they are effective."
......
"This could become a crisis," the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in a January report. "With the front line now mostly stationary, artillery has become the most important combat arm.
"Ukraine will never run out of 155 mm (millimeter) ammunition―there will always be some flowing in―but artillery units might have to ration shells and fire at only the highest priority targets. This would have an adverse battlefield effect. The more constrained the ammunition supply, the more severe the effect."
Ukrainian forces relying on high rates of artillery fire in attritional warfare has led to efforts to conserve as the war has progressed, Courtney said. It has also led to the U.S. heavily drawing from its own stock of 155-millimeter shells.
"For several decades the U.S. engaged in lighter, counterinsurgency fighting in which large artillery fires were less important," Courtney said. "And the U.S. thought large-scale Russian military threats to Europe were improbable. Some years ago, the U.S. even removed every one of its tanks from Europe. Now hundreds are back.
"In retrospect, the U.S. and its allies realize that they overinvested in new arms relative to ammunition, such as tube artillery shells and tactical missiles. Because of political pressure to save money, the U.S. and its allies did not retain or build enough redundant manufacturing capacity for ammunition. Greater capacity could have enabled faster ramping up of production of ammunition expendables."
...It was estimated earlier this year that Ukraine fires as many 155-millimeter artillery rounds in about five days as the U.S. produces in a month, but that is likely a low estimate according to Guy McCardle, managing editor of Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP).
"By most accounts, Russia is firing at least four times as many artillery shells as Ukraine," McCardle told Newsweek via email. "That's significant. 20,000 rounds per day for Russia is a low estimate, as is 5,000 rounds per day for Ukraine."
Artillery is the biggest killer on both sides of the war, he added, projecting it causes about 80 percent of all casualties overall in this ongoing war. The high rates of artillery rounds being used seemingly without effort is because "they are effective."
......
"This could become a crisis," the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in a January report. "With the front line now mostly stationary, artillery has become the most important combat arm.
"Ukraine will never run out of 155 mm (millimeter) ammunition―there will always be some flowing in―but artillery units might have to ration shells and fire at only the highest priority targets. This would have an adverse battlefield effect. The more constrained the ammunition supply, the more severe the effect."
Ukrainian forces relying on high rates of artillery fire in attritional warfare has led to efforts to conserve as the war has progressed, Courtney said. It has also led to the U.S. heavily drawing from its own stock of 155-millimeter shells.
"For several decades the U.S. engaged in lighter, counterinsurgency fighting in which large artillery fires were less important," Courtney said. "And the U.S. thought large-scale Russian military threats to Europe were improbable. Some years ago, the U.S. even removed every one of its tanks from Europe. Now hundreds are back.
"In retrospect, the U.S. and its allies realize that they overinvested in new arms relative to ammunition, such as tube artillery shells and tactical missiles. Because of political pressure to save money, the U.S. and its allies did not retain or build enough redundant manufacturing capacity for ammunition. Greater capacity could have enabled faster ramping up of production of ammunition expendables."
US and NATO grapple with critical ammo shortage for Ukraine - CNN
...US officials emphasized to CNN that there is a set level of munitions in US stockpiles around the world, essentially an emergency reserve, that the military is not willing to part ways with. The levels of those stockpiles are classified.
But officials say the US has been nearing that red line as it has continued to supply Ukraine with 155mm ammunition, the NATO standard used for artillery rounds. The US began ramping up ammunition production last year when it became clear that the war would drag on far longer than anticipated. But the ammunition will still take “years” to mass produce to acceptable levels, National Security adviser Jake Sullivan told CNN Sunday.
The US decided to send cluster munitions to Ukraine to help alleviate a potential shortage in the meantime, providing Kyiv with a supply of American weapons that haven’t been tapped into so far.
......
...US officials became so concerned in recent weeks about the US’ ability to resupply Ukraine that President Joe Biden decided to send Kyiv highly controversial cluster munitions. The move was politically dicey and risked alienating European allies, many of whom have banned the munitions because of the risk they pose to civilians.
It was necessary, though, because of how low US stockpiles are, Sullivan told CNN Sunday.
Upon taking office, the Biden administration “found that overall stocks of 155 munitions…was relatively low,” he said.
Biden ultimately ordered the Pentagon “to work rapidly to scale up the ability of the United States to produce all the ammunition we could ever need for any conflict at any time,” Sullivan said. “Month on month, we are increasing our capacity to supply ammunition.”
Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, a member of Senate’s Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, told CNN, “I think members of the military had to be concerned from the get-go on this.”
Using the example of a Lockheed Martin production line for Javelin anti-armor missiles that could produce 2,100 missiles a year while Ukraine was using 500 of the missiles a day, Fischer said, “That’s a red flag right there.”
...US officials emphasized to CNN that there is a set level of munitions in US stockpiles around the world, essentially an emergency reserve, that the military is not willing to part ways with. The levels of those stockpiles are classified.
But officials say the US has been nearing that red line as it has continued to supply Ukraine with 155mm ammunition, the NATO standard used for artillery rounds. The US began ramping up ammunition production last year when it became clear that the war would drag on far longer than anticipated. But the ammunition will still take “years” to mass produce to acceptable levels, National Security adviser Jake Sullivan told CNN Sunday.
The US decided to send cluster munitions to Ukraine to help alleviate a potential shortage in the meantime, providing Kyiv with a supply of American weapons that haven’t been tapped into so far.
......
...US officials became so concerned in recent weeks about the US’ ability to resupply Ukraine that President Joe Biden decided to send Kyiv highly controversial cluster munitions. The move was politically dicey and risked alienating European allies, many of whom have banned the munitions because of the risk they pose to civilians.
It was necessary, though, because of how low US stockpiles are, Sullivan told CNN Sunday.
Upon taking office, the Biden administration “found that overall stocks of 155 munitions…was relatively low,” he said.
Biden ultimately ordered the Pentagon “to work rapidly to scale up the ability of the United States to produce all the ammunition we could ever need for any conflict at any time,” Sullivan said. “Month on month, we are increasing our capacity to supply ammunition.”
Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, a member of Senate’s Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, told CNN, “I think members of the military had to be concerned from the get-go on this.”
Using the example of a Lockheed Martin production line for Javelin anti-armor missiles that could produce 2,100 missiles a year while Ukraine was using 500 of the missiles a day, Fischer said, “That’s a red flag right there.”
Ukraine’s Stalled Offensive Puts Biden in Uneasy Political Position - WSJ
...“Obviously it’s easier to provide more support when things are going well,” said John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and an advocate of expanding military assistance to Kyiv. But the Biden administration doesn’t have much choice other than to continue providing weapons, he said.
Backing away from Ukraine and allowing even a partial Russian victory “would be the signature failure of Biden foreign policy that would dwarf the Afghan withdrawal,” added Herbst, who is now at the Washington-based Atlantic Council think tank.
......
Russia has also shown little inclination to negotiate. With the invasion of Ukraine bogged down, Putin is facing critics inside his country who say he hasn’t pursued the war aggressively enough.
“The Russians are more than happy to talk about Ukraine’s capitulation,” said Thomas Graham, a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I don’t think they are seriously interested in any talks about a resolution of the Ukraine crisis short of that at this point.”
......
“My hope is and my expectation is you’ll see that Ukraine makes significant progress on their offensive and it generates a negotiated settlement somewhere along the line,” Biden said during his visit to Helsinki earlier this month.
With neither Russia nor Ukraine inclined to negotiate, the White House has few options for now but to stay the course, hoping for an eventual battlefield breakthrough against entrenched Russian forces—or new political cracks in Moscow.
U.S. officials acknowledge the counteroffensive is going slowly, but say it is too soon to assess the effectiveness until Ukraine commits more of its combat brigades, especially those that have been trained by the U.S. at bases in Europe in armored maneuver warfare.
“If they commit their reserves and their reserves aren’t successful, then we will have to determine the way ahead,” said one U.S. official.
...“Obviously it’s easier to provide more support when things are going well,” said John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and an advocate of expanding military assistance to Kyiv. But the Biden administration doesn’t have much choice other than to continue providing weapons, he said.
Backing away from Ukraine and allowing even a partial Russian victory “would be the signature failure of Biden foreign policy that would dwarf the Afghan withdrawal,” added Herbst, who is now at the Washington-based Atlantic Council think tank.
......
Russia has also shown little inclination to negotiate. With the invasion of Ukraine bogged down, Putin is facing critics inside his country who say he hasn’t pursued the war aggressively enough.
“The Russians are more than happy to talk about Ukraine’s capitulation,” said Thomas Graham, a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I don’t think they are seriously interested in any talks about a resolution of the Ukraine crisis short of that at this point.”
......
“My hope is and my expectation is you’ll see that Ukraine makes significant progress on their offensive and it generates a negotiated settlement somewhere along the line,” Biden said during his visit to Helsinki earlier this month.
With neither Russia nor Ukraine inclined to negotiate, the White House has few options for now but to stay the course, hoping for an eventual battlefield breakthrough against entrenched Russian forces—or new political cracks in Moscow.
U.S. officials acknowledge the counteroffensive is going slowly, but say it is too soon to assess the effectiveness until Ukraine commits more of its combat brigades, especially those that have been trained by the U.S. at bases in Europe in armored maneuver warfare.
“If they commit their reserves and their reserves aren’t successful, then we will have to determine the way ahead,” said one U.S. official.
We’re not all Ukrainians now
...[T]hose insisting the West should give Ukraine whatever it wants ignore that what Ukraine wants partly depends on what the West will give them — or at least what it says it will. And claims of fully aligned interests may fuel Ukrainian dreams of total victory that are probably untenable and only conducive to prolonging war.
Though peace talks are now at a standstill, they may revive when Russia’s Donbas push either succeeds or ends in stalemate, and Ukraine may again be presented with an unpleasant peace offering — lose Crimea, accept more autonomy for much of the Donbas, commit to neutrality. If Kyiv thinks Western support is endless, or likely to grow more direct, it may end up rejecting a deal it should have taken and suffer for it when the help it banked on doesn’t materialize.
The problem here isn’t helping Ukraine, it’s pretending the help is unconditional.
This conflict itself was partly precipitated by a series of false but beguiling assurances from Washington to Kyiv, which gave the impression of an alignment of interests.
The fatal dalliance included promises of “ironclad” support, the hollow suggestion of eventual NATO membership and the establishment of a security partnership backed by increased material and military assistance that fell short of a guarantee. That all left Ukraine in a vulnerable no-man’s land: without the shield of actual Western commitment yet emboldened to take measures that accelerated Russia’s determination to stop it from joining the West, like rejecting neutrality.
The idea that nations can heavily contribute to a war effort without any say in its execution is offensive. Those arming Ukraine may not be risking enough to suit Ukraine, but they aren’t risking nothing — the danger of Russian retaliation remains. And sanctions entail economic pain for those sanctioning as well as the sanctioned.
Moreover, the terms and timing of war-termination will affect NATO countries too, determining the extent and severity of economic blowback, as well as the likelihood of another invasion and resulting crisis. Surely Western leaders have a right — even a responsibility to their constituents — to determine how to use their military aid and economic sanctions in ways that also serve their interests, not just Ukraine’s.
The normally banal observation that Ukraine has different interests than the U.S. or U.K. has now become essential to sound policy choice, and pretending there is no difference risks war escalation with potentially horrific consequences.
...[T]hose insisting the West should give Ukraine whatever it wants ignore that what Ukraine wants partly depends on what the West will give them — or at least what it says it will. And claims of fully aligned interests may fuel Ukrainian dreams of total victory that are probably untenable and only conducive to prolonging war.
Though peace talks are now at a standstill, they may revive when Russia’s Donbas push either succeeds or ends in stalemate, and Ukraine may again be presented with an unpleasant peace offering — lose Crimea, accept more autonomy for much of the Donbas, commit to neutrality. If Kyiv thinks Western support is endless, or likely to grow more direct, it may end up rejecting a deal it should have taken and suffer for it when the help it banked on doesn’t materialize.
The problem here isn’t helping Ukraine, it’s pretending the help is unconditional.
This conflict itself was partly precipitated by a series of false but beguiling assurances from Washington to Kyiv, which gave the impression of an alignment of interests.
The fatal dalliance included promises of “ironclad” support, the hollow suggestion of eventual NATO membership and the establishment of a security partnership backed by increased material and military assistance that fell short of a guarantee. That all left Ukraine in a vulnerable no-man’s land: without the shield of actual Western commitment yet emboldened to take measures that accelerated Russia’s determination to stop it from joining the West, like rejecting neutrality.
The idea that nations can heavily contribute to a war effort without any say in its execution is offensive. Those arming Ukraine may not be risking enough to suit Ukraine, but they aren’t risking nothing — the danger of Russian retaliation remains. And sanctions entail economic pain for those sanctioning as well as the sanctioned.
Moreover, the terms and timing of war-termination will affect NATO countries too, determining the extent and severity of economic blowback, as well as the likelihood of another invasion and resulting crisis. Surely Western leaders have a right — even a responsibility to their constituents — to determine how to use their military aid and economic sanctions in ways that also serve their interests, not just Ukraine’s.
The normally banal observation that Ukraine has different interests than the U.S. or U.K. has now become essential to sound policy choice, and pretending there is no difference risks war escalation with potentially horrific consequences.
Democrats champion free markets as Republicans target Wall Street
The GOP’s war on corporate America’s environmental and social agenda is creating an unexpected set of Wall Street allies: Democrats defending free-market capitalism.
Leading progressives and longtime finance industry critics including Rep. Maxine Waters of California and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, both Democrats, are embracing the role as House Republicans escalate attacks on investing practices that take into account environmental, social and governance — or ESG — factors. The GOP campaign is pitting Republicans — historically the party that’s less eager for government regulation in finance — against big money managers and other Wall Street players, including BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase.
Republican lawmakers warn that the ESG push by firms and financial regulators is hurting investor returns and the fossil fuel industry.
Waters this month accused Republicans of being “anti-capitalist, anti-investor, anti-business and anti-American” as they launched hearings to discourage efforts that BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and other industry leaders say are critical to addressing climate change’s long-term risks for investors. The House ramped up scrutiny as Republican state officials and presidential candidates take an even harsher approach, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis fighting with Disney and other major corporations over social issues.
“It is a change of events. It is strange,” Ellison, former co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in an interview. “It feels like people on the conservative end are arguing to try to dictate to private sector, profit-seeking firms what they can and can’t do.”
The GOP’s war on corporate America’s environmental and social agenda is creating an unexpected set of Wall Street allies: Democrats defending free-market capitalism.
Leading progressives and longtime finance industry critics including Rep. Maxine Waters of California and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, both Democrats, are embracing the role as House Republicans escalate attacks on investing practices that take into account environmental, social and governance — or ESG — factors. The GOP campaign is pitting Republicans — historically the party that’s less eager for government regulation in finance — against big money managers and other Wall Street players, including BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase.
Republican lawmakers warn that the ESG push by firms and financial regulators is hurting investor returns and the fossil fuel industry.
Waters this month accused Republicans of being “anti-capitalist, anti-investor, anti-business and anti-American” as they launched hearings to discourage efforts that BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and other industry leaders say are critical to addressing climate change’s long-term risks for investors. The House ramped up scrutiny as Republican state officials and presidential candidates take an even harsher approach, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis fighting with Disney and other major corporations over social issues.
“It is a change of events. It is strange,” Ellison, former co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in an interview. “It feels like people on the conservative end are arguing to try to dictate to private sector, profit-seeking firms what they can and can’t do.”
Witness Tells Congress 'Nonhuman Biologics' Were Found at Alleged UFO Crash Sites
Aformer intelligence official claimed the U.S. government has been covering up a longstanding defense program that collects and reverse engineers unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and has found "nonhuman biologics" at alleged UFO crash sites.
The highly anticipated testimony from David Grusch, a former member of a U.S. Air Force panel on unidentified anomalous phenomena—also known as unidentified aerial phenomena—(UAP), was part of an effort by Congress to pressure intelligence agencies for more transparency into the existence of UFOs, a subject of heightened scrutiny following an increase in reported sightings by military personnel and pilots in recent years. Although extraterrestrial life has long been shrouded in stigma, confusion, and secrecy, lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum have been rallying around the push for more research on the topic as a national security matter.
“UAPs, whatever they may be, may pose a serious threat to our military and our civilian aircraft, and that must be understood,” Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California said. “We should encourage more reporting, not less on UAPs. The more we understand, the safer we will be.”
Testifying under oath at a House subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Grusch told lawmakers he believes the U.S. government is in possession of UAPs based on his interviews with 40 witnesses over four years, claiming that he was informed of "a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program" during the course of his work examining classified programs. He said he was denied access to those programs when he requested it, and accused the military of misappropriating funds to shield these operations from congressional oversight.
The Pentagon has denied Grusch’s claims about a UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering program.
Grusch added that he knows of “multiple colleagues” who were physically injured by UAP activity and by people within the U.S. government, but declined to share more details. He also said that “nonhuman biologics” were found at alleged UAP crash sites when asked about the pilots of the craft.
Aformer intelligence official claimed the U.S. government has been covering up a longstanding defense program that collects and reverse engineers unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and has found "nonhuman biologics" at alleged UFO crash sites.
The highly anticipated testimony from David Grusch, a former member of a U.S. Air Force panel on unidentified anomalous phenomena—also known as unidentified aerial phenomena—(UAP), was part of an effort by Congress to pressure intelligence agencies for more transparency into the existence of UFOs, a subject of heightened scrutiny following an increase in reported sightings by military personnel and pilots in recent years. Although extraterrestrial life has long been shrouded in stigma, confusion, and secrecy, lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum have been rallying around the push for more research on the topic as a national security matter.
“UAPs, whatever they may be, may pose a serious threat to our military and our civilian aircraft, and that must be understood,” Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California said. “We should encourage more reporting, not less on UAPs. The more we understand, the safer we will be.”
Testifying under oath at a House subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Grusch told lawmakers he believes the U.S. government is in possession of UAPs based on his interviews with 40 witnesses over four years, claiming that he was informed of "a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program" during the course of his work examining classified programs. He said he was denied access to those programs when he requested it, and accused the military of misappropriating funds to shield these operations from congressional oversight.
The Pentagon has denied Grusch’s claims about a UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering program.
Grusch added that he knows of “multiple colleagues” who were physically injured by UAP activity and by people within the U.S. government, but declined to share more details. He also said that “nonhuman biologics” were found at alleged UAP crash sites when asked about the pilots of the craft.
U.S. Official Shares Details of Secret ‘Track 1.5’ Diplomacy With Moscow
...Earlier this month, NBC first reported the existence of these back-channel discussions, which involve former U.S. officials engaging in discreet exchanges with the Kremlin, as well as a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in an effort to lay the groundwork for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.
Known as track 1.5 diplomacy, these covert discussions enable both sides to understand each other's red lines and mitigate potential conflicts, serving as a crucial link between official government negotiations (track 1 diplomacy) and unofficial expert dialogues (track 2).
The Moscow Times has since spoken to one of the individuals directly involved in these talks.
......
From his vantage point, sitting across from senior Kremlin officials and advisers, it was apparent that the greatest issue was that the Russians were unable to articulate what exactly they wanted and needed.
“They don't know how to define victory or defeat. In fact, some of the elites to whom we spoke had never wanted the war in the first place, even saying it had been a complete mistake,” he said.
“But now they’re at war — suffering a humiliating defeat is not an option for these guys.”
“It was here that we made clear that the U.S. was prepared to work constructively with Russian national security concerns,” the former official added, breaking from the official U.S. line of squeezing Russia financially and isolating it internationally so as to prevent it from continuing its war against Ukraine.
“An attempt to isolate and cripple Russia to the point of humiliation or collapse would make negotiating almost impossible — we are already seeing this in the reticence from Moscow officials,” he said.
“In fact, we emphasized that the U.S. needs, and will continue to need, a strong enough Russia to create stability along its periphery. The U.S. wants a Russia with strategic autonomy in order for the U.S. to advance diplomatic opportunities in Central Asia. We in the U.S. have to recognize that total victory in Europe could harm our interests in other areas of the world.
“Russian power,” he concluded, “is not necessarily a bad thing.”
......
During the discussions, it became evident that Ukraine’s chances of regaining its occupied territories were extremely slim. Crimea remains a particularly contentious issue, as Ukraine asserts its intent to reclaim the region which Russia annexed in 2014.
“If Russia thought it might lose Crimea,” the ex-official said, “it would almost certainly resort to [using] tactical nuclear weapons.”
He noted that Washington had also offered to help conduct fair referendums in the Russian-occupied territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, in which residents would vote on whether they wished to be part of Ukraine or Russia.
Russia apparently declined this offer and claimed to have annexed the territories in September 2022 following referendums widely viewed as a sham.
...Earlier this month, NBC first reported the existence of these back-channel discussions, which involve former U.S. officials engaging in discreet exchanges with the Kremlin, as well as a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in an effort to lay the groundwork for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.
Known as track 1.5 diplomacy, these covert discussions enable both sides to understand each other's red lines and mitigate potential conflicts, serving as a crucial link between official government negotiations (track 1 diplomacy) and unofficial expert dialogues (track 2).
The Moscow Times has since spoken to one of the individuals directly involved in these talks.
......
From his vantage point, sitting across from senior Kremlin officials and advisers, it was apparent that the greatest issue was that the Russians were unable to articulate what exactly they wanted and needed.
“They don't know how to define victory or defeat. In fact, some of the elites to whom we spoke had never wanted the war in the first place, even saying it had been a complete mistake,” he said.
“But now they’re at war — suffering a humiliating defeat is not an option for these guys.”
“It was here that we made clear that the U.S. was prepared to work constructively with Russian national security concerns,” the former official added, breaking from the official U.S. line of squeezing Russia financially and isolating it internationally so as to prevent it from continuing its war against Ukraine.
“An attempt to isolate and cripple Russia to the point of humiliation or collapse would make negotiating almost impossible — we are already seeing this in the reticence from Moscow officials,” he said.
“In fact, we emphasized that the U.S. needs, and will continue to need, a strong enough Russia to create stability along its periphery. The U.S. wants a Russia with strategic autonomy in order for the U.S. to advance diplomatic opportunities in Central Asia. We in the U.S. have to recognize that total victory in Europe could harm our interests in other areas of the world.
“Russian power,” he concluded, “is not necessarily a bad thing.”
......
During the discussions, it became evident that Ukraine’s chances of regaining its occupied territories were extremely slim. Crimea remains a particularly contentious issue, as Ukraine asserts its intent to reclaim the region which Russia annexed in 2014.
“If Russia thought it might lose Crimea,” the ex-official said, “it would almost certainly resort to [using] tactical nuclear weapons.”
He noted that Washington had also offered to help conduct fair referendums in the Russian-occupied territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, in which residents would vote on whether they wished to be part of Ukraine or Russia.
Russia apparently declined this offer and claimed to have annexed the territories in September 2022 following referendums widely viewed as a sham.
CIA nominee sees need to economize (1993)
WASHINGTON -- James Woolsey, nominated to be CIA director, said Tuesday he will try to economize in U.S. intelligence operations, but cautioned that the complexities of the post-Cold War world present new and difficult challenges for the spy agencies.
'In many ways today's threats are harder to observe and understand than the one that was once presented by the U.S.S.R.,' Woolsey told the Senate Intelligence Committee during his confirmation hearing.
'Yes, we have slain a large dragon. But we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes. And in many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of,' Woolsey said.
WASHINGTON -- James Woolsey, nominated to be CIA director, said Tuesday he will try to economize in U.S. intelligence operations, but cautioned that the complexities of the post-Cold War world present new and difficult challenges for the spy agencies.
'In many ways today's threats are harder to observe and understand than the one that was once presented by the U.S.S.R.,' Woolsey told the Senate Intelligence Committee during his confirmation hearing.
'Yes, we have slain a large dragon. But we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes. And in many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of,' Woolsey said.
West scrambles to hash out details of Ukraine F-16 training
The U.S. national security adviser said the administration will move “as fast as possible” to get F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. A top White House spokesperson said the aircraft would be in Ukrainian skies “towards the end of the year.”
But so far, Western partners have yet to even agree on a plan to train Ukrainian pilots to fly the promised jets, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the discussions. Denmark and the Netherlands are leading a coalition of 11 nations to support the training, but so far no country has publicly committed aircraft to the program.
The scramble by the West comes as Ukraine calls for additional military capabilities to break through Russian defenses on the battlefield. And Ukraine is ramping up pressure on allies to send F-16s again this week, as Russia pulled out of a deal that allowed civilian ships to transport grain through the Black Sea; Ukraine’s foreign minister said Tuesday that the jets could help protect a corridor that is vital to global food security.
......
Realistically, U.S. officials say the jets won’t arrive until the spring at the earliest.
“We’d probably get some pilots flying, training by the end of the year, but an actual F-16 with Ukrainian colors” is not likely before the spring, said a fourth U.S. official.
The U.S. national security adviser said the administration will move “as fast as possible” to get F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. A top White House spokesperson said the aircraft would be in Ukrainian skies “towards the end of the year.”
But so far, Western partners have yet to even agree on a plan to train Ukrainian pilots to fly the promised jets, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the discussions. Denmark and the Netherlands are leading a coalition of 11 nations to support the training, but so far no country has publicly committed aircraft to the program.
The scramble by the West comes as Ukraine calls for additional military capabilities to break through Russian defenses on the battlefield. And Ukraine is ramping up pressure on allies to send F-16s again this week, as Russia pulled out of a deal that allowed civilian ships to transport grain through the Black Sea; Ukraine’s foreign minister said Tuesday that the jets could help protect a corridor that is vital to global food security.
......
Realistically, U.S. officials say the jets won’t arrive until the spring at the earliest.
“We’d probably get some pilots flying, training by the end of the year, but an actual F-16 with Ukrainian colors” is not likely before the spring, said a fourth U.S. official.
Main Thrust of Ukraine’s Offensive May Be Underway, U.S. Officials Say - NYT
Ukraine has launched the main thrust of its counteroffensive, throwing in thousands of troops held in reserve, many of them Western-trained and equipped, two Pentagon officials said on Wednesday, hours after Russian officials reported major Ukrainian attacks in the southern Zaporizhzhia region.
......
The challenge for the Ukrainians, since they began their counteroffensive in early June, has been to blast open a gap in the deep Russian defense network, and then try to pour through a much larger force.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, officials at the White House and Pentagon said on Wednesday that they were watching the increased activity with keen interest, and that Ukrainian officials had told them the new operation, if successful, would last one to three weeks.
“This is the big test,” said one senior official.
Administration officials and analysts said it might be only a matter of days to assess whether the attacks might be successful. “It will be clear soon whether this attack will allow Ukraine to change the current dynamic,” said Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
......
The United States and other Western allies have trained about 63,000 Ukrainian troops, according to the Pentagon, and have supplied more than 150 modern battle tanks, a much larger number of older tanks, hundreds of infantry fighting vehicles and thousands of other armored vehicles. All of those figures continue to rise, and much of that manpower and gear had been held in reserve until now, as Ukrainian forces fought to find — or create — a strategic vulnerability they could exploit.
The American officials said most of the remaining reserves were now being committed.
Ukraine has launched the main thrust of its counteroffensive, throwing in thousands of troops held in reserve, many of them Western-trained and equipped, two Pentagon officials said on Wednesday, hours after Russian officials reported major Ukrainian attacks in the southern Zaporizhzhia region.
......
The challenge for the Ukrainians, since they began their counteroffensive in early June, has been to blast open a gap in the deep Russian defense network, and then try to pour through a much larger force.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, officials at the White House and Pentagon said on Wednesday that they were watching the increased activity with keen interest, and that Ukrainian officials had told them the new operation, if successful, would last one to three weeks.
“This is the big test,” said one senior official.
Administration officials and analysts said it might be only a matter of days to assess whether the attacks might be successful. “It will be clear soon whether this attack will allow Ukraine to change the current dynamic,” said Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
......
The United States and other Western allies have trained about 63,000 Ukrainian troops, according to the Pentagon, and have supplied more than 150 modern battle tanks, a much larger number of older tanks, hundreds of infantry fighting vehicles and thousands of other armored vehicles. All of those figures continue to rise, and much of that manpower and gear had been held in reserve until now, as Ukrainian forces fought to find — or create — a strategic vulnerability they could exploit.
The American officials said most of the remaining reserves were now being committed.
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
Devastating assessment of Taiwan's defense preparations by @RANDCorporation.
Bottom line, the USA should do everything possible to deter China. But Taiwan has to do its part—and it is not.
Full report at link.
Inflection Point: How to Reverse the Erosion of U.S. and Allied Military Power and Influence
Key quotes: 1/18
"Taiwan faces an existential threat but is not responding in a way that suggests that it recognizes and accepts this." 2/
"Taiwan lacks a sense of urgency about security reform and investment. Its defense budget has remained below 2 percent for many years and is inadequate to meet the threat." 3/
"In 2021, Taiwan’s defense budget was about $12 billion. This represents a roughly one-third increase since 2016, but this growth reflects growth in Taiwan’s economy rather than shifting priorities." 4/
"In response to the military provocations by the mainland in August 2022, Taiwan sought to increase defense spending in 2023 to almost $14 billion (a 13 percent increase). Even with this increase, the share of gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to the defense budget is... 5/
...projected to remain under 2 percent. This is comparable to the defense budgets of many NATO allies, but the threat to Taiwan is much graver, and Taiwan lacks the mutual support of an alliance and the operational depth of NATO." 6/
"But even within the constraints of current budget levels, Taiwan is not getting all it could from its investment…The fact is, the United States spends more preparing to defend Taiwan than Taiwan spends on its defense." 7/
Taiwan’s NDR “specifies both gray-zone and nonconventional actions. It does not explicitly identify an invasion as a threat…Taiwan officials have expressed to many visitors concern about economic coercion and tend to regard the possibility of invasion as remote.” 8/
“Given limited defense resources, Taiwan will have to prioritize some scenarios over others. Taiwan’s leaders may doubt that the PLA will actually invade, just as the leaders of Ukraine doubted Russia would invade in early 2022, but an invasion poses an existential risk... 9/
...Given the PLA’s buildup [it] is becoming harder to reject the possibility of invasion. When faced with an existential threat [a] country can't afford to gamble. Even if the PRC doesn't currently intend to invade, that can change quickly if it has the ability to invade.” 10/
“Over the past 15 years, analysts have published many urgent recommendations to improve Taiwan’s defense outlook...The sense of urgency stems from assessments of Taiwan’s legacy military, which [is] not suited to defending against a major PLA assault... 11/
...Although many good ideas have been suggested, Taiwan continues to prioritize investment in legacy capabilities.” 12/
“Taiwan has embraced the rhetoric of asymmetric warfare, but its budget reflects a preference for legacy systems.” 13/
“The F-16 program is conspicuous for lack of survivability & high costs, which will continue as long as the aircraft are in service. Devoting such a large fraction of the defense budget to capabilities ill suited to the existential threat of an invasion is hard to justify.” 14/
"Taiwan currently intends to field eight [indigenous submarines]. At any given time, at least two of these will be in port...The submarines have a finite complement of weapons. Their capacity to influence an invasion is limited by their magazine and their slow speeds." 15/
"Submarines are also expensive to build and operate, so they will consume a large share of Taiwan’s small defense budget. There are much cheaper ways to sink ships." 16/
"Some published accounts based on interviews with Taiwan service members raise concerns about the manning levels of combat units, some of which are estimated to have only 60 percent to 80 percent of their desired force levels." 17/
"Similarly, Taiwan’s mobilized reserve forces will need to be ready, able to muster, and immediately combat capable, but current training and equipping of conscripts and reserve units are insufficient to prepare them for such roles." 18/
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1684669680395411456
Devastating assessment of Taiwan's defense preparations by @RANDCorporation.
Bottom line, the USA should do everything possible to deter China. But Taiwan has to do its part—and it is not.
Full report at link.
Inflection Point: How to Reverse the Erosion of U.S. and Allied Military Power and Influence
Key quotes: 1/18
"Taiwan faces an existential threat but is not responding in a way that suggests that it recognizes and accepts this." 2/
"Taiwan lacks a sense of urgency about security reform and investment. Its defense budget has remained below 2 percent for many years and is inadequate to meet the threat." 3/
"In 2021, Taiwan’s defense budget was about $12 billion. This represents a roughly one-third increase since 2016, but this growth reflects growth in Taiwan’s economy rather than shifting priorities." 4/
"In response to the military provocations by the mainland in August 2022, Taiwan sought to increase defense spending in 2023 to almost $14 billion (a 13 percent increase). Even with this increase, the share of gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to the defense budget is... 5/
...projected to remain under 2 percent. This is comparable to the defense budgets of many NATO allies, but the threat to Taiwan is much graver, and Taiwan lacks the mutual support of an alliance and the operational depth of NATO." 6/
"But even within the constraints of current budget levels, Taiwan is not getting all it could from its investment…The fact is, the United States spends more preparing to defend Taiwan than Taiwan spends on its defense." 7/
Taiwan’s NDR “specifies both gray-zone and nonconventional actions. It does not explicitly identify an invasion as a threat…Taiwan officials have expressed to many visitors concern about economic coercion and tend to regard the possibility of invasion as remote.” 8/
“Given limited defense resources, Taiwan will have to prioritize some scenarios over others. Taiwan’s leaders may doubt that the PLA will actually invade, just as the leaders of Ukraine doubted Russia would invade in early 2022, but an invasion poses an existential risk... 9/
...Given the PLA’s buildup [it] is becoming harder to reject the possibility of invasion. When faced with an existential threat [a] country can't afford to gamble. Even if the PRC doesn't currently intend to invade, that can change quickly if it has the ability to invade.” 10/
“Over the past 15 years, analysts have published many urgent recommendations to improve Taiwan’s defense outlook...The sense of urgency stems from assessments of Taiwan’s legacy military, which [is] not suited to defending against a major PLA assault... 11/
...Although many good ideas have been suggested, Taiwan continues to prioritize investment in legacy capabilities.” 12/
“Taiwan has embraced the rhetoric of asymmetric warfare, but its budget reflects a preference for legacy systems.” 13/
“The F-16 program is conspicuous for lack of survivability & high costs, which will continue as long as the aircraft are in service. Devoting such a large fraction of the defense budget to capabilities ill suited to the existential threat of an invasion is hard to justify.” 14/
"Taiwan currently intends to field eight [indigenous submarines]. At any given time, at least two of these will be in port...The submarines have a finite complement of weapons. Their capacity to influence an invasion is limited by their magazine and their slow speeds." 15/
"Submarines are also expensive to build and operate, so they will consume a large share of Taiwan’s small defense budget. There are much cheaper ways to sink ships." 16/
"Some published accounts based on interviews with Taiwan service members raise concerns about the manning levels of combat units, some of which are estimated to have only 60 percent to 80 percent of their desired force levels." 17/
"Similarly, Taiwan’s mobilized reserve forces will need to be ready, able to muster, and immediately combat capable, but current training and equipping of conscripts and reserve units are insufficient to prepare them for such roles." 18/
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1684669680395411456
Inflection Point: How to Reverse the Erosion of U.S. and Allied Military Power and Influence
The U.S. defense strategy and posture have become insolvent. The tasks that the nation expects its military forces and other elements of national power to do internationally exceed the means that are available to accomplish those tasks. Sustained, coordinated efforts by the United States and its allies are necessary to deter and defeat modern threats, including Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and reconstituted forces and China's economic takeoff and concomitant military modernization. This report offers ideas on how to address shortcomings in defense preparations.
Key Findings:
- The nature of warfare has evolved since the Cold War, and it has become increasingly clear that the U.S. defense strategy and posture are insolvent.
- The U.S. defense strategy has been predicated on U.S. military forces that were superior in all domains to those of any adversary. This superiority is gone. The United States and its allies no longer have a virtual monopoly on the technologies and capabilities that made them so dominant against adversarial forces.
- U.S. and allied forces do not require superiority to defeat aggression by even their most powerful foes. The United States, acting in concert with key allies and partners, can restore credible postures of deterrence against major aggression without having to regain overmatch in any operational domain against China or Russia.
- Russia's brutal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine has awakened North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to the risk of a wider war in the Euro-Atlantic area. This realization has motivated allies to make significant increases in defense spending and preparedness, but much more must be done over the next few years to deter and defend the region against further aggression by Russia's reconstituted military forces.
- Taiwan has embraced the rhetoric of asymmetric warfare, but its budget reflects a preference for legacy systems. As a result, there is a gap between the United States' and Taiwan's goals for the direction of Taiwan's defense program.
The U.S. defense strategy and posture have become insolvent. The tasks that the nation expects its military forces and other elements of national power to do internationally exceed the means that are available to accomplish those tasks. Sustained, coordinated efforts by the United States and its allies are necessary to deter and defeat modern threats, including Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and reconstituted forces and China's economic takeoff and concomitant military modernization. This report offers ideas on how to address shortcomings in defense preparations.
Key Findings:
- The nature of warfare has evolved since the Cold War, and it has become increasingly clear that the U.S. defense strategy and posture are insolvent.
- The U.S. defense strategy has been predicated on U.S. military forces that were superior in all domains to those of any adversary. This superiority is gone. The United States and its allies no longer have a virtual monopoly on the technologies and capabilities that made them so dominant against adversarial forces.
- U.S. and allied forces do not require superiority to defeat aggression by even their most powerful foes. The United States, acting in concert with key allies and partners, can restore credible postures of deterrence against major aggression without having to regain overmatch in any operational domain against China or Russia.
- Russia's brutal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine has awakened North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to the risk of a wider war in the Euro-Atlantic area. This realization has motivated allies to make significant increases in defense spending and preparedness, but much more must be done over the next few years to deter and defend the region against further aggression by Russia's reconstituted military forces.
- Taiwan has embraced the rhetoric of asymmetric warfare, but its budget reflects a preference for legacy systems. As a result, there is a gap between the United States' and Taiwan's goals for the direction of Taiwan's defense program.
Half of U.S. Christians say casual sex between consenting adults is sometimes or always acceptable (2020)
Many Christian traditions disapprove of premarital sex. And even though Christians in the United States hold less permissive views than religiously unaffiliated Americans about dating and sex, most say it’s acceptable in at least some circumstances for consenting adults to have sex outside of marriage, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.
Half of Christians say casual sex – defined in the survey as sex between consenting adults who are not in a committed romantic relationship – is sometimes or always acceptable. Six-in-ten Catholics (62%) take this view, as do 56% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition, 54% of mainline Protestants and 36% of evangelical Protestants.
Among those who are religiously unaffiliated, meanwhile, the vast majority (84%) say casual sex is sometimes or always acceptable, including roughly nine-in-ten atheists (94%) and agnostics (95%) who say this. The religiously unaffiliated, also known as “nones,” are those who describe themselves, religiously, as atheist, agnostic or as “nothing in particular.”
......
When it comes to sex between unmarried adults who are in a committed relationship, the gap between Christians and the unaffiliated is less stark. A majority of Christians (57%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is sometimes or always acceptable. That includes 67% of mainline Protestants, 64% of Catholics, 57% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition and 46% of evangelical Protestants.
Eight-in-ten religiously unaffiliated Americans (79%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is sometimes or always acceptable.
Many Christian traditions disapprove of premarital sex. And even though Christians in the United States hold less permissive views than religiously unaffiliated Americans about dating and sex, most say it’s acceptable in at least some circumstances for consenting adults to have sex outside of marriage, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.
Half of Christians say casual sex – defined in the survey as sex between consenting adults who are not in a committed romantic relationship – is sometimes or always acceptable. Six-in-ten Catholics (62%) take this view, as do 56% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition, 54% of mainline Protestants and 36% of evangelical Protestants.
Among those who are religiously unaffiliated, meanwhile, the vast majority (84%) say casual sex is sometimes or always acceptable, including roughly nine-in-ten atheists (94%) and agnostics (95%) who say this. The religiously unaffiliated, also known as “nones,” are those who describe themselves, religiously, as atheist, agnostic or as “nothing in particular.”
......
When it comes to sex between unmarried adults who are in a committed relationship, the gap between Christians and the unaffiliated is less stark. A majority of Christians (57%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is sometimes or always acceptable. That includes 67% of mainline Protestants, 64% of Catholics, 57% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition and 46% of evangelical Protestants.
Eight-in-ten religiously unaffiliated Americans (79%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is sometimes or always acceptable.
It is an easy matter to make better laws? So be it. What is impossible is to make laws that the passions of men will not corrupt—just as they had corrupted the laws previously in effect; and to foresee and evaluate all the forms this corruption will take is, perhaps, beyond the powers of even the most consummate statesman. Putting law over men is a problem in politics that I like to compare to that of squaring the circle in geometry. Solve that problem correctly, and the government based upon your solution will be a good government, proof against corruption. But until you solve it, rest assured of this: you may think you have made the laws govern; but men will do the governing.
A good and sound constitution is one under which the law holds sway over the hearts of the citizens; for, short of the moment when the power of legislation shall have accomplished precisely that, the laws will continue to be evaded. But how to reach men’s hearts? Our present-day lawgivers, thinking exclusively in terms of coercion and punishment, pay almost no attention to that problem—for which, perhaps, material rewards are no better solution. And justice, even the purest justice, is not a solution either. For justice, like good health, is a blessing that people enjoy without being aware of it, that inspires no enthusiasm, and that men learn to value only after they have lost it.
By what means, then, are we to move men’s hearts and bring them to love their fatherland and its laws? Dare I say? Through the games they play as children, through institutions that, though a superficial man would deem them pointless, develop habits that abide and attachments that nothing can dissolve.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Government of Poland, chapter 1.
A good and sound constitution is one under which the law holds sway over the hearts of the citizens; for, short of the moment when the power of legislation shall have accomplished precisely that, the laws will continue to be evaded. But how to reach men’s hearts? Our present-day lawgivers, thinking exclusively in terms of coercion and punishment, pay almost no attention to that problem—for which, perhaps, material rewards are no better solution. And justice, even the purest justice, is not a solution either. For justice, like good health, is a blessing that people enjoy without being aware of it, that inspires no enthusiasm, and that men learn to value only after they have lost it.
By what means, then, are we to move men’s hearts and bring them to love their fatherland and its laws? Dare I say? Through the games they play as children, through institutions that, though a superficial man would deem them pointless, develop habits that abide and attachments that nothing can dissolve.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Government of Poland, chapter 1.
The Misunderstood Reason Millions of Americans Stopped Going to Church
...A new book, written by Jim Davis, a pastor at an evangelical church in Orlando, and Michael Graham, a writer with the Gospel Coalition, draws on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans by the political scientists Ryan Burge and Paul Djupe, attempting to explain why people have left churches—or “dechurched,” in the book’s lingo—and what, if anything, can be done to get some people to come back. The book raises an intriguing possibility: What if the problem isn’t that churches are asking too much of their members, but that they aren’t asking nearly enough?
The Great Dechurching finds that religious abuse and more general moral corruption in churches have driven people away. This is, of course, an indictment of the failures of many leaders who did not address abuse in their church. But Davis and Graham also find that a much larger share of those who have left church have done so for more banal reasons. The book suggests that the defining problem driving out most people who leave is … just how American life works in the 21st century. Contemporary America simply isn’t set up to promote mutuality, care, or common life. Rather, it is designed to maximize individual accomplishment as defined by professional and financial success. Such a system leaves precious little time or energy for forms of community that don’t contribute to one’s own professional life or, as one ages, the professional prospects of one’s children. Workism reigns in America, and because of it, community in America, religious community included, is a math problem that doesn’t add up.
...The underlying challenge for many is that their lives are stretched like a rubber band about to snap—and church attendance ends up feeling like an item on a checklist that’s already too long.
What can churches do in such a context? In theory, the Christian Church could be an antidote to all that. What is more needed in our time than a community marked by sincere love, sharing what they have from each according to their ability and to each according to their need, eating together regularly, generously serving neighbors, and living lives of quiet virtue and prayer? A healthy church can be a safety net in the harsh American economy by offering its members material assistance in times of need: meals after a baby is born, money for rent after a layoff. Perhaps more important, it reminds people that their identity is not in their job or how much money they make; they are children of God, loved and protected and infinitely valuable.
But a vibrant, life-giving church requires more, not less, time and energy from its members. It asks people to prioritize one another over our career, to prioritize prayer and time reading scripture over accomplishment. This may seem like a tough sell in an era of dechurching. If people are already leaving—especially if they are leaving because they feel too busy and burned out to attend church regularly—why would they want to be part of a church that asks so much of them?
Although understandable, that isn’t quite the right question. The problem in front of us is not that we have a healthy, sustainable society that doesn’t have room for church. The problem is that many Americans have adopted a way of life that has left us lonely, anxious, and uncertain of how to live in community with other people.
The tragedy of American churches is that they have been so caught up in this same world that we now find they have nothing to offer these suffering people that can’t be more easily found somewhere else. American churches have too often been content to function as a kind of vaguely spiritual NGO, an organization of detached individuals who meet together for religious services that inspire them, provide practical life advice, or offer positive emotional experiences. Too often it has not been a community that through its preaching and living bears witness to another way to live.
...A new book, written by Jim Davis, a pastor at an evangelical church in Orlando, and Michael Graham, a writer with the Gospel Coalition, draws on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans by the political scientists Ryan Burge and Paul Djupe, attempting to explain why people have left churches—or “dechurched,” in the book’s lingo—and what, if anything, can be done to get some people to come back. The book raises an intriguing possibility: What if the problem isn’t that churches are asking too much of their members, but that they aren’t asking nearly enough?
The Great Dechurching finds that religious abuse and more general moral corruption in churches have driven people away. This is, of course, an indictment of the failures of many leaders who did not address abuse in their church. But Davis and Graham also find that a much larger share of those who have left church have done so for more banal reasons. The book suggests that the defining problem driving out most people who leave is … just how American life works in the 21st century. Contemporary America simply isn’t set up to promote mutuality, care, or common life. Rather, it is designed to maximize individual accomplishment as defined by professional and financial success. Such a system leaves precious little time or energy for forms of community that don’t contribute to one’s own professional life or, as one ages, the professional prospects of one’s children. Workism reigns in America, and because of it, community in America, religious community included, is a math problem that doesn’t add up.
...The underlying challenge for many is that their lives are stretched like a rubber band about to snap—and church attendance ends up feeling like an item on a checklist that’s already too long.
What can churches do in such a context? In theory, the Christian Church could be an antidote to all that. What is more needed in our time than a community marked by sincere love, sharing what they have from each according to their ability and to each according to their need, eating together regularly, generously serving neighbors, and living lives of quiet virtue and prayer? A healthy church can be a safety net in the harsh American economy by offering its members material assistance in times of need: meals after a baby is born, money for rent after a layoff. Perhaps more important, it reminds people that their identity is not in their job or how much money they make; they are children of God, loved and protected and infinitely valuable.
But a vibrant, life-giving church requires more, not less, time and energy from its members. It asks people to prioritize one another over our career, to prioritize prayer and time reading scripture over accomplishment. This may seem like a tough sell in an era of dechurching. If people are already leaving—especially if they are leaving because they feel too busy and burned out to attend church regularly—why would they want to be part of a church that asks so much of them?
Although understandable, that isn’t quite the right question. The problem in front of us is not that we have a healthy, sustainable society that doesn’t have room for church. The problem is that many Americans have adopted a way of life that has left us lonely, anxious, and uncertain of how to live in community with other people.
The tragedy of American churches is that they have been so caught up in this same world that we now find they have nothing to offer these suffering people that can’t be more easily found somewhere else. American churches have too often been content to function as a kind of vaguely spiritual NGO, an organization of detached individuals who meet together for religious services that inspire them, provide practical life advice, or offer positive emotional experiences. Too often it has not been a community that through its preaching and living bears witness to another way to live.
Striking new data about young voters should alarm Trump and the GOP
...Those numbers — which come from the Harvard Youth Poll of 18-to-29-year-olds released each spring — all suggest that today’s young voters are substantially more progressive on these issues than young voters were even five or 10 years ago. Sizable majorities now reject the idea that same-sex relationships are morally wrong (53 percent), support stricter gun laws (63 percent) and want government to provide basic necessities (62 percent).
Meanwhile, support for government doing more to curb climate change soared to 57 percent in 2020 before subsiding to 50 percent this year. That small dip may reflect preoccupation with economic doldrums unleashed by covid-19. While that 50 percent could be higher, the issue has seen a 21-point shift, and the polling question asks if respondents want action on climate “even at the expense of economic growth.”
Many of today’s 18-to-29-year-olds, who are mostly older Gen Z Americans plus the tail end of the Millennial generation, lived their formative years during the Great Recession and the election of Trump. What’s more, these new voters are politically coming of age during a remarkable confluence of events that appear to be conspiring in an improbable way to push them to the left.
......
Demographer William Frey and his colleagues calculate that by the 2036 presidential race, Gen Z will represent 35 percent of eligible voters. “They’re growing up in a 21st century America that’s far more diverse, inclusive and globally connected than the 1950s and 1960s America of the GOP base,” Frey told me. “They’re going to shun the Republican Party as they get older.”
This might help explain why, as Politico reports, Republicans have grown alarmed by the growth of college towns in swing states. They fear the profusion of young voters in these states and the possibility that they’re tilting more Democratic due to the GOP’s rightward cultural lurch.
There are major caveats. President Biden’s approval among young people remains stubbornly low. There’s some evidence that the young voters who elected Barack Obama have become somewhat more conservative as they’ve aged, which could happen again. Young voters’ stances on issues don’t guarantee they’ll support Democrats over time.
...Those numbers — which come from the Harvard Youth Poll of 18-to-29-year-olds released each spring — all suggest that today’s young voters are substantially more progressive on these issues than young voters were even five or 10 years ago. Sizable majorities now reject the idea that same-sex relationships are morally wrong (53 percent), support stricter gun laws (63 percent) and want government to provide basic necessities (62 percent).
Meanwhile, support for government doing more to curb climate change soared to 57 percent in 2020 before subsiding to 50 percent this year. That small dip may reflect preoccupation with economic doldrums unleashed by covid-19. While that 50 percent could be higher, the issue has seen a 21-point shift, and the polling question asks if respondents want action on climate “even at the expense of economic growth.”
Many of today’s 18-to-29-year-olds, who are mostly older Gen Z Americans plus the tail end of the Millennial generation, lived their formative years during the Great Recession and the election of Trump. What’s more, these new voters are politically coming of age during a remarkable confluence of events that appear to be conspiring in an improbable way to push them to the left.
......
Demographer William Frey and his colleagues calculate that by the 2036 presidential race, Gen Z will represent 35 percent of eligible voters. “They’re growing up in a 21st century America that’s far more diverse, inclusive and globally connected than the 1950s and 1960s America of the GOP base,” Frey told me. “They’re going to shun the Republican Party as they get older.”
This might help explain why, as Politico reports, Republicans have grown alarmed by the growth of college towns in swing states. They fear the profusion of young voters in these states and the possibility that they’re tilting more Democratic due to the GOP’s rightward cultural lurch.
There are major caveats. President Biden’s approval among young people remains stubbornly low. There’s some evidence that the young voters who elected Barack Obama have become somewhat more conservative as they’ve aged, which could happen again. Young voters’ stances on issues don’t guarantee they’ll support Democrats over time.
Most Americans favor restrictions on false information, violent content online
Most Americans say the U.S. government and technology companies should each take steps to restrict false information and extremely violent content online. However, there is more support for tech companies moderating these types of content than for the federal government doing so, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
Support for both technology companies and the government taking steps to restrict false information online has grown in recent years. For example, the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.
......
Key takeaways:
- 65% of Americans support tech companies moderating false information online and 55% support the U.S. government taking these steps. These shares have increased since 2018.
- Americans are even more supportive of tech companies (71%) and the U.S. government (60%) restricting extremely violent content online.
- Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of tech companies and the U.S. government restricting extremely violent content and false information online. The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018.
Most Americans say the U.S. government and technology companies should each take steps to restrict false information and extremely violent content online. However, there is more support for tech companies moderating these types of content than for the federal government doing so, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
Support for both technology companies and the government taking steps to restrict false information online has grown in recent years. For example, the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.
......
Key takeaways:
- 65% of Americans support tech companies moderating false information online and 55% support the U.S. government taking these steps. These shares have increased since 2018.
- Americans are even more supportive of tech companies (71%) and the U.S. government (60%) restricting extremely violent content online.
- Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of tech companies and the U.S. government restricting extremely violent content and false information online. The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018.
The NATO–Ukraine Situationship
...[W]hat is best for Ukraine is an entirely different question from what is best for the U.S. For Ukraine, entering NATO would be the geopolitical equivalent of winning the Powerball lottery. One can’t say the same thing for the U.S.
There are numerous reasons for caution. First, NATO has made it abundantly obvious since February 2022 that it is not interested in getting into an armed confrontation with Russia in any way, shape, or form. Even as the U.S. and Europe have shoveled an increasingly lethal arsenal of weapons systems to the Ukrainian army, officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels and heads of state, including President Biden, have reiterated that NATO will not take military action against Moscow or put itself in a place where military confrontation becomes more likely. Biden’s hesitancy during the July NATO summit to spell out a specific time frame for Ukrainian accession is a telling example of this dynamic. Despite rhetorical promises of future membership for Kyiv, Biden remains wary of signing the U.S. up for a future commitment that Washington and its allies may not even have the stomach to meet. The Russians can no doubt read the room and are likely asking themselves a fundamental question: If the alliance is unwilling to fight on Ukraine’s behalf when its very existence is at stake, would NATO do so later? How credible would NATO’s guarantee truly be in Moscow’s eyes?
Second, even offering Kyiv a membership action plan on the road to full NATO membership runs the risk of lengthening the present conflict. Putin is hardly the first Russian president to view NATO expansion toward Russian borders as a direct threat to Russia’s core security interests. Even Boris Yeltsin, the affable Russian close to President Bill Clinton for most of his presidency, disapproved of NATO’s enlargement into the post-Soviet space. The difference between Putin and Yeltsin was that Russia under Yeltsin was too weak to do anything about it. In contrast, the possibility of Ukraine being inducted into the NATO club at least partly contributed to Putin’s decision to invade. If he understands that Ukraine will be a NATO member after the war, then he may redouble Russia’s commitment to prosecuting the war now so as to avert that outcome. The already low incentives to explore conflict-ending diplomacy would vanish into thin air. Putin would have no incentive to consider talks, let alone make an agreement. Some may wave off this concern. It’s possible, for example, that the Ukrainian army could surprise the international community with its prowess, as it has on multiple occasions, by winning the war militarily. But while this is a possibility, it’s a low-probability one. If the Ukrainian counteroffensive’s first two months are any indication, Kyiv’s attrition rate, both in men and equipment, will be too high to sustain such a maximalist objective. U.S. policy-makers must therefore keep a potential diplomatic solution on the table and avoid actions, such as NATO membership for Ukraine, that would complicate the diplomacy from the beginning.
Third and finally, acceding to Kyiv’s NATO wishes after the war would place yet another security commitment on Washington’s shoulders when the Biden administration is purportedly interested in encouraging European allies to increase their defense budgets, strengthen their militaries, and take a leadership role in their own neighborhood. To date, the Europeans are making leisurely progress on these objectives. Only nine out of the 30 NATO members have met their obligation to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. Germany, which announced a €100 billion infusion to rebuild the Bundeswehr days after the war in Ukraine erupted, has yet to spend a single penny. Ukraine’s becoming NATO’s 32nd member would exacerbate these issues since Kyiv would be highly likely to request a deployment of U.S. troops as a tangible illustration of support. Why would Europe take greater responsibility for meeting the alliance’s needs as the U.S. military presence on the continent increased? What incentive would Europe have to rebuild its defense-industrial base after three straight decades of cuts and underinvestment?
The conventional wisdom in U.S. foreign-policy circles has long been that the larger NATO is, the stronger it becomes. President Zelensky is banking on this rationale to rule the day. But the U.S. and NATO must be perceptive enough to recognize that what Ukraine seeks would not be cost-free to partners.
...[W]hat is best for Ukraine is an entirely different question from what is best for the U.S. For Ukraine, entering NATO would be the geopolitical equivalent of winning the Powerball lottery. One can’t say the same thing for the U.S.
There are numerous reasons for caution. First, NATO has made it abundantly obvious since February 2022 that it is not interested in getting into an armed confrontation with Russia in any way, shape, or form. Even as the U.S. and Europe have shoveled an increasingly lethal arsenal of weapons systems to the Ukrainian army, officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels and heads of state, including President Biden, have reiterated that NATO will not take military action against Moscow or put itself in a place where military confrontation becomes more likely. Biden’s hesitancy during the July NATO summit to spell out a specific time frame for Ukrainian accession is a telling example of this dynamic. Despite rhetorical promises of future membership for Kyiv, Biden remains wary of signing the U.S. up for a future commitment that Washington and its allies may not even have the stomach to meet. The Russians can no doubt read the room and are likely asking themselves a fundamental question: If the alliance is unwilling to fight on Ukraine’s behalf when its very existence is at stake, would NATO do so later? How credible would NATO’s guarantee truly be in Moscow’s eyes?
Second, even offering Kyiv a membership action plan on the road to full NATO membership runs the risk of lengthening the present conflict. Putin is hardly the first Russian president to view NATO expansion toward Russian borders as a direct threat to Russia’s core security interests. Even Boris Yeltsin, the affable Russian close to President Bill Clinton for most of his presidency, disapproved of NATO’s enlargement into the post-Soviet space. The difference between Putin and Yeltsin was that Russia under Yeltsin was too weak to do anything about it. In contrast, the possibility of Ukraine being inducted into the NATO club at least partly contributed to Putin’s decision to invade. If he understands that Ukraine will be a NATO member after the war, then he may redouble Russia’s commitment to prosecuting the war now so as to avert that outcome. The already low incentives to explore conflict-ending diplomacy would vanish into thin air. Putin would have no incentive to consider talks, let alone make an agreement. Some may wave off this concern. It’s possible, for example, that the Ukrainian army could surprise the international community with its prowess, as it has on multiple occasions, by winning the war militarily. But while this is a possibility, it’s a low-probability one. If the Ukrainian counteroffensive’s first two months are any indication, Kyiv’s attrition rate, both in men and equipment, will be too high to sustain such a maximalist objective. U.S. policy-makers must therefore keep a potential diplomatic solution on the table and avoid actions, such as NATO membership for Ukraine, that would complicate the diplomacy from the beginning.
Third and finally, acceding to Kyiv’s NATO wishes after the war would place yet another security commitment on Washington’s shoulders when the Biden administration is purportedly interested in encouraging European allies to increase their defense budgets, strengthen their militaries, and take a leadership role in their own neighborhood. To date, the Europeans are making leisurely progress on these objectives. Only nine out of the 30 NATO members have met their obligation to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. Germany, which announced a €100 billion infusion to rebuild the Bundeswehr days after the war in Ukraine erupted, has yet to spend a single penny. Ukraine’s becoming NATO’s 32nd member would exacerbate these issues since Kyiv would be highly likely to request a deployment of U.S. troops as a tangible illustration of support. Why would Europe take greater responsibility for meeting the alliance’s needs as the U.S. military presence on the continent increased? What incentive would Europe have to rebuild its defense-industrial base after three straight decades of cuts and underinvestment?
The conventional wisdom in U.S. foreign-policy circles has long been that the larger NATO is, the stronger it becomes. President Zelensky is banking on this rationale to rule the day. But the U.S. and NATO must be perceptive enough to recognize that what Ukraine seeks would not be cost-free to partners.
US faces hurdles in ramping up munitions supplies for Ukraine war effort - FT
...The US has already struck deals with Bulgaria and South Korea to supply the shells to Ukraine and is in talks with Japan to do the same, officials said.
But a US Army effort to increase monthly output of the crucial munitions to 90,000 will take until 2025, highlighting the challenge of ramping up such production quickly, particularly when the US had not previously been focused on it.
“Prior to the Ukraine spin-up, most of the army’s focus was on building out new tank munitions,” said Retired Brig. Gen. Guy Walsh, executive vice-president at the National Defense Industrial Association.
The Pentagon has asked to buy only about 790,000 155mm rounds over the past 10 years, mostly for use in training exercises. That suggests the US has already given Ukraine more than the quantity it procured in 155mm purchases over the past decade, according to a report(opens a new window) by the Center for a New American Security think-tank in Washington.
Compounding the effort to ramp up production was a US decision to downsize its defence industrial base after the cold war.
“We did not anticipate or prepare for a long war and the industrial base was constrained for efficiency,” said Mark Cancian, senior adviser at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies.
......
Ukraine is currently firing up to 8,000 rounds of artillery a day, a much larger quantity than the US would fire, according to American officials.
“As the front lines stabilise, the importance of artillery increases,” Cancian said. “The surprise has been how important just regular artillery shells are.”
The US is now also working to ramp up supply of the shells, with a target of producing up to 90,000 a month by fiscal year 2025, according to the US Army, compared with 24,000 now and 14,000 per month before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
...The US has already struck deals with Bulgaria and South Korea to supply the shells to Ukraine and is in talks with Japan to do the same, officials said.
But a US Army effort to increase monthly output of the crucial munitions to 90,000 will take until 2025, highlighting the challenge of ramping up such production quickly, particularly when the US had not previously been focused on it.
“Prior to the Ukraine spin-up, most of the army’s focus was on building out new tank munitions,” said Retired Brig. Gen. Guy Walsh, executive vice-president at the National Defense Industrial Association.
The Pentagon has asked to buy only about 790,000 155mm rounds over the past 10 years, mostly for use in training exercises. That suggests the US has already given Ukraine more than the quantity it procured in 155mm purchases over the past decade, according to a report(opens a new window) by the Center for a New American Security think-tank in Washington.
Compounding the effort to ramp up production was a US decision to downsize its defence industrial base after the cold war.
“We did not anticipate or prepare for a long war and the industrial base was constrained for efficiency,” said Mark Cancian, senior adviser at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies.
......
Ukraine is currently firing up to 8,000 rounds of artillery a day, a much larger quantity than the US would fire, according to American officials.
“As the front lines stabilise, the importance of artillery increases,” Cancian said. “The surprise has been how important just regular artillery shells are.”
The US is now also working to ramp up supply of the shells, with a target of producing up to 90,000 a month by fiscal year 2025, according to the US Army, compared with 24,000 now and 14,000 per month before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The Socio Political Demography of Happiness
Sam Peltzman
University of Chicago, Booth School of Business
Date Written: July 12, 2023
Abstract:
Since 1972 the General Social Survey (GSS) has asked a representative sample of US adults “… [are] you …very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?” Overall, the population is reasonably happy even after a mild recent decline. I focus on differences along standard socio demographic dimensions: age, race, gender, education, marital status income and geography. I also explore political and social differences. Being married is the most important differentiator with a 30-percentage point happy-unhappy gap over the unmarried. Income is also important, but Easterlin’s (1974) paradox applies: the rich are much happier than the poor at any moment, but income growth doesn’t matter. Education and racial differences are also consequential, though the black-white gap has narrowed substantially. Geographic, gender and age differences have been relatively unimportant, though old-age unhappiness may be emerging. Conservatives are distinctly happier than liberals as are people who trust others or the Federal government. All above differences survive control for other differences.
Sam Peltzman
University of Chicago, Booth School of Business
Date Written: July 12, 2023
Abstract:
Since 1972 the General Social Survey (GSS) has asked a representative sample of US adults “… [are] you …very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?” Overall, the population is reasonably happy even after a mild recent decline. I focus on differences along standard socio demographic dimensions: age, race, gender, education, marital status income and geography. I also explore political and social differences. Being married is the most important differentiator with a 30-percentage point happy-unhappy gap over the unmarried. Income is also important, but Easterlin’s (1974) paradox applies: the rich are much happier than the poor at any moment, but income growth doesn’t matter. Education and racial differences are also consequential, though the black-white gap has narrowed substantially. Geographic, gender and age differences have been relatively unimportant, though old-age unhappiness may be emerging. Conservatives are distinctly happier than liberals as are people who trust others or the Federal government. All above differences survive control for other differences.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams Suddenly Wants a Strong Border after Sanctuary City Claims
...Back in 2021, Adams forcefully reaffirmed his intention to continue New York City’s policy to be a “sanctuary city.” Essentially welcoming migrants or illegal immigrants to New York, as other far left Northeastern cities have.
......
The Adams administration has frequently criticized Abbott and others for the crime of forcing New York to live up to its own stated values.
He’s said New York is full, asked them to go elsewhere, and said the city is at a “tipping point.”
After just over a year of dealing with what southern states have been dealing with for decades, Adams has finally had enough. On Monday, he told the media that he’s basically a Republican now after actually having to live under the consequences of progressive policies.
“Eventually this was going to a neighborhood near you,” Adams said. “We need to control the border, call a state of emergency, and properly fund this national crisis.”
...Back in 2021, Adams forcefully reaffirmed his intention to continue New York City’s policy to be a “sanctuary city.” Essentially welcoming migrants or illegal immigrants to New York, as other far left Northeastern cities have.
......
The Adams administration has frequently criticized Abbott and others for the crime of forcing New York to live up to its own stated values.
He’s said New York is full, asked them to go elsewhere, and said the city is at a “tipping point.”
After just over a year of dealing with what southern states have been dealing with for decades, Adams has finally had enough. On Monday, he told the media that he’s basically a Republican now after actually having to live under the consequences of progressive policies.
“Eventually this was going to a neighborhood near you,” Adams said. “We need to control the border, call a state of emergency, and properly fund this national crisis.”
Fitch downgrades US credit rating over rising debt, repeated standoffs
...Fitch downgraded the U.S. from a rating of “AAA” to “AA+” after several years of high-risk partisan battles over the debt limit. Those battles, Fitch said, have led to a spiraling national debt and a lack of faith in the U.S. government to handle it.
“There has been a steady deterioration in standards of governance over the last 20 years, including on fiscal and debt matters, notwithstanding the June bipartisan agreement to suspend the debt limit until January 2025,” Fitch wrote.
“The repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions have eroded confidence in fiscal management.”
Fitch’s downgrade comes roughly three months after President Biden signed a deal to raise the debt limit just days before the U.S. was expected to default on the national debt.
Fitch warned then that the growing debt — now well over $32 trillion — and Congress’s inability to manage it in a productive and responsible way posed threats to the country’s creditworthiness.
“The government lacks a medium-term fiscal framework, unlike most peers, and has a complex budgeting process. These factors, along with several economic shocks as well as tax cuts and new spending initiatives, have contributed to successive debt increases over the last decade,” Fitch said Tuesday.
“Additionally, there has been only limited progress in tackling medium-term challenges related to rising social security and Medicare costs due to an aging population.”
...Fitch downgraded the U.S. from a rating of “AAA” to “AA+” after several years of high-risk partisan battles over the debt limit. Those battles, Fitch said, have led to a spiraling national debt and a lack of faith in the U.S. government to handle it.
“There has been a steady deterioration in standards of governance over the last 20 years, including on fiscal and debt matters, notwithstanding the June bipartisan agreement to suspend the debt limit until January 2025,” Fitch wrote.
“The repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions have eroded confidence in fiscal management.”
Fitch’s downgrade comes roughly three months after President Biden signed a deal to raise the debt limit just days before the U.S. was expected to default on the national debt.
Fitch warned then that the growing debt — now well over $32 trillion — and Congress’s inability to manage it in a productive and responsible way posed threats to the country’s creditworthiness.
“The government lacks a medium-term fiscal framework, unlike most peers, and has a complex budgeting process. These factors, along with several economic shocks as well as tax cuts and new spending initiatives, have contributed to successive debt increases over the last decade,” Fitch said Tuesday.
“Additionally, there has been only limited progress in tackling medium-term challenges related to rising social security and Medicare costs due to an aging population.”
In Ukraine, a Surge in Amputations Reveals the Human Cost of Russia’s War - WSJ
In February, Ruslana Danilkina, a 19-year-old Ukrainian soldier, came under fire near the front line around Zaporizhzhia in southeastern Ukraine. Shrapnel tore her left leg off above the knee. She clutched her severed thigh bone and watched medics place her severed leg into the vehicle that took her to a hospital.
“I was holding the bone in my hands… there and then I realized that this was the end, that my life would never be the same again,” Danilkina said.
Danilkina is one of between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians who have lost one or more limbs since the start of the war, according to previously undisclosed estimates by prosthetics firms, doctors and charities.
The actual figure could be higher because it takes time to register patients after they undergo the procedure. Some are only amputated weeks or months after being wounded. And with Kyiv’s counteroffensive under way, the war may be entering a more brutal phase.
By comparison, some 67,000 Germans and 41,000 Britons had to have amputations during the course of World War I, when the procedure was often the only one available to prevent death. Fewer than 2,000 U.S. veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions had amputations.
In February, Ruslana Danilkina, a 19-year-old Ukrainian soldier, came under fire near the front line around Zaporizhzhia in southeastern Ukraine. Shrapnel tore her left leg off above the knee. She clutched her severed thigh bone and watched medics place her severed leg into the vehicle that took her to a hospital.
“I was holding the bone in my hands… there and then I realized that this was the end, that my life would never be the same again,” Danilkina said.
Danilkina is one of between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians who have lost one or more limbs since the start of the war, according to previously undisclosed estimates by prosthetics firms, doctors and charities.
The actual figure could be higher because it takes time to register patients after they undergo the procedure. Some are only amputated weeks or months after being wounded. And with Kyiv’s counteroffensive under way, the war may be entering a more brutal phase.
By comparison, some 67,000 Germans and 41,000 Britons had to have amputations during the course of World War I, when the procedure was often the only one available to prevent death. Fewer than 2,000 U.S. veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions had amputations.
Japan sees a region on fire
After skimming Japan’s new defense white paper, one gets the sense that Asia is on fire. The 30-page strategy is screaming with warnings about the rules-based order coming under threat from resurgent authoritarian states (i.e., China and Russia) that are operating on a “might makes right” mentality. “Japan is facing the most severe and complex security environment since the end of World War II,” the Japanese Defense Ministry makes clear in its introduction.
As one might expect, the strategy is long and includes dozens of graphics. Some of them depict weapons systems currently under development by China’s People’s Liberation Army and maps showing PLA activities in the South and East China Seas. The big theme is impossible to miss: While Japan maintains a high-level defense alliance with the United States, it also needs to make sure it possesses the type of independent military capabilities that would prove crucial if Tokyo were to come under attack. For the Japanese, deterrence is the name of the game — and deterrence requires more investment in defense capabilities than the Japanese public may be used to.
In general, the Japanese defense white paper merely codifies what Tokyo has already been doing since the days of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Tokyo is clearly rattled by China’s growing power and its even larger geopolitical ambitions, and it has no intention of sitting still.
Beyond the U.S., Japan has spent the last several years broadening defense relationships with countries in the region that share the same wariness toward Chinese power. In 2020, Tokyo agreed to begin exporting certain weapons systems to Vietnam and the Philippines (among others), two countries with their own territorial disputes with the PLA. In 2020-2021, Japan negotiated and then finalized a mutual military logistics agreement with India, which makes it easier for both states to conduct joint military exercises with one another.
......
For officials back in Washington, the transformation of Japan's defense policy and the willingness of successive Japanese governments to put the necessary resources behind it deserves support. A stronger, more lethal Japanese joint force means a stronger, more lethal ally that can actually contribute to the policy objectives the U.S. seeks to accomplish in Asia: Balancing China, keeping sea lanes open, and a fairer distribution of the defense burden, to name a few.
Yet the U.S. also needs to be cognizant of how China, the Pentagon’s “pacing challenge,” will react to these developments. Initiatives Washington and Tokyo see as defensive could be interpreted as bellicose by Beijing, fueling even more military spending and PRC military exercises in waters claimed by Beijing. China is likely to strengthen its military partnership with Russia in response; Chinese and Russian naval forces conducted joint exercises in the Sea of Japan last week. Washington can forget about coaxing China into using its leverage to push North Korean leader Kim Jong-un toward nuclear talks. Why would Beijing help the U.S. with anything if it believes the U.S. is the driving force behind an anti-China military coalition?
After skimming Japan’s new defense white paper, one gets the sense that Asia is on fire. The 30-page strategy is screaming with warnings about the rules-based order coming under threat from resurgent authoritarian states (i.e., China and Russia) that are operating on a “might makes right” mentality. “Japan is facing the most severe and complex security environment since the end of World War II,” the Japanese Defense Ministry makes clear in its introduction.
As one might expect, the strategy is long and includes dozens of graphics. Some of them depict weapons systems currently under development by China’s People’s Liberation Army and maps showing PLA activities in the South and East China Seas. The big theme is impossible to miss: While Japan maintains a high-level defense alliance with the United States, it also needs to make sure it possesses the type of independent military capabilities that would prove crucial if Tokyo were to come under attack. For the Japanese, deterrence is the name of the game — and deterrence requires more investment in defense capabilities than the Japanese public may be used to.
In general, the Japanese defense white paper merely codifies what Tokyo has already been doing since the days of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Tokyo is clearly rattled by China’s growing power and its even larger geopolitical ambitions, and it has no intention of sitting still.
Beyond the U.S., Japan has spent the last several years broadening defense relationships with countries in the region that share the same wariness toward Chinese power. In 2020, Tokyo agreed to begin exporting certain weapons systems to Vietnam and the Philippines (among others), two countries with their own territorial disputes with the PLA. In 2020-2021, Japan negotiated and then finalized a mutual military logistics agreement with India, which makes it easier for both states to conduct joint military exercises with one another.
......
For officials back in Washington, the transformation of Japan's defense policy and the willingness of successive Japanese governments to put the necessary resources behind it deserves support. A stronger, more lethal Japanese joint force means a stronger, more lethal ally that can actually contribute to the policy objectives the U.S. seeks to accomplish in Asia: Balancing China, keeping sea lanes open, and a fairer distribution of the defense burden, to name a few.
Yet the U.S. also needs to be cognizant of how China, the Pentagon’s “pacing challenge,” will react to these developments. Initiatives Washington and Tokyo see as defensive could be interpreted as bellicose by Beijing, fueling even more military spending and PRC military exercises in waters claimed by Beijing. China is likely to strengthen its military partnership with Russia in response; Chinese and Russian naval forces conducted joint exercises in the Sea of Japan last week. Washington can forget about coaxing China into using its leverage to push North Korean leader Kim Jong-un toward nuclear talks. Why would Beijing help the U.S. with anything if it believes the U.S. is the driving force behind an anti-China military coalition?
Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says
The newly appointed head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Jim Skea, spoke to two major German news outlets over the weekend, soon after his appointment to the role.
Speaking to weekly magazine Der Spiegel, in an interview first published on Saturday, Skea warned against laying too much value on the international community's current nominal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared the pre-industrial era.
"We should not despair and fall into a state of shock" if global temperatures were to increase by this amount, he said.
In a separate discussion with German news agency DPA, Skea expanded on why.
"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said.
"The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world."
Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity.
The international community's stated target is currently to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, even though UN estimates suggest that the current commitments made by countries are actually likely to fall far short of their nominal goal.
The newly appointed head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Jim Skea, spoke to two major German news outlets over the weekend, soon after his appointment to the role.
Speaking to weekly magazine Der Spiegel, in an interview first published on Saturday, Skea warned against laying too much value on the international community's current nominal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared the pre-industrial era.
"We should not despair and fall into a state of shock" if global temperatures were to increase by this amount, he said.
In a separate discussion with German news agency DPA, Skea expanded on why.
"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said.
"The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world."
Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity.
The international community's stated target is currently to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, even though UN estimates suggest that the current commitments made by countries are actually likely to fall far short of their nominal goal.
Ukrainian Troops Trained by the West Stumble in Battle
...Equipped with advanced American weapons and heralded as the vanguard of a major assault, the troops became bogged down in dense Russian minefields under constant fire from artillery and helicopter gunships. Units got lost. One unit delayed a nighttime attack until dawn, losing its advantage. Another fared so badly that commanders yanked it off the battlefield altogether.
Now the Western-trained Ukrainian brigades are trying to turn things around, U.S. officials and independent analysts say. Ukrainian military commanders have changed tactics, focusing on wearing down the Russian forces with artillery and long-range missiles instead of plunging into minefields under fire.
......
Ukraine’s decision to change tactics is a clear signal that NATO’s hopes for large advances made by Ukrainian formations armed with new weapons, new training and an injection of artillery ammunition have failed to materialize, at least for now.
It raises questions about the quality of the training the Ukrainians received from the West and about whether tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, including nearly $44 billion worth from the Biden administration, have been successful in transforming the Ukrainian military into a NATO-standard fighting force.
......
...American officials are worried that Ukraine’s return to its old tactics risks that it will race through precious ammunition supplies, which could play into Mr. Putin’s hands and disadvantage Ukraine in a war of attrition.
Biden administration officials had hoped the nine Western-trained brigades, some 36,000 troops, would show that the American way of warfare was superior to the Russian approach. While the Russians have a rigidly centralized command structure, the Americans taught the Ukrainians to empower senior enlisted soldiers to make quick decisions on the battlefield and to deploy combined arms tactics — synchronized attacks by infantry, armor and artillery forces.
Western officials championed that approach as more efficient than the costly strategy of wearing Russian forces down by attrition, which threatens to deplete Ukraine’s ammunition stocks.
...Equipped with advanced American weapons and heralded as the vanguard of a major assault, the troops became bogged down in dense Russian minefields under constant fire from artillery and helicopter gunships. Units got lost. One unit delayed a nighttime attack until dawn, losing its advantage. Another fared so badly that commanders yanked it off the battlefield altogether.
Now the Western-trained Ukrainian brigades are trying to turn things around, U.S. officials and independent analysts say. Ukrainian military commanders have changed tactics, focusing on wearing down the Russian forces with artillery and long-range missiles instead of plunging into minefields under fire.
......
Ukraine’s decision to change tactics is a clear signal that NATO’s hopes for large advances made by Ukrainian formations armed with new weapons, new training and an injection of artillery ammunition have failed to materialize, at least for now.
It raises questions about the quality of the training the Ukrainians received from the West and about whether tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, including nearly $44 billion worth from the Biden administration, have been successful in transforming the Ukrainian military into a NATO-standard fighting force.
......
...American officials are worried that Ukraine’s return to its old tactics risks that it will race through precious ammunition supplies, which could play into Mr. Putin’s hands and disadvantage Ukraine in a war of attrition.
Biden administration officials had hoped the nine Western-trained brigades, some 36,000 troops, would show that the American way of warfare was superior to the Russian approach. While the Russians have a rigidly centralized command structure, the Americans taught the Ukrainians to empower senior enlisted soldiers to make quick decisions on the battlefield and to deploy combined arms tactics — synchronized attacks by infantry, armor and artillery forces.
Western officials championed that approach as more efficient than the costly strategy of wearing Russian forces down by attrition, which threatens to deplete Ukraine’s ammunition stocks.
Ukraine has tested its allies’ patience with its military strategy and demands
...Kyiv has repeatedly thanked its partners for their help but, behind the scenes, frustrations have also come to a head and Ukraine’s ongoing needs and demands — and the military and political considerations of its allies — have clashed at times, prompting uncomfortable encounters.
Most recently, tensions have emerged over Ukraine’s military strategy and demands on NATO. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is said to have angered some allies ahead of the most recent NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July, when he described the lack of a timetable over the thorny issue of alliance membership, and “conditions” that needed to be met before an invitation to join was issued, as “absurd.”
......
“The comments made by Zelenskyy before the last summit did not really resonate well in Washington ... the U.S. administration was very annoyed,” a source with knowledge of the matter who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the situation, told CNBC.
The source noted that Washington had also been vexed by other episodes in the war in which Ukraine had seemingly ignored its advice, making the NATO episode more frustrating for the White House.
“So the U.S. is strongly advising Ukraine not to do certain things, but Kyiv does them anyway, brushing aside or not addressing U.S. concerns. And they come at the United States, or Washington or the Biden administration, complaining about not being involved in NATO talks,” the CNBC source said.
......
It’s not only at a diplomatic level that Ukraine has irked its allies. Ukraine’s military strategy — and the symbolic value it has put on fighting for every piece of Ukrainian territory — has sometimes collided with its allies’ military perspective and pragmatism.
Kyiv is believed to have annoyed the U.S. when it decided to continue fighting for Bakhmut, a town in eastern Ukraine that has found itself at the epicenter of fierce warfare between Russian and mercenary forces and Ukrainian troops for more than a year.
......
“The Americans were encouraging, to put it mildly, the Ukrainians not to fight certain battles in the way that Russia wanted them to fight, as it could have long-term consequences in terms of manpower losses and artillery ammunition expenditure. However, for Kyiv, Bakhmut was more than a city. It was a symbol of Ukrainian defiance even though its strategic value was questionable,” Muzyka told CNBC.
″[But] the result is that they’ve lost a lot of men, and very experienced personnel as well. They expedited a lot of artillery munition, which would otherwise be used for this counteroffensive, and lastly, they burned out a lot of barrels for their guns, meaning they are unable to fully support their forces in the Bakhmut area.”
...Kyiv has repeatedly thanked its partners for their help but, behind the scenes, frustrations have also come to a head and Ukraine’s ongoing needs and demands — and the military and political considerations of its allies — have clashed at times, prompting uncomfortable encounters.
Most recently, tensions have emerged over Ukraine’s military strategy and demands on NATO. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is said to have angered some allies ahead of the most recent NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July, when he described the lack of a timetable over the thorny issue of alliance membership, and “conditions” that needed to be met before an invitation to join was issued, as “absurd.”
......
“The comments made by Zelenskyy before the last summit did not really resonate well in Washington ... the U.S. administration was very annoyed,” a source with knowledge of the matter who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the situation, told CNBC.
The source noted that Washington had also been vexed by other episodes in the war in which Ukraine had seemingly ignored its advice, making the NATO episode more frustrating for the White House.
“So the U.S. is strongly advising Ukraine not to do certain things, but Kyiv does them anyway, brushing aside or not addressing U.S. concerns. And they come at the United States, or Washington or the Biden administration, complaining about not being involved in NATO talks,” the CNBC source said.
......
It’s not only at a diplomatic level that Ukraine has irked its allies. Ukraine’s military strategy — and the symbolic value it has put on fighting for every piece of Ukrainian territory — has sometimes collided with its allies’ military perspective and pragmatism.
Kyiv is believed to have annoyed the U.S. when it decided to continue fighting for Bakhmut, a town in eastern Ukraine that has found itself at the epicenter of fierce warfare between Russian and mercenary forces and Ukrainian troops for more than a year.
......
“The Americans were encouraging, to put it mildly, the Ukrainians not to fight certain battles in the way that Russia wanted them to fight, as it could have long-term consequences in terms of manpower losses and artillery ammunition expenditure. However, for Kyiv, Bakhmut was more than a city. It was a symbol of Ukrainian defiance even though its strategic value was questionable,” Muzyka told CNBC.
″[But] the result is that they’ve lost a lot of men, and very experienced personnel as well. They expedited a lot of artillery munition, which would otherwise be used for this counteroffensive, and lastly, they burned out a lot of barrels for their guns, meaning they are unable to fully support their forces in the Bakhmut area.”
Zelenskyy urges cool heads as Poland lashes out at Ukraine in gratitude spat
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stepped in to call for restraint late Tuesday in an effort to end an escalating diplomatic spat with Ukrainian ally Poland.
Earlier on Tuesday, Kyiv had summoned Warsaw’s envoy after a senior Polish official suggested Ukraine should be more grateful for the support it has been receiving from Poland since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion last year.
......
Poland has been one of Kyiv’s most vocal supporters since Moscow’s aggression ramped up in 2022. But in recent months, its relations with Kyiv have been hurt by Warsaw’s decision to extend a ban on some Ukrainian agricultural exports, which the Polish government considers a threat to the interests of domestic farmers.
Initially focused on grain, the dispute is now shifting to soft fruit such as raspberries and currants, with Poland’s farmers — who are set to be a key constituency in the upcoming Polish general elections in October — complaining that lower-priced imports from Ukraine are undercutting them.
The brewing contretemps escalated Tuesday after Ukraine summoned the Polish ambassador to Kyiv over “unacceptable” comments made by a senior Polish official.
In an interview with Polish media, Marcin Przydacz, head of Poland’s international policy office, said Kyiv should “start appreciating the role Poland has played for Ukraine in recent months and years” — sparking ire from Ukrainian officials who hauled in Warsaw’s ambassador and prompting Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki then to slap Kyiv down.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stepped in to call for restraint late Tuesday in an effort to end an escalating diplomatic spat with Ukrainian ally Poland.
Earlier on Tuesday, Kyiv had summoned Warsaw’s envoy after a senior Polish official suggested Ukraine should be more grateful for the support it has been receiving from Poland since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion last year.
......
Poland has been one of Kyiv’s most vocal supporters since Moscow’s aggression ramped up in 2022. But in recent months, its relations with Kyiv have been hurt by Warsaw’s decision to extend a ban on some Ukrainian agricultural exports, which the Polish government considers a threat to the interests of domestic farmers.
Initially focused on grain, the dispute is now shifting to soft fruit such as raspberries and currants, with Poland’s farmers — who are set to be a key constituency in the upcoming Polish general elections in October — complaining that lower-priced imports from Ukraine are undercutting them.
The brewing contretemps escalated Tuesday after Ukraine summoned the Polish ambassador to Kyiv over “unacceptable” comments made by a senior Polish official.
In an interview with Polish media, Marcin Przydacz, head of Poland’s international policy office, said Kyiv should “start appreciating the role Poland has played for Ukraine in recent months and years” — sparking ire from Ukrainian officials who hauled in Warsaw’s ambassador and prompting Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki then to slap Kyiv down.
Germany’s establishment just doesn’t get why the AfD is on the march
According to Robert Habeck, the Green Minister of Economic Affairs, Germany has to prepare for five tough years. The burdens on ordinary people will be significant, the minister acknowledges. After these five years – apparently – the green industrial transition will have been accomplished, finally leading to growth rates of more than five percent. Chancellor Scholz had originally promised those for this year. The question is, why should anyone believe Germany’s leaders now? Just a few months ago, Germans were promised an economic miracle, and now all of a sudden the people have to prepare for half a decade of hardship. Most people sense that it might be longer than that.
It would not be the first promise to be broken by the coalition government. After proclaiming for years that Germany does not need its 21 GW nuclear power plants, Berlin is now frantically trying to secure subsidies from the EU to build 25 GW of gas-fired power capacity. These are supposedly going to be switched from natural gas to hydrogen in the very near future, but if you talk to industry experts it becomes clear that “very near” is just a euphemism for “someday, maybe.” Hydrogen is a fickle substance and not an energy source, but an energy carrier – which means it will need additional energy to produce hydrogen which then can be used in these power plants. More energy use and more intermediate steps also means accumulating costs that have to the borne by the taxpayer.
To add insult to injury, Robert Habeck now demands massive subsidies to help cover the energy costs for Germany’s industries, after – again – having claimed for years that there is no energy crisis. Whether it is dishonesty or delusion, is it really any wonder that more and more people are considering casting their vote for the AfD? Whatever the flaws of the Alternative für Deutschland, their predictions regarding the suicidal energy policy pursued by Berlin turned out to be correct. A widespread claim is that the populist party offers no solutions, but one might suggest that this is part of its appeal. So far, all of the solutions – the Energiewende (the energy transition), the exit from nuclear power, and the ongoing deindustrialization – have turned out to make things worse. So, maybe more and more Germans have an appetite for a party without grand visions, but with the promise of a return to a time when things seemed to work.
......
Even though the AfD is doing yeoman’s work to remain unelectable for the majority of Germans...
Yet none of this matters if a growing number of ordinary Germans have a sense that all the other parties are conspiring against the interests of the people. The AfD stands at 21 per cent in current polls, in second place behind the CDU/CSU with 26 per cent. If one would look at the CDU and the CSU as separate parties, however, the AfD would be on the brink of becoming Germany’s strongest party. Long gone are the days when the SPD and CDU/CSU were holding on to over 75 per cent of the vote (as they still did in 2002).
According to Robert Habeck, the Green Minister of Economic Affairs, Germany has to prepare for five tough years. The burdens on ordinary people will be significant, the minister acknowledges. After these five years – apparently – the green industrial transition will have been accomplished, finally leading to growth rates of more than five percent. Chancellor Scholz had originally promised those for this year. The question is, why should anyone believe Germany’s leaders now? Just a few months ago, Germans were promised an economic miracle, and now all of a sudden the people have to prepare for half a decade of hardship. Most people sense that it might be longer than that.
It would not be the first promise to be broken by the coalition government. After proclaiming for years that Germany does not need its 21 GW nuclear power plants, Berlin is now frantically trying to secure subsidies from the EU to build 25 GW of gas-fired power capacity. These are supposedly going to be switched from natural gas to hydrogen in the very near future, but if you talk to industry experts it becomes clear that “very near” is just a euphemism for “someday, maybe.” Hydrogen is a fickle substance and not an energy source, but an energy carrier – which means it will need additional energy to produce hydrogen which then can be used in these power plants. More energy use and more intermediate steps also means accumulating costs that have to the borne by the taxpayer.
To add insult to injury, Robert Habeck now demands massive subsidies to help cover the energy costs for Germany’s industries, after – again – having claimed for years that there is no energy crisis. Whether it is dishonesty or delusion, is it really any wonder that more and more people are considering casting their vote for the AfD? Whatever the flaws of the Alternative für Deutschland, their predictions regarding the suicidal energy policy pursued by Berlin turned out to be correct. A widespread claim is that the populist party offers no solutions, but one might suggest that this is part of its appeal. So far, all of the solutions – the Energiewende (the energy transition), the exit from nuclear power, and the ongoing deindustrialization – have turned out to make things worse. So, maybe more and more Germans have an appetite for a party without grand visions, but with the promise of a return to a time when things seemed to work.
......
Even though the AfD is doing yeoman’s work to remain unelectable for the majority of Germans...
Yet none of this matters if a growing number of ordinary Germans have a sense that all the other parties are conspiring against the interests of the people. The AfD stands at 21 per cent in current polls, in second place behind the CDU/CSU with 26 per cent. If one would look at the CDU and the CSU as separate parties, however, the AfD would be on the brink of becoming Germany’s strongest party. Long gone are the days when the SPD and CDU/CSU were holding on to over 75 per cent of the vote (as they still did in 2002).
Companies with good ESG scores pollute as much as low-rated rivals
Companies rated highly on widely accepted environmental, social and governance metrics pollute just as much as lowly rated companies, research has found.
This perverse lack of correlation holds even if companies’ carbon intensity — their carbon emissions per unit of revenue or market capitalisation — is compared purely to their environmental rating, according to Scientific Beta, an index provider and consultancy.
“ESG ratings have little to no relation to carbon intensity, even when considering only the environmental pillar of these ratings,” said Felix Goltz, research director at Scientific Beta. “It doesn’t seem that people have actually looked at [the correlations]. They are surprisingly low.”
“The carbon intensity reduction of green [ie low carbon intensity] portfolios can be effectively cancelled out by adding ESG objectives.”
The findings come amid strong demand for ESG investment, with “sustainable” funds globally attracting net inflows of $49bn in the first half of this year, according to Morningstar, while the rest of the fund industry saw outflows of $9bn.
Companies rated highly on widely accepted environmental, social and governance metrics pollute just as much as lowly rated companies, research has found.
This perverse lack of correlation holds even if companies’ carbon intensity — their carbon emissions per unit of revenue or market capitalisation — is compared purely to their environmental rating, according to Scientific Beta, an index provider and consultancy.
“ESG ratings have little to no relation to carbon intensity, even when considering only the environmental pillar of these ratings,” said Felix Goltz, research director at Scientific Beta. “It doesn’t seem that people have actually looked at [the correlations]. They are surprisingly low.”
“The carbon intensity reduction of green [ie low carbon intensity] portfolios can be effectively cancelled out by adding ESG objectives.”
The findings come amid strong demand for ESG investment, with “sustainable” funds globally attracting net inflows of $49bn in the first half of this year, according to Morningstar, while the rest of the fund industry saw outflows of $9bn.
Biden’s open borders are bringing contagious diseases to your neighborhood
...New York City’s health commissioner announced last week that the influx of migrants from the southern border — more than 50,000 to New York City alone in the past year — is delivering contagious diseases, including tuberculosis and polio, to our neighborhoods.
The same disease threats are also endangering other migrant destinations, including California, Texas and Florida.
In a letter to physicians and health-care administrators citywide, Commissioner Ashwin Vasan explained, “Many people who recently arrived in NYC have lived in or traveled through countries with high rates of TB.”
TB, short for tuberculosis, is a bacterial infection. It is treatable with antibiotics, but it generally takes six to nine months of medication to recover. Not a walk in the park.
......
Vasan warns that only 50% of the migrants streaming into the Big Apple are vaccinated.
But an even bigger issue is the type of vaccine used in many poorer countries, which can actually spread polio.
The United States uses only injectable polio vaccines made with dead virus that cannot spread the disease.
But many other countries use a less-safe oral vaccine that contains live virus and is sometimes shed in the vaccinated person’s feces.
It can then spread in sewage and on unclean hands, causing vaccine-derived polio cases.
...New York City’s health commissioner announced last week that the influx of migrants from the southern border — more than 50,000 to New York City alone in the past year — is delivering contagious diseases, including tuberculosis and polio, to our neighborhoods.
The same disease threats are also endangering other migrant destinations, including California, Texas and Florida.
In a letter to physicians and health-care administrators citywide, Commissioner Ashwin Vasan explained, “Many people who recently arrived in NYC have lived in or traveled through countries with high rates of TB.”
TB, short for tuberculosis, is a bacterial infection. It is treatable with antibiotics, but it generally takes six to nine months of medication to recover. Not a walk in the park.
......
Vasan warns that only 50% of the migrants streaming into the Big Apple are vaccinated.
But an even bigger issue is the type of vaccine used in many poorer countries, which can actually spread polio.
The United States uses only injectable polio vaccines made with dead virus that cannot spread the disease.
But many other countries use a less-safe oral vaccine that contains live virus and is sometimes shed in the vaccinated person’s feces.
It can then spread in sewage and on unclean hands, causing vaccine-derived polio cases.
More Russian Oil Trades Above G-7 Price Cap Despite Sanctions - Bloomberg
Several of Russia’s refined oil products are trading above the price cap imposed by Group of Seven nations, in another sign that the value of its barrels is rising in defiance of sanctions.
Since February, there have been two caps on the sale of Russian refined fuels, one for higher value products at $100 a barrel and another for lower ones at $45. Argus Media Ltd., whose prices are central to the caps, says naphtha and fuel oil are trading above the lower cap, while diesel is trading above the higher one.
Of the products that are yet to breach the cap at Russia’s western ports, gasoil and gasoline are both approaching that ceiling, with the value of both fuels surging globally.
Last month, Russia’s flagship Urals crude breached the price cap for the first time, offering a victory of sorts for Moscow which assembled a shadow fleet of ships big enough to transport its supplies to buyers while circumventing G-7 services. There also signs that Moscow is starting to deliver on the production cuts it agreed with its allies in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Several of Russia’s refined oil products are trading above the price cap imposed by Group of Seven nations, in another sign that the value of its barrels is rising in defiance of sanctions.
Since February, there have been two caps on the sale of Russian refined fuels, one for higher value products at $100 a barrel and another for lower ones at $45. Argus Media Ltd., whose prices are central to the caps, says naphtha and fuel oil are trading above the lower cap, while diesel is trading above the higher one.
Of the products that are yet to breach the cap at Russia’s western ports, gasoil and gasoline are both approaching that ceiling, with the value of both fuels surging globally.
Last month, Russia’s flagship Urals crude breached the price cap for the first time, offering a victory of sorts for Moscow which assembled a shadow fleet of ships big enough to transport its supplies to buyers while circumventing G-7 services. There also signs that Moscow is starting to deliver on the production cuts it agreed with its allies in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Why Trump Is Winning the Primary—So Far
...Which part of the DeSantis formula isn’t working—the populist mojo or the competence-discipline-palatability factor? The answer, I’m afraid, is both.
On the populist front, DeSantis has rendered himself vulnerable on earned benefits and foreign interventionism. Those happen to be two major flash-points between the GOP’s donor class and the party’s increasingly downscale base. As the recent Times poll found, nearly two-thirds of likely Republican voters want their Social Security and Medicare to stay just the way they are, and a majority are done with arming and funding Ukraine.
In 2016, Trump smashed his conventional Republican rivals precisely by bucking the party’s orthodoxy on these two issues: He vowed to protect earned benefits, and he described the foreign adventurism of the post-9/11 years as a “disaster.” There is no reason to believe that the working-class Americans who increasingly rally to the Republican Party, and whose votes are crucial to winning the general in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, have shifted on either issue.
Matching Trump on both is the bare minimum for any who would take him on. DeSantis was vulnerable on earned benefits going back to his time in Congress, when he backed “entitlement reform” and even privatization. It was of the utmost urgency for him to make clear that he now stands with the party’s populist base on these issues, lest he lend credence to Trump-aligned PACs’ brutal ads framing him as a benefit-slasher and -raider. DeSantis failed to do so. Instead, as recently as June, he took to Fox News to clarify that he would only slash benefits for workers in their 30s or 40s. Imagine how genial that idea sounds to the 48-year-old American who has been active in the labor market since age 16 or 17.
On foreign policy, meanwhile, DeSantis needlessly hurt himself by equivocating. No doubt impelled in part by Trump’s dovish message on Ukraine, DeSantis submitted a refreshingly restraint-oriented response to Tucker Carlson’s foreign-policy questionnaire to the candidates. But then, a few days later, he walked it back and sounded more conventionally Republican notes. The New York Times reported that hedge-fund honcho Ken Griffin lodged complaints about DeSantis’s remarks, but I’ve also been told by Republican operatives that donor influence is a far less important factor than the candidate’s own unshakably Reaganite instincts.
...Which part of the DeSantis formula isn’t working—the populist mojo or the competence-discipline-palatability factor? The answer, I’m afraid, is both.
On the populist front, DeSantis has rendered himself vulnerable on earned benefits and foreign interventionism. Those happen to be two major flash-points between the GOP’s donor class and the party’s increasingly downscale base. As the recent Times poll found, nearly two-thirds of likely Republican voters want their Social Security and Medicare to stay just the way they are, and a majority are done with arming and funding Ukraine.
In 2016, Trump smashed his conventional Republican rivals precisely by bucking the party’s orthodoxy on these two issues: He vowed to protect earned benefits, and he described the foreign adventurism of the post-9/11 years as a “disaster.” There is no reason to believe that the working-class Americans who increasingly rally to the Republican Party, and whose votes are crucial to winning the general in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, have shifted on either issue.
Matching Trump on both is the bare minimum for any who would take him on. DeSantis was vulnerable on earned benefits going back to his time in Congress, when he backed “entitlement reform” and even privatization. It was of the utmost urgency for him to make clear that he now stands with the party’s populist base on these issues, lest he lend credence to Trump-aligned PACs’ brutal ads framing him as a benefit-slasher and -raider. DeSantis failed to do so. Instead, as recently as June, he took to Fox News to clarify that he would only slash benefits for workers in their 30s or 40s. Imagine how genial that idea sounds to the 48-year-old American who has been active in the labor market since age 16 or 17.
On foreign policy, meanwhile, DeSantis needlessly hurt himself by equivocating. No doubt impelled in part by Trump’s dovish message on Ukraine, DeSantis submitted a refreshingly restraint-oriented response to Tucker Carlson’s foreign-policy questionnaire to the candidates. But then, a few days later, he walked it back and sounded more conventionally Republican notes. The New York Times reported that hedge-fund honcho Ken Griffin lodged complaints about DeSantis’s remarks, but I’ve also been told by Republican operatives that donor influence is a far less important factor than the candidate’s own unshakably Reaganite instincts.
High school boys are trending conservative
...Twelfth-grade boys are nearly twice as likely to identify as conservative versus liberal, according to a respected federal survey of American youth.
In annual surveys over the last three years, roughly one-quarter of high school seniors self-identified as conservative or “very conservative” on the Monitoring the Future survey, a scholarly endeavor that dates to the 1970s. Only 13 percent of boys identified as liberal or very liberal in those years.
The figures represent a striking shift in the political views of boys. As recently as the late 2000s, liberal boys occasionally outnumbered conservatives. Back in the Carter era, both boys and girls leaned liberal.
Nowadays, it is girls who are drifting to the left. The share of 12th-grade girls who identified as liberal rose from 19 percent in 2012 to 30 percent in 2022. Only 12 percent of girls identified as conservative in last year’s survey, administered by the University of Michigan.
......
The full story is messier and murkier. High school seniors, boys and girls alike, are more likely to claim no political identity than to throw in with either liberals or conservatives.
Much has been written about the liberal drift of young women. The Donald Trump presidency mobilized millions of women, outraged over words and alleged deeds that, to Trump’s critics, suggested an unrepentant misogyny. More women embraced liberal politics in response to the conservative drift of the U.S. Supreme Court, a movement emblemized by a 2022 ruling that struck down the constitutional right to abortion.
......
As one recent Politico article put it, Democrats have a masculinity problem.
“I believe that traditional notions of masculinity are much more accepted within conservativism,” while feminist values “are clearly one of the driving forces of liberalism,” said Delano Squires, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“I could see male and female students saying, ‘I’m choosing sides.’ Do you want matriarchy, or do you want patriarchy?”
Defenders of the patriarchy reach young men where they live, on social media and in gaming circles. Benn, the GWU student, notes a “sort of intersection of Internet culture and gaming culture with conservative politics” that draws some apolitical young men into conservatism.
...Twelfth-grade boys are nearly twice as likely to identify as conservative versus liberal, according to a respected federal survey of American youth.
In annual surveys over the last three years, roughly one-quarter of high school seniors self-identified as conservative or “very conservative” on the Monitoring the Future survey, a scholarly endeavor that dates to the 1970s. Only 13 percent of boys identified as liberal or very liberal in those years.
The figures represent a striking shift in the political views of boys. As recently as the late 2000s, liberal boys occasionally outnumbered conservatives. Back in the Carter era, both boys and girls leaned liberal.
Nowadays, it is girls who are drifting to the left. The share of 12th-grade girls who identified as liberal rose from 19 percent in 2012 to 30 percent in 2022. Only 12 percent of girls identified as conservative in last year’s survey, administered by the University of Michigan.
......
The full story is messier and murkier. High school seniors, boys and girls alike, are more likely to claim no political identity than to throw in with either liberals or conservatives.
Much has been written about the liberal drift of young women. The Donald Trump presidency mobilized millions of women, outraged over words and alleged deeds that, to Trump’s critics, suggested an unrepentant misogyny. More women embraced liberal politics in response to the conservative drift of the U.S. Supreme Court, a movement emblemized by a 2022 ruling that struck down the constitutional right to abortion.
......
As one recent Politico article put it, Democrats have a masculinity problem.
“I believe that traditional notions of masculinity are much more accepted within conservativism,” while feminist values “are clearly one of the driving forces of liberalism,” said Delano Squires, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“I could see male and female students saying, ‘I’m choosing sides.’ Do you want matriarchy, or do you want patriarchy?”
Defenders of the patriarchy reach young men where they live, on social media and in gaming circles. Benn, the GWU student, notes a “sort of intersection of Internet culture and gaming culture with conservative politics” that draws some apolitical young men into conservatism.
‘We can de-risk but not decouple’ from China, says Raytheon chief
Western manufacturers will be able to de-risk their operations in China but will find it impossible to cut ties completely with the country, according to the head of one of the US’s largest aerospace and defence companies.
Greg Hayes, chief executive of Raytheon, said the company had “several thousand suppliers in China and decoupling . . . is impossible”.
“We can de-risk but not decouple,” Hayes told the Financial Times in an interview, adding that he believed this to be the case “for everybody”.
“Think about the $500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 per cent of rare earth materials or metals come from, or are processed in, China. There is no alternative,” said Hayes.
“If we had to pull out of China, it would take us many many years to re-establish that capability either domestically or in other friendly countries.”
Hayes’ comments underline the difficulties facing western manufacturers amid growing friction between China and the US and its allies.
Beijing in February imposed new sanctions on both Raytheon and US defence peer Lockheed Martin for supplying weapons to Taiwan. Hayes has also been placed under sanctions.
The sanctions have had little commercial impact as the groups are not allowed to sell military equipment to China. Raytheon, however, has a substantial commercial aerospace business in the country through its engine subsidiary, Pratt & Whitney, and aviation systems and cabin equipment specialist Collins Aerospace. It has about 2,000 direct employees in China.
Western manufacturers will be able to de-risk their operations in China but will find it impossible to cut ties completely with the country, according to the head of one of the US’s largest aerospace and defence companies.
Greg Hayes, chief executive of Raytheon, said the company had “several thousand suppliers in China and decoupling . . . is impossible”.
“We can de-risk but not decouple,” Hayes told the Financial Times in an interview, adding that he believed this to be the case “for everybody”.
“Think about the $500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 per cent of rare earth materials or metals come from, or are processed in, China. There is no alternative,” said Hayes.
“If we had to pull out of China, it would take us many many years to re-establish that capability either domestically or in other friendly countries.”
Hayes’ comments underline the difficulties facing western manufacturers amid growing friction between China and the US and its allies.
Beijing in February imposed new sanctions on both Raytheon and US defence peer Lockheed Martin for supplying weapons to Taiwan. Hayes has also been placed under sanctions.
The sanctions have had little commercial impact as the groups are not allowed to sell military equipment to China. Raytheon, however, has a substantial commercial aerospace business in the country through its engine subsidiary, Pratt & Whitney, and aviation systems and cabin equipment specialist Collins Aerospace. It has about 2,000 direct employees in China.
Hubris and Nemesis
...The future of the rise of China, or the relative decline of the US, as Kirshner notes correctly, is not etched in stone. With Russia out of the equation in Europe, a reluctant and inward India, and a divided European Union reliant on American power, only China—while being surrounded by rival powers—is the only hegemonic challenge remaining. Unless there is a nuclear war, which every sane statesman should avoid, or the US faces overstretch and insolvency or internal collapse, the future is undetermined. Huntington warned that a great power “is normally able to maintain its dominance over minor states for a long time until it is weakened by internal decay or by forces from outside the system.” It is a warning straight out of George Washington’s Farewell Address, where he warned not just against foreign entanglements, but also against foreign lobbying and influence at home, leading to a reckless and activist foreign policy.
Great powers mostly collapse due to their own folly, whether from hubris, military overstretch, internal decay, or a war resulting in a catastrophic reordering. As Taylor wrote despite the best of wisdom, a country’s resolve or reforms are helpless to stem the tides in a time of collapse. As another classical realist, Henry Kissinger said, “every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed. History is a tale of efforts that failed, or aspirations that weren’t realized. So, as a historian, one has to live with a sense of the inevitability of tragedy.” Austria and France, despite their multi-ethnic and liberal empires, foreign colonies, and superior culture were simply incapable of competing technologically with Germany and its inevitable hegemonic aspirations. Germany, despite being the natural hegemon of Mitteleuropa was a reckless young power that did not have the elite wisdom of balance, which Austria under Metternich possessed.
Britain, worse of all, was cursed to carry the burden of global sea trade and was overstretched to the point where it was unable to pivot in time or stem the rise of rival powers. She was destined to make a choice about which future hegemony and order she would live under. Britain bore the brunt of Edwardian war hysteria, French “chain-ganging,” and decades of great power peace and social security in foolishly taking sides in a continental upheaval, and then suffered from justified public war-weariness in the 1930s. The former was perhaps preventable. The latter, alongside the rise of the Nazis, was beyond the power of an already weakened empire to prevent, regardless of Chamberlain’s great power equilibrium instinct or not.
And there is a lesson for America in that. Civilization, as Kirshner notes, is fragile. There is no coming back from a great power war, especially in a nuclear era. There is no coming back from internal rot, implosion, or insolvency. Preventing implosion at home and promoting a great power equilibrium abroad instead of an ideological and activist foreign policy are paramount.
...The future of the rise of China, or the relative decline of the US, as Kirshner notes correctly, is not etched in stone. With Russia out of the equation in Europe, a reluctant and inward India, and a divided European Union reliant on American power, only China—while being surrounded by rival powers—is the only hegemonic challenge remaining. Unless there is a nuclear war, which every sane statesman should avoid, or the US faces overstretch and insolvency or internal collapse, the future is undetermined. Huntington warned that a great power “is normally able to maintain its dominance over minor states for a long time until it is weakened by internal decay or by forces from outside the system.” It is a warning straight out of George Washington’s Farewell Address, where he warned not just against foreign entanglements, but also against foreign lobbying and influence at home, leading to a reckless and activist foreign policy.
Great powers mostly collapse due to their own folly, whether from hubris, military overstretch, internal decay, or a war resulting in a catastrophic reordering. As Taylor wrote despite the best of wisdom, a country’s resolve or reforms are helpless to stem the tides in a time of collapse. As another classical realist, Henry Kissinger said, “every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed. History is a tale of efforts that failed, or aspirations that weren’t realized. So, as a historian, one has to live with a sense of the inevitability of tragedy.” Austria and France, despite their multi-ethnic and liberal empires, foreign colonies, and superior culture were simply incapable of competing technologically with Germany and its inevitable hegemonic aspirations. Germany, despite being the natural hegemon of Mitteleuropa was a reckless young power that did not have the elite wisdom of balance, which Austria under Metternich possessed.
Britain, worse of all, was cursed to carry the burden of global sea trade and was overstretched to the point where it was unable to pivot in time or stem the rise of rival powers. She was destined to make a choice about which future hegemony and order she would live under. Britain bore the brunt of Edwardian war hysteria, French “chain-ganging,” and decades of great power peace and social security in foolishly taking sides in a continental upheaval, and then suffered from justified public war-weariness in the 1930s. The former was perhaps preventable. The latter, alongside the rise of the Nazis, was beyond the power of an already weakened empire to prevent, regardless of Chamberlain’s great power equilibrium instinct or not.
And there is a lesson for America in that. Civilization, as Kirshner notes, is fragile. There is no coming back from a great power war, especially in a nuclear era. There is no coming back from internal rot, implosion, or insolvency. Preventing implosion at home and promoting a great power equilibrium abroad instead of an ideological and activist foreign policy are paramount.
Michael Vlahos on Ukraine's losses of young lives and manpower:
...The fallen empires of 1918—Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottomans—needed four years to reach that point. In a third of that time, Ukraine has lost 2.5 percent of its population. This reckoning amounts to what Soviet historians called “irreplaceable losses”—meaning, all soldiers who would never, ever return to the ranks.
......
Despite Ukraine’s high-casualty count, some contend that the overall situation is salvageable. Yet the casualty outcome is the decisive factor, because losses in war must be stacked up against the health and stability of the entire society. Ukraine has nearly the lowest fertility in the world, and a straight up-and-down age graph by demographic cohort. Put bluntly, the men lost in the past 500 days won’t sire progeny. This is why a reckoning of Ukrainian “irreplaceable losses” is significant. It isn’t just the dead, but also the crippled among men that can bring society down. This is the spiral that France went down after World War I. Several hundred thousand men lost one or more limbs. We know now that Ukraine is mirroring the French horror. 50,000 Ukrainians have lost one or more limbs, close to the 67,000 for Germany in World War I. In 1914, there were 39 million French people. In 1940, there were 39 million.
Ukraine in 1994 was 52 million strong. Then disaster set in: First, the best and brightest youth sought brighter futures in the European Union and Russia. Then the terror after 2014 accelerated the outflow. Now the war has effectively taken half of the people geographically out of their land. Ukraine was a nation of perhaps 33 million in early 2022. Today, a quarter of that already-diminished country’s population has fled to the European Union, and another quarter is in the now-Russian oblasts or residing as new migrants in the Russian Federation itself. Ukraine, at 20 million, ranks somewhat bigger than the Netherlands, and somewhat smaller than Taiwan.
Yet in casualties-to-population terms, Ukrainian military losses, after more than 500 days of war, are approaching those sustained by Germany in World War I over more than 1,500 days. This is a catastrophic attrition rate, compounded by all three negative-feedback loops that can break an army and a nation. Throughout the spring and summer, Ukrainian forces were thrown into battle and ground down. By autumn, the fighting army will have been spent—the tragic fate of Ukraine’s Best in 2023. By September, what is left will be twisting, and bending toward breaking, in the remorseless winds of war.
...The fallen empires of 1918—Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottomans—needed four years to reach that point. In a third of that time, Ukraine has lost 2.5 percent of its population. This reckoning amounts to what Soviet historians called “irreplaceable losses”—meaning, all soldiers who would never, ever return to the ranks.
......
Despite Ukraine’s high-casualty count, some contend that the overall situation is salvageable. Yet the casualty outcome is the decisive factor, because losses in war must be stacked up against the health and stability of the entire society. Ukraine has nearly the lowest fertility in the world, and a straight up-and-down age graph by demographic cohort. Put bluntly, the men lost in the past 500 days won’t sire progeny. This is why a reckoning of Ukrainian “irreplaceable losses” is significant. It isn’t just the dead, but also the crippled among men that can bring society down. This is the spiral that France went down after World War I. Several hundred thousand men lost one or more limbs. We know now that Ukraine is mirroring the French horror. 50,000 Ukrainians have lost one or more limbs, close to the 67,000 for Germany in World War I. In 1914, there were 39 million French people. In 1940, there were 39 million.
Ukraine in 1994 was 52 million strong. Then disaster set in: First, the best and brightest youth sought brighter futures in the European Union and Russia. Then the terror after 2014 accelerated the outflow. Now the war has effectively taken half of the people geographically out of their land. Ukraine was a nation of perhaps 33 million in early 2022. Today, a quarter of that already-diminished country’s population has fled to the European Union, and another quarter is in the now-Russian oblasts or residing as new migrants in the Russian Federation itself. Ukraine, at 20 million, ranks somewhat bigger than the Netherlands, and somewhat smaller than Taiwan.
Yet in casualties-to-population terms, Ukrainian military losses, after more than 500 days of war, are approaching those sustained by Germany in World War I over more than 1,500 days. This is a catastrophic attrition rate, compounded by all three negative-feedback loops that can break an army and a nation. Throughout the spring and summer, Ukrainian forces were thrown into battle and ground down. By autumn, the fighting army will have been spent—the tragic fate of Ukraine’s Best in 2023. By September, what is left will be twisting, and bending toward breaking, in the remorseless winds of war.
CNN Poll: Majority of Americans oppose more US aid for Ukraine in war with Russia
Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the US has already done enough to assist Ukraine.
Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.
Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the US role in Ukraine.
When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).
Most Americans who say the US should be doing more to support Ukraine are in favor of providing assistance in intelligence gathering (75%), military training (68%) and weapons (60%), while among those who say the US has already done enough, only intelligence gathering earns majority support (52%).
A majority of Americans do express concern that Russia’s war in Ukraine will threaten US national security (56%), but that’s down significantly February 2022 (72% were worried about threats to US security then).
......
Republicans broadly say that Congress should not authorize new funding (71%) and that the US has done enough to assist Ukraine (59%). Among Democrats, most say the opposite, 62% favor additional funding and 61% say that the US should do more.
Within both parties, there are splits by ideology. On providing additional funding, liberal Democrats are far and away the most supportive, 74% back it compared with 51% of moderate or conservative Democrats. Among Republicans, about three-quarters of conservatives oppose new funding (76%) compared with 61% of moderate or liberal Republicans.
Independents mostly say the US has done enough to help Ukraine (56%) and that they oppose additional funding (55%).
Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the US has already done enough to assist Ukraine.
Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.
Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the US role in Ukraine.
When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).
Most Americans who say the US should be doing more to support Ukraine are in favor of providing assistance in intelligence gathering (75%), military training (68%) and weapons (60%), while among those who say the US has already done enough, only intelligence gathering earns majority support (52%).
A majority of Americans do express concern that Russia’s war in Ukraine will threaten US national security (56%), but that’s down significantly February 2022 (72% were worried about threats to US security then).
......
Republicans broadly say that Congress should not authorize new funding (71%) and that the US has done enough to assist Ukraine (59%). Among Democrats, most say the opposite, 62% favor additional funding and 61% say that the US should do more.
Within both parties, there are splits by ideology. On providing additional funding, liberal Democrats are far and away the most supportive, 74% back it compared with 51% of moderate or conservative Democrats. Among Republicans, about three-quarters of conservatives oppose new funding (76%) compared with 61% of moderate or liberal Republicans.
Independents mostly say the US has done enough to help Ukraine (56%) and that they oppose additional funding (55%).
Alex Ward @alexbward
A belated and not-super-original point, but it *is* always noteworthy how the tenor of the D.C. policy debate around international crises has changed.
Not long ago, it was common to hear theories of military options floated for all kinds of crises. 1/2
Now, from Niger to Sudan to Haiti to Ukraine, the fringe view is to involve U.S. forces directly (aka on the ground and fighting) in foreign conflicts.
Majority today say there's little U.S. military intervention could accomplish, pushing other forms of help.
Big shift. 2/2
https://twitter.com/alexbward/status/1687161384994291718
A belated and not-super-original point, but it *is* always noteworthy how the tenor of the D.C. policy debate around international crises has changed.
Not long ago, it was common to hear theories of military options floated for all kinds of crises. 1/2
Now, from Niger to Sudan to Haiti to Ukraine, the fringe view is to involve U.S. forces directly (aka on the ground and fighting) in foreign conflicts.
Majority today say there's little U.S. military intervention could accomplish, pushing other forms of help.
Big shift. 2/2
https://twitter.com/alexbward/status/1687161384994291718
U.S. Senate OKs Hawley proposal to expand coverage for atomic bomb-related illness to St. Louis
The U.S. Senate voted narrowly Thursday in favor of expanding a program that compensates Americans who become ill because of exposure to radiation from the country’s development and testing of nuclear weapons to cover Missourians.
The proposal, offered by Sen. Josh Hawley, was attached as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes funding levels and sets policy for the Department of Defense...
......
The St. Louis region was pivotal to the development of the bomb during World War II. Workers in downtown St. Louis processed uranium that was used in the first sustained nuclear reaction in Chicago, a major breakthrough of the Manhattan Project.
The development of the bomb still casts a shadow over the region almost 80 years later. Radioactive waste contaminated public lakes and creeks where residents fish and swim. It polluted groundwater and park land. Several sites in St. Louis County still aren’t cleaned up.
Decades later, many St. Louis-area residents believe the radioactive waste is to blame for their rare cancers and autoimmune disorders.
“For decades — decades — they told the people of St. Louis, ‘No problem. There’s no problem here,’” Hawley said. “Meanwhile, children were dying of cancer.”
......
It’s nearly impossible to know with certainty whether a person’s illness stems from exposure to radioactive waste. Expanding the compensation law would make residents eligible so long as they lived in the area during a particular window and developed a covered illness.
U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican who had yet to speak publicly on the recent reports, grew up near a contaminated site in Bridgeton and backed Hawley’s bill. He said he was proud to support the residents who had been harmed.
“Nothing will make them whole, but this is a step,” Schmitt said.
The amendment needed 60 votes to pass. It passed 61-37 without support from Republican leadership.
The U.S. Senate voted narrowly Thursday in favor of expanding a program that compensates Americans who become ill because of exposure to radiation from the country’s development and testing of nuclear weapons to cover Missourians.
The proposal, offered by Sen. Josh Hawley, was attached as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes funding levels and sets policy for the Department of Defense...
......
The St. Louis region was pivotal to the development of the bomb during World War II. Workers in downtown St. Louis processed uranium that was used in the first sustained nuclear reaction in Chicago, a major breakthrough of the Manhattan Project.
The development of the bomb still casts a shadow over the region almost 80 years later. Radioactive waste contaminated public lakes and creeks where residents fish and swim. It polluted groundwater and park land. Several sites in St. Louis County still aren’t cleaned up.
Decades later, many St. Louis-area residents believe the radioactive waste is to blame for their rare cancers and autoimmune disorders.
“For decades — decades — they told the people of St. Louis, ‘No problem. There’s no problem here,’” Hawley said. “Meanwhile, children were dying of cancer.”
......
It’s nearly impossible to know with certainty whether a person’s illness stems from exposure to radioactive waste. Expanding the compensation law would make residents eligible so long as they lived in the area during a particular window and developed a covered illness.
U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican who had yet to speak publicly on the recent reports, grew up near a contaminated site in Bridgeton and backed Hawley’s bill. He said he was proud to support the residents who had been harmed.
“Nothing will make them whole, but this is a step,” Schmitt said.
The amendment needed 60 votes to pass. It passed 61-37 without support from Republican leadership.
Why Canada Is Criminalizing Dissent
he clampdown on free expression in Canada that began during the Covid pandemic shows no signs of abating. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has continued to pursue legislation that accords the state greater control over both new and old media. The latest is a proposal to criminalize “residential-school denialism.” This concept, formulated by academics Daniel Heath Justice and Sean Carleton, encompasses any questioning of the official narrative about the history of Canadian government-sponsored schools for indigenous children, which were run in collaboration with various Christian churches (the last such school closed in 1996).
The phrase “residential-school denialism” obviously suggests an analogy with Holocaust denial, which was outlawed in Canada last year, but no one denies the historical reality of the schools. Instead, what “denialism” refers to here includes everything from doubting the applicability of the term “genocide” to residential schools to highlighting any positive aspects of the schools to placing them in their historical context.
The notion of residential-school denialism has now made its way from academia to the center of Canadian power. In recent months, both Minister of Immigration Marc Miller and Attorney General David Lametti have stated they would take seriously the proposal to add residential-school denialism to the criminal code. This proposal gained momentum in the wake of an international furor around the 2021 discovery of a purported mass grave of indigenous children, detected by ground-penetrating radar, at a school in Kamloops, British Columbia. Well before that, the residential-school system had figured centrally in Canadian politics, with politicians promising action to achieve “reconciliation” with the indigenous population in every recent election. Despite millions spent on commissions, land-claim settlements, and countless other initiatives, the desired reconciliation seems more elusive than ever.
At the time, most Canadians, myself included, assumed that the children whose bodies had supposedly been detected at Kamloops had been summarily buried to conceal brutal maltreatment at the hands of the racist staff of the school. But as time went by, some critically minded people pointed out glaring inconsistencies in the mass-grave story. To date, no human remains have been unearthed from the site, and there is doubt that it is even a graveyard at all.
Regardless, the story has morphed into a shared myth that all Canadians are expected to affirm without question. Some who have refused to do so, like academic Frances Widdowson, have lost their reputation and employment as a result. The proposed addition of “residential-school denialism” to the criminal code is, in effect, an attempt to make dissenting views like Widdowson’s not just career-ending, but illegal.
he clampdown on free expression in Canada that began during the Covid pandemic shows no signs of abating. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has continued to pursue legislation that accords the state greater control over both new and old media. The latest is a proposal to criminalize “residential-school denialism.” This concept, formulated by academics Daniel Heath Justice and Sean Carleton, encompasses any questioning of the official narrative about the history of Canadian government-sponsored schools for indigenous children, which were run in collaboration with various Christian churches (the last such school closed in 1996).
The phrase “residential-school denialism” obviously suggests an analogy with Holocaust denial, which was outlawed in Canada last year, but no one denies the historical reality of the schools. Instead, what “denialism” refers to here includes everything from doubting the applicability of the term “genocide” to residential schools to highlighting any positive aspects of the schools to placing them in their historical context.
The notion of residential-school denialism has now made its way from academia to the center of Canadian power. In recent months, both Minister of Immigration Marc Miller and Attorney General David Lametti have stated they would take seriously the proposal to add residential-school denialism to the criminal code. This proposal gained momentum in the wake of an international furor around the 2021 discovery of a purported mass grave of indigenous children, detected by ground-penetrating radar, at a school in Kamloops, British Columbia. Well before that, the residential-school system had figured centrally in Canadian politics, with politicians promising action to achieve “reconciliation” with the indigenous population in every recent election. Despite millions spent on commissions, land-claim settlements, and countless other initiatives, the desired reconciliation seems more elusive than ever.
At the time, most Canadians, myself included, assumed that the children whose bodies had supposedly been detected at Kamloops had been summarily buried to conceal brutal maltreatment at the hands of the racist staff of the school. But as time went by, some critically minded people pointed out glaring inconsistencies in the mass-grave story. To date, no human remains have been unearthed from the site, and there is doubt that it is even a graveyard at all.
Regardless, the story has morphed into a shared myth that all Canadians are expected to affirm without question. Some who have refused to do so, like academic Frances Widdowson, have lost their reputation and employment as a result. The proposed addition of “residential-school denialism” to the criminal code is, in effect, an attempt to make dissenting views like Widdowson’s not just career-ending, but illegal.
How Bronze Age Pervert Charmed the Far Right
...Last year, at a conference of political philosophers at Michigan State University, a Yale professor named Bryan Garsten told his colleagues that they were in trouble. The topic of the conference was liberalism—not Ted Kennedy liberalism, but the classical version that predates the modern Democratic Party and indeed America itself. Liberalism is the view that individuals have rights and beliefs, and that politics involves safeguarding rights and making compromises when beliefs conflict. It has existed for only a few centuries and is by some measures the most successful idea in history. Just look where people want to live: the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, all liberal places that people will risk their life to reach.
But Garsten said liberalism had some of his best students hopping into rafts and paddling in other intellectual directions. He said they had been “captured” by the belief “that to be morally serious, one faces a choice.” The choice, he said, is not between liberalism and illiberalism. Liberalism had already lost. Its greatest champion, the United States, had run aground after pointless wars, terminal decadence, and bureaucratic takeover by activists and special interests. Garsten said his best students were choosing between the protofascism of Nietzsche and a neomedieval, quasi-theocratic version of Catholicism opposed to Enlightenment liberalism. These students considered liberal democracy an exhausted joke, and they hinted—and sometimes did more than hint—that the past few centuries had been a mistake, and that the mistake should now be corrected.
Some at the conference countered that these illiberals might have just not done their homework. “Your students need to become better readers,” said Diana J. Schaub, a political-science professor at Loyola University Maryland. But Garsten’s illiberal students were good readers...
...Last year, at a conference of political philosophers at Michigan State University, a Yale professor named Bryan Garsten told his colleagues that they were in trouble. The topic of the conference was liberalism—not Ted Kennedy liberalism, but the classical version that predates the modern Democratic Party and indeed America itself. Liberalism is the view that individuals have rights and beliefs, and that politics involves safeguarding rights and making compromises when beliefs conflict. It has existed for only a few centuries and is by some measures the most successful idea in history. Just look where people want to live: the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, all liberal places that people will risk their life to reach.
But Garsten said liberalism had some of his best students hopping into rafts and paddling in other intellectual directions. He said they had been “captured” by the belief “that to be morally serious, one faces a choice.” The choice, he said, is not between liberalism and illiberalism. Liberalism had already lost. Its greatest champion, the United States, had run aground after pointless wars, terminal decadence, and bureaucratic takeover by activists and special interests. Garsten said his best students were choosing between the protofascism of Nietzsche and a neomedieval, quasi-theocratic version of Catholicism opposed to Enlightenment liberalism. These students considered liberal democracy an exhausted joke, and they hinted—and sometimes did more than hint—that the past few centuries had been a mistake, and that the mistake should now be corrected.
Some at the conference countered that these illiberals might have just not done their homework. “Your students need to become better readers,” said Diana J. Schaub, a political-science professor at Loyola University Maryland. But Garsten’s illiberal students were good readers...
Could the U.S. Have Ended World War II With a ‘Demonstration’ Bomb? - WSJ
Some scholars have seen a tragic lost opportunity in Truman’s refusal to make a peace offer before dropping the atomic bomb. Truman’s (and especially Byrnes’s) motivation, they say, was to intimidate the Russians. But the diaries and records of Japanese officials strongly suggest that the Japanese military, which controlled the government, would have regarded a peace offering as a sign of weakness and a further incentive to fight to the death. These men were fanatical but not utterly irrational. By massively bleeding the Americans, the military leaders of Japan hoped they could avoid an American (and possibly Russian) occupation of their nation—not to mention trials for their own war crimes.
In fact, even after the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs—on Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9—the Japanese weren’t prepared to surrender unconditionally. They still demanded that the U.S. allow Emperor Hirohito, whom the Japanese regarded as a deity, to remain sovereign. Japanese military leaders wanted to fight on even after the second bomb fell on Nagasaki, and some officers began fomenting a coup to take over the Imperial Palace.
The American Army Air Force commander in charge of bombing Japan, Gen. Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, suggested dropping a third atomic bomb, this time in the vast area of Tokyo—some 20 square miles—already burned out by American fire-bombing raids in March and May. Spaatz was in effect proposing a demonstration. He wanted Japanese leaders to be in the “scare radius” of the bomb—close enough to see the flash but not so close as to be killed. “It is believed,” he cabled his boss in Washington, Gen. Hap Arnold, “that the psychological effect on the government officials still remaining in Tokio [as he spelled it] is more important at this time than destruction.” In fact, even if dropped on a burned-out area, an atomic bomb would have spread deadly radioactive fallout, a phenomenon not well-understood at the time.
In Washington Spaatz’s idea was initially rejected, but it apparently caught President Truman’s attention. According to a report from the British embassy in Washington, at about noon on Aug. 14, as the Japanese appeared to be dithering over whether to surrender, Truman “remarked sadly” to British officials “that he now had no alternative but to order the atomic bomb dropped on Tokyo.” A third bomb would be ready for delivery by Aug. 20.
Fortunately, a few hours later Truman learned that the Japanese had accepted America’s surrender terms. A small peace faction, led by Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, had finally persuaded the emperor to defy the militarists. Hirohito would remain on the throne, but he would be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, not the other way around.
Some scholars have seen a tragic lost opportunity in Truman’s refusal to make a peace offer before dropping the atomic bomb. Truman’s (and especially Byrnes’s) motivation, they say, was to intimidate the Russians. But the diaries and records of Japanese officials strongly suggest that the Japanese military, which controlled the government, would have regarded a peace offering as a sign of weakness and a further incentive to fight to the death. These men were fanatical but not utterly irrational. By massively bleeding the Americans, the military leaders of Japan hoped they could avoid an American (and possibly Russian) occupation of their nation—not to mention trials for their own war crimes.
In fact, even after the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs—on Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9—the Japanese weren’t prepared to surrender unconditionally. They still demanded that the U.S. allow Emperor Hirohito, whom the Japanese regarded as a deity, to remain sovereign. Japanese military leaders wanted to fight on even after the second bomb fell on Nagasaki, and some officers began fomenting a coup to take over the Imperial Palace.
The American Army Air Force commander in charge of bombing Japan, Gen. Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, suggested dropping a third atomic bomb, this time in the vast area of Tokyo—some 20 square miles—already burned out by American fire-bombing raids in March and May. Spaatz was in effect proposing a demonstration. He wanted Japanese leaders to be in the “scare radius” of the bomb—close enough to see the flash but not so close as to be killed. “It is believed,” he cabled his boss in Washington, Gen. Hap Arnold, “that the psychological effect on the government officials still remaining in Tokio [as he spelled it] is more important at this time than destruction.” In fact, even if dropped on a burned-out area, an atomic bomb would have spread deadly radioactive fallout, a phenomenon not well-understood at the time.
In Washington Spaatz’s idea was initially rejected, but it apparently caught President Truman’s attention. According to a report from the British embassy in Washington, at about noon on Aug. 14, as the Japanese appeared to be dithering over whether to surrender, Truman “remarked sadly” to British officials “that he now had no alternative but to order the atomic bomb dropped on Tokyo.” A third bomb would be ready for delivery by Aug. 20.
Fortunately, a few hours later Truman learned that the Japanese had accepted America’s surrender terms. A small peace faction, led by Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, had finally persuaded the emperor to defy the militarists. Hirohito would remain on the throne, but he would be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, not the other way around.
Western allies receive increasingly ‘sobering’ updates on Ukraine’s counteroffensive
CNN — Weeks into Ukraine’s highly anticipated counteroffensive, Western officials describe increasingly “sobering” assessments about Ukrainian forces’ ability to retake significant territory, four senior US and western officials briefed on the latest intelligence told CNN.
“They’re still going to see, for the next couple of weeks, if there is a chance of making some progress. But for them to really make progress that would change the balance of this conflict, I think, it’s extremely, highly unlikely,” a senior western diplomat told CNN.
“Our briefings are sobering. We’re reminded of the challenges they face,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat who recently returned from meetings in Europe with US commanders training Ukrainian armored forces. “This is the most difficult time of the war.”
The primary challenge for Ukrainian forces is the continued difficulty of breaking through Russia’s multi-layered defensive lines in the eastern and southern parts of the country, which are marked by tens of thousands of mines and vast networks of trenches. Ukrainian forces have incurred staggering losses there, leading Ukrainian commanders to hold back some units to regroup and reduce casualties.
“Russians have a number of defensive lines and they [Ukrainian forces] haven’t really gone through the first line,” said a senior Western diplomat. “Even if they would keep on fighting for the next several weeks, if they haven’t been able to make more breakthroughs throughout these last seven, eight weeks, what is the likelihood that they will suddenly, with more depleted forces, make them? Because the conditions are so hard.”
......
Some officials fear the widening gap between expectations and results will spark a “blame game” among Ukrainian officials and their western supporters, which may create divisions within the alliance which has remained largely intact nearly two years into the war.
“The problem, of course, here is the prospect of the blame game that the Ukrainians would then blame it on us,” said a senior western diplomat.
CNN — Weeks into Ukraine’s highly anticipated counteroffensive, Western officials describe increasingly “sobering” assessments about Ukrainian forces’ ability to retake significant territory, four senior US and western officials briefed on the latest intelligence told CNN.
“They’re still going to see, for the next couple of weeks, if there is a chance of making some progress. But for them to really make progress that would change the balance of this conflict, I think, it’s extremely, highly unlikely,” a senior western diplomat told CNN.
“Our briefings are sobering. We’re reminded of the challenges they face,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat who recently returned from meetings in Europe with US commanders training Ukrainian armored forces. “This is the most difficult time of the war.”
The primary challenge for Ukrainian forces is the continued difficulty of breaking through Russia’s multi-layered defensive lines in the eastern and southern parts of the country, which are marked by tens of thousands of mines and vast networks of trenches. Ukrainian forces have incurred staggering losses there, leading Ukrainian commanders to hold back some units to regroup and reduce casualties.
“Russians have a number of defensive lines and they [Ukrainian forces] haven’t really gone through the first line,” said a senior Western diplomat. “Even if they would keep on fighting for the next several weeks, if they haven’t been able to make more breakthroughs throughout these last seven, eight weeks, what is the likelihood that they will suddenly, with more depleted forces, make them? Because the conditions are so hard.”
......
Some officials fear the widening gap between expectations and results will spark a “blame game” among Ukrainian officials and their western supporters, which may create divisions within the alliance which has remained largely intact nearly two years into the war.
“The problem, of course, here is the prospect of the blame game that the Ukrainians would then blame it on us,” said a senior western diplomat.
The West needs to acknowledge that most countries in this world are the snake in the story of the farmer and the snake. They are idiotic and ungrateful barbarians that will simply bite the hand that feeds them.
Globalisation needs to be ended. Barbarians and civilian needs to be divided
Globalisation needs to be ended. Barbarians and civilian needs to be divided
已隐藏
Ukraine’s top Freedom Caucus ally gets cold feet
ABINGDON, Md. — Standing in front of a PowerPoint presentation on the national debt, Rep. Andy Harris told his constituents it’s about time to wind down direct U.S. aid to Ukraine.
“Is this more a stalemate? Should we be realistic about it? I think we probably should,” Harris (R-Md.) said at a Tuesday night town hall, held at a public library about 75 miles north of Washington.
He said of Ukraine’s springtime offensive that was intended to turn the tide of the war: “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.” And he was blunt, too, about the prospects for a victory ahead: “I’m not sure it’s winnable anymore.”
Why he’s different: Those are not unconventional views for a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, of which Harris is a longtime member. But Harris is also a co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus whose Ukrainian mother fled communist Eastern Europe after World War II.
He remained steadfast in his support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy through the early months of the war and voted for Congress’s big standalone Ukraine aid package last year, backing both military aid and humanitarian aid for the tiny nation in its Goliath-sized fight against Russia.
Harris is also a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, giving him an outsize voice in his party’s spending priorities.
Asked in an interview after the town hall whether he’d support another tranche of aid, he sharply hedged: “If there is humanitarian monies, nonmilitary monies, or military monies without an inspector general, I’m not supporting it.”
A conservative’s qualms: Harris’s new tone on Ukraine aid is one more sign of the GOP’s shifting ground on the issue. And it’s a preview of just how much of a headache the issue will be for Speaker Kevin McCarthy when lawmakers return from recess next month. President Joe Biden is seeking $24 billion more in emergency funds for Ukraine this fall — a request that will need to go through GOP conservatives whose positions on the aid sound a lot like Harris’s.
Among the many concerns Harris laid out: The prospect of fraud or waste. Rising U.S. food prices. The possibility of starting “World War III” by bringing Ukraine into NATO. But most of all — the cost.
ABINGDON, Md. — Standing in front of a PowerPoint presentation on the national debt, Rep. Andy Harris told his constituents it’s about time to wind down direct U.S. aid to Ukraine.
“Is this more a stalemate? Should we be realistic about it? I think we probably should,” Harris (R-Md.) said at a Tuesday night town hall, held at a public library about 75 miles north of Washington.
He said of Ukraine’s springtime offensive that was intended to turn the tide of the war: “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.” And he was blunt, too, about the prospects for a victory ahead: “I’m not sure it’s winnable anymore.”
Why he’s different: Those are not unconventional views for a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, of which Harris is a longtime member. But Harris is also a co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus whose Ukrainian mother fled communist Eastern Europe after World War II.
He remained steadfast in his support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy through the early months of the war and voted for Congress’s big standalone Ukraine aid package last year, backing both military aid and humanitarian aid for the tiny nation in its Goliath-sized fight against Russia.
Harris is also a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, giving him an outsize voice in his party’s spending priorities.
Asked in an interview after the town hall whether he’d support another tranche of aid, he sharply hedged: “If there is humanitarian monies, nonmilitary monies, or military monies without an inspector general, I’m not supporting it.”
A conservative’s qualms: Harris’s new tone on Ukraine aid is one more sign of the GOP’s shifting ground on the issue. And it’s a preview of just how much of a headache the issue will be for Speaker Kevin McCarthy when lawmakers return from recess next month. President Joe Biden is seeking $24 billion more in emergency funds for Ukraine this fall — a request that will need to go through GOP conservatives whose positions on the aid sound a lot like Harris’s.
Among the many concerns Harris laid out: The prospect of fraud or waste. Rising U.S. food prices. The possibility of starting “World War III” by bringing Ukraine into NATO. But most of all — the cost.
>>ABINGDON, Md. — Standing in front of a PowerPoint ...
Cold or hot, feet or hearts, personal feelings seldom shape anything important, or meaningful, whatever the amount of personal sufferings they amount to. For the reason is simple, No one, except those self-claimed 'revolutionary have-nots', will make important decisions based on emotions and impulses alone.
Unfortunately, at the present time, even 'riding with the tide' is more realistic than the 'real stuff'.
A real war will cost more than mere inconveniences, and a proxy war is far more acceptable, either in feelings or in not-very-careful calculations such as winning voters for the time being. This choice alone possibly reflects a non-realistic attitude with strategy forming which may or may not come from lack of confidence and the will to face what is unfolding in reality.
Appealing to the not-very-long time sentiments will not bring in strategic gains in the power game. Let alone only picking those that suit one's political preference.
>>The West needs to acknowledge that most countries ...
Ongoing fact is, Even the West doesn't know what the West really needs. And the Germans and the French sincerely think that feeding venomous snakes biting the US of A is far more acceptable than toeing the line drawn by UncleSam.
Besides, Globalisation certainly is and will be, in the foreseeable future, still on the West menu though.
U.S. intelligence says Ukraine will fail to meet offensive’s key goal - WaPo
The U.S. intelligence community assesses that Ukraine’s counteroffensive will fail to reach the key southeastern city of Melitopol, people familiar with the classified forecast told The Washington Post, a finding that, should it prove correct, would mean Kyiv won’t fulfill its principal objective of severing Russia’s land bridge to Crimea in this year’s push.
The grim assessment is based on Russia’s brutal proficiency in defending occupied territory through a phalanx of minefields and trenches, and is likely to prompt finger pointing inside Kyiv and Western capitals about why a counteroffensive that saw tens of billions of dollars of Western weapons and military equipment fell short of its goals.
......
...in the first week of fighting, Ukraine incurred major casualties against Russia’s well-prepared defenses despite having a range of newly acquired Western equipment, including U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles, German-made Leopard 2 tanks and specialized mine-clearing vehicles.
Joint war games conducted by the U.S., British and Ukrainian militaries anticipated such losses but envisioned Kyiv accepting the casualties as the cost of piercing through Russia’s main defensive line, said U.S. and Western officials.
......
The bleak outlook, briefed to some Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, has already prompted a blame game inside closed-door meetings. Some Republicans are now balking at President Biden’s request for an additional $20.6 billion in Ukraine aid given the offensive’s modest results. Other Republicans and, to a lesser extent, hawkish Democrats have faulted the administration for not sending more powerful weapons to Ukraine sooner.
U.S. officials reject criticisms that F-16 fighter jets or longer-range missile systems such as ATACMS would have resulted in a different outcome. “The problem remains piercing Russia’s main defensive line, and there’s no evidence these systems would’ve been a panacea,” a senior administration official said.
......
Analysts say the challenges Ukraine has faced are multifaceted, but nearly all agree that Russia surpassed expectations when it comes to its proficiency in defending occupied territory.
“The most deterministic factor of how this offensive has gone thus far is the quality of Russian defenses,” said Lee, noting Russia’s use of trenches, mines and aviation. “They had a lot of time and they prepared them very well … and made it very difficult for Ukraine to advance.”
The U.S. intelligence community assesses that Ukraine’s counteroffensive will fail to reach the key southeastern city of Melitopol, people familiar with the classified forecast told The Washington Post, a finding that, should it prove correct, would mean Kyiv won’t fulfill its principal objective of severing Russia’s land bridge to Crimea in this year’s push.
The grim assessment is based on Russia’s brutal proficiency in defending occupied territory through a phalanx of minefields and trenches, and is likely to prompt finger pointing inside Kyiv and Western capitals about why a counteroffensive that saw tens of billions of dollars of Western weapons and military equipment fell short of its goals.
......
...in the first week of fighting, Ukraine incurred major casualties against Russia’s well-prepared defenses despite having a range of newly acquired Western equipment, including U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles, German-made Leopard 2 tanks and specialized mine-clearing vehicles.
Joint war games conducted by the U.S., British and Ukrainian militaries anticipated such losses but envisioned Kyiv accepting the casualties as the cost of piercing through Russia’s main defensive line, said U.S. and Western officials.
......
The bleak outlook, briefed to some Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, has already prompted a blame game inside closed-door meetings. Some Republicans are now balking at President Biden’s request for an additional $20.6 billion in Ukraine aid given the offensive’s modest results. Other Republicans and, to a lesser extent, hawkish Democrats have faulted the administration for not sending more powerful weapons to Ukraine sooner.
U.S. officials reject criticisms that F-16 fighter jets or longer-range missile systems such as ATACMS would have resulted in a different outcome. “The problem remains piercing Russia’s main defensive line, and there’s no evidence these systems would’ve been a panacea,” a senior administration official said.
......
Analysts say the challenges Ukraine has faced are multifaceted, but nearly all agree that Russia surpassed expectations when it comes to its proficiency in defending occupied territory.
“The most deterministic factor of how this offensive has gone thus far is the quality of Russian defenses,” said Lee, noting Russia’s use of trenches, mines and aviation. “They had a lot of time and they prepared them very well … and made it very difficult for Ukraine to advance.”
‘Milley had a point’
The conversation about Ukraine’s counteroffensive has shifted from one of excitement to disappointment, as Kyiv’s slow gains lead some U.S. officials and insiders alike to whisper: Should we have listened to Gen. MARK MILLEY?
In November, the Joint Chiefs chair said Ukraine’s strong military position and upcoming winter season combined to make a good time to consider peace talks. Plus, operations to expel Russian forces out of the whole of Ukraine –— which VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY demands — had a slim chance of success. Administration officials immediately scrambled to assure their counterparts in Kyiv that Milley was riffing and not reflecting a secret sentiment in the White House.
But listen to Milley lately, and you can hear the implicit “I told you so.”
......
While the U.S. still backs Ukraine’s fight, the official said, “We may have missed a window to push for earlier talks.” The official also stressed, however, that few believe Moscow has been at all serious about negotiations since the war’s start. And no senior leader felt then, or feels now, that the counteroffensive was a mistaken play, considering how Ukraine maintains full support from the West and has had remarkable success throughout the war. Still, the official declared: “Milley had a point.”
Another U.S. official said the administration is increasingly asking itself this question: “If we acknowledge we’re not going to do this forever, then what are we going to do?”
The conversation about Ukraine’s counteroffensive has shifted from one of excitement to disappointment, as Kyiv’s slow gains lead some U.S. officials and insiders alike to whisper: Should we have listened to Gen. MARK MILLEY?
In November, the Joint Chiefs chair said Ukraine’s strong military position and upcoming winter season combined to make a good time to consider peace talks. Plus, operations to expel Russian forces out of the whole of Ukraine –— which VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY demands — had a slim chance of success. Administration officials immediately scrambled to assure their counterparts in Kyiv that Milley was riffing and not reflecting a secret sentiment in the White House.
But listen to Milley lately, and you can hear the implicit “I told you so.”
......
While the U.S. still backs Ukraine’s fight, the official said, “We may have missed a window to push for earlier talks.” The official also stressed, however, that few believe Moscow has been at all serious about negotiations since the war’s start. And no senior leader felt then, or feels now, that the counteroffensive was a mistaken play, considering how Ukraine maintains full support from the West and has had remarkable success throughout the war. Still, the official declared: “Milley had a point.”
Another U.S. official said the administration is increasingly asking itself this question: “If we acknowledge we’re not going to do this forever, then what are we going to do?”
George Soros’ Open Society Foundations to lay off 40% of staff under son’s new leadership
NEW YORK (AP) — Several human rights organizations are concerned about Open Society Foundations plans to lay off 40% of their global staff — the nonprofit’s second major cut in three years — as billionaire investor George Soros hands over leadership to his son.
“We are most concerned for social justice movements, which now have to wait for the impact on their sustainability,” said Kellea Miller, executive director of the Human Rights Funders Network. “In the field of philanthropy, decisions at the top can have an outsized ripple effect on those enacting change.”
Open Society Foundations, the umbrella organization for Soros’ charitable work, said its board of directors “approved significant changes to the Foundations’ operating model.” The layoffs will comply with local regulations, the foundations said, but they have not said where or when they will take place.
“This will involve some difficult decisions,” said Mark Arena, a spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations. ”We anticipate that implementing the proposed new model would involve the redesign and retooling of our existing operations, and a substantial reduction in headcount of no less than 40% globally.”
NEW YORK (AP) — Several human rights organizations are concerned about Open Society Foundations plans to lay off 40% of their global staff — the nonprofit’s second major cut in three years — as billionaire investor George Soros hands over leadership to his son.
“We are most concerned for social justice movements, which now have to wait for the impact on their sustainability,” said Kellea Miller, executive director of the Human Rights Funders Network. “In the field of philanthropy, decisions at the top can have an outsized ripple effect on those enacting change.”
Open Society Foundations, the umbrella organization for Soros’ charitable work, said its board of directors “approved significant changes to the Foundations’ operating model.” The layoffs will comply with local regulations, the foundations said, but they have not said where or when they will take place.
“This will involve some difficult decisions,” said Mark Arena, a spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations. ”We anticipate that implementing the proposed new model would involve the redesign and retooling of our existing operations, and a substantial reduction in headcount of no less than 40% globally.”
George Soros foundations to scale back activity in Europe
The donor network founded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros will drastically scale back funding for projects in the EU from 2024 to focus on other parts of the world where civil liberties are being eroded.
Open Society Foundations’ planned shift was detailed in an internal email seen by the Financial Times. It unnerved political observers and civil society groups that have used funding to counter illiberal policies in central and eastern Europe, including Hungary.
“The new approved strategic direction provides for withdrawal and termination of large parts of our current work within the European Union, shifting our focus and allocation of resources to other parts of the world,” OSF wrote.
Given that EU institutions and governments were “already allocating significant resources to human rights, freedom, and pluralism”, OSF would “focus on Europe only in the context of its role in large global issues”.
“Work internal to Europe will be extremely limited,” the email added.
......
Michiel van Hulten, EU director at Transparency International, said OSF was instrumental to European civil society. TI has received about a quarter of its annual finding from OSF.
“Arguably no organisation has done more to strengthen the role of European civil society in the last 30 years than OSF, starting with its groundbreaking work in central and eastern Europe after the fall of communism,” van Hulten told the FT.
“An abrupt departure from Europe at a time when political populism is on the rise and the rule of law is increasingly under threat seems counterintuitive and would risk undoing much of the progress that has been achieved.”
Alberto Alemanno, professor of EU law at HEC Paris, said on the social platform X that with EU elections due in June next year the OSF decision “couldn’t come at worse time for European integration and its civil society . . . Conservative [and] religious right’s philanthropy is ready to fill the gap”.
The donor network founded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros will drastically scale back funding for projects in the EU from 2024 to focus on other parts of the world where civil liberties are being eroded.
Open Society Foundations’ planned shift was detailed in an internal email seen by the Financial Times. It unnerved political observers and civil society groups that have used funding to counter illiberal policies in central and eastern Europe, including Hungary.
“The new approved strategic direction provides for withdrawal and termination of large parts of our current work within the European Union, shifting our focus and allocation of resources to other parts of the world,” OSF wrote.
Given that EU institutions and governments were “already allocating significant resources to human rights, freedom, and pluralism”, OSF would “focus on Europe only in the context of its role in large global issues”.
“Work internal to Europe will be extremely limited,” the email added.
......
Michiel van Hulten, EU director at Transparency International, said OSF was instrumental to European civil society. TI has received about a quarter of its annual finding from OSF.
“Arguably no organisation has done more to strengthen the role of European civil society in the last 30 years than OSF, starting with its groundbreaking work in central and eastern Europe after the fall of communism,” van Hulten told the FT.
“An abrupt departure from Europe at a time when political populism is on the rise and the rule of law is increasingly under threat seems counterintuitive and would risk undoing much of the progress that has been achieved.”
Alberto Alemanno, professor of EU law at HEC Paris, said on the social platform X that with EU elections due in June next year the OSF decision “couldn’t come at worse time for European integration and its civil society . . . Conservative [and] religious right’s philanthropy is ready to fill the gap”.
Ukraine running out of options to retake significant territory - WaPo
Ukraine appears to be running out of options in a counteroffensive that officials originally framed as Kyiv’s crucial operation to retake significant territory from occupying Russian forces this year.
More than two months into the fight, the counteroffensive shows signs of stalling. Kyiv’s advances remain isolated to a handful of villages, Russian troops are pushing forward in the north and a plan to train Ukrainian pilots on U.S.-made F-16s is delayed.
......
Without more advanced weapons slated to bolster the front line or fully committing forces still being held in reserve, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be able to secure a breakthrough in the counteroffensive, according to analysts.
“The question here is which of the two sides is going to be worn out sooner,” said Franz-Stefan Gady, a senior fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Center for New American Security, who visited Ukraine in July. “We shouldn’t expect the achievement of any major military objectives overnight.”
......
However, the window of time for Ukraine to conduct offensive operations is limited. Last year, Ukrainian forces made little progress after recapturing the southern city of Kherson in early November, as inhospitable weather set in.
With its ground forces advancing slowly, Ukraine is using drone strikes to expand its military’s reach as it waits for more advanced munitions and training — including greater air power, said Yuriy Sak, an adviser to Ukraine’s minister of defense.
......
But analysts caution that while the drone attacks can shift attention away from Ukraine’s slow-moving ground counteroffensive, they are unlikely to tip the balance of the war in Kyiv’s favor.
“The Ukrainians just don’t have enough capacity to build enough drones and strike deep inside Russian territory at enough targets to erode Russia’s will to fight,” said Bob Hamilton, a retired U.S. Army colonel and head of research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia Program.
......
Ukraine has been also striking Russian logistical targets with longer-range munitions far from the front line for months, but so far the effect of such strikes has not been reflected on the Russian front line, said Gady, who recently visited Ukraine.
“We know that the Russian position has deteriorated, but it hasn’t deteriorated to the degree where you could expect an imminent collapse,” he said. A campaign of longer-range strikes, also referred to as the “deep battle,” can be described as successful when the opponent’s forces can no longer call on reserve forces or conduct basic support functions like resupply.
Rather than crumble, however, Russian forces are putting up fierce resistance, and even making offensive advances. In northeastern Ukraine, authorities in Kupyansk ordered a mass evacuation of civilians.
Ukraine appears to be running out of options in a counteroffensive that officials originally framed as Kyiv’s crucial operation to retake significant territory from occupying Russian forces this year.
More than two months into the fight, the counteroffensive shows signs of stalling. Kyiv’s advances remain isolated to a handful of villages, Russian troops are pushing forward in the north and a plan to train Ukrainian pilots on U.S.-made F-16s is delayed.
......
Without more advanced weapons slated to bolster the front line or fully committing forces still being held in reserve, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be able to secure a breakthrough in the counteroffensive, according to analysts.
“The question here is which of the two sides is going to be worn out sooner,” said Franz-Stefan Gady, a senior fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Center for New American Security, who visited Ukraine in July. “We shouldn’t expect the achievement of any major military objectives overnight.”
......
However, the window of time for Ukraine to conduct offensive operations is limited. Last year, Ukrainian forces made little progress after recapturing the southern city of Kherson in early November, as inhospitable weather set in.
With its ground forces advancing slowly, Ukraine is using drone strikes to expand its military’s reach as it waits for more advanced munitions and training — including greater air power, said Yuriy Sak, an adviser to Ukraine’s minister of defense.
......
But analysts caution that while the drone attacks can shift attention away from Ukraine’s slow-moving ground counteroffensive, they are unlikely to tip the balance of the war in Kyiv’s favor.
“The Ukrainians just don’t have enough capacity to build enough drones and strike deep inside Russian territory at enough targets to erode Russia’s will to fight,” said Bob Hamilton, a retired U.S. Army colonel and head of research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia Program.
......
Ukraine has been also striking Russian logistical targets with longer-range munitions far from the front line for months, but so far the effect of such strikes has not been reflected on the Russian front line, said Gady, who recently visited Ukraine.
“We know that the Russian position has deteriorated, but it hasn’t deteriorated to the degree where you could expect an imminent collapse,” he said. A campaign of longer-range strikes, also referred to as the “deep battle,” can be described as successful when the opponent’s forces can no longer call on reserve forces or conduct basic support functions like resupply.
Rather than crumble, however, Russian forces are putting up fierce resistance, and even making offensive advances. In northeastern Ukraine, authorities in Kupyansk ordered a mass evacuation of civilians.
F-16 training for Ukrainian pilots faces delays and uncertainty
KYIV, Ukraine — A first group of six Ukrainian pilots is not expected to complete training on the U.S.-made F-16 before next summer, senior Ukrainian government and military officials said, following a series of delays by Western partners in implementing an instruction program for the sophisticated fighter jet.
The timeline reflects the disconnect between Ukraine’s supporters, who envision F-16s as a key tool in the country’s long-term defense, and Kyiv, which has desperately requested that the jets reach the battle space as soon as possible, viewing them as critical for the current fight against occupying Russian forces.
......
Though the pilots are already fluent in English, the officials said, they must first attend four months of English lessons in Britain to learn terminology associated with the jets. That instruction will occur along with ground staff who may be less proficient in English because, according to Ukrainian officials, Denmark requested to train entire crews together rather than just the pilots first. Denmark’s ministry of defense declined to comment.
That pushes back the start of combat training, which is expected to take six months, to January, the Ukrainian officials said. A second group of about the same size would be ready six months after that, or roughly the end of next year.
......
At a NATO leaders’ summit in July, Danish and Dutch officials announced that nine other countries — Britain, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Sweden — were on board and that training would start in August.
Well into August, it is clear that plans are still shaping up. Denmark and the Netherlands are wary of getting into specifics on the scope, scale or timing of the effort.
......
A key challenge, Van de Beek said, is the shortage of F-16 trainers in Europe. The Netherlands, for instance, is in the process of transitioning to the more advanced F-35 and has switched the focus of its training away from F-16s.
“To train a fighter pilot you also need fighter pilots,” Van de Beek said. “That is expensive and a capability that smaller countries don’t have much anymore.” He stressed that training someone to fly an F-16 in combat is a complex task that must proceed step by step. He compared it to learning to drive a car — “first you need to operate the lights and blinkers” he said, “then, you drive it in a parking lot.”
But driving a car in a parking lot — or getting an F-16 in the air for training — does not equip you for battle, he said. The final step will be combat training.
......
“Ukraine only has a handful of pilots that are ready to begin training and roughly two dozen more that they’ve told us need some additional English language training before the pilots can move forward,” the official said.
Those small numbers have raised questions in Washington about how prepared Kyiv is to launch such an ambitious program in the midst of an existential fight.
While the administration has said it will move quickly to approve partner nations’ transfer of the jets to Ukraine once those deals are ready, as required under U.S. law, it has not signaled whether it would potentially conduct F-16 training on U.S. soil at a later date.
KYIV, Ukraine — A first group of six Ukrainian pilots is not expected to complete training on the U.S.-made F-16 before next summer, senior Ukrainian government and military officials said, following a series of delays by Western partners in implementing an instruction program for the sophisticated fighter jet.
The timeline reflects the disconnect between Ukraine’s supporters, who envision F-16s as a key tool in the country’s long-term defense, and Kyiv, which has desperately requested that the jets reach the battle space as soon as possible, viewing them as critical for the current fight against occupying Russian forces.
......
Though the pilots are already fluent in English, the officials said, they must first attend four months of English lessons in Britain to learn terminology associated with the jets. That instruction will occur along with ground staff who may be less proficient in English because, according to Ukrainian officials, Denmark requested to train entire crews together rather than just the pilots first. Denmark’s ministry of defense declined to comment.
That pushes back the start of combat training, which is expected to take six months, to January, the Ukrainian officials said. A second group of about the same size would be ready six months after that, or roughly the end of next year.
......
At a NATO leaders’ summit in July, Danish and Dutch officials announced that nine other countries — Britain, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Sweden — were on board and that training would start in August.
Well into August, it is clear that plans are still shaping up. Denmark and the Netherlands are wary of getting into specifics on the scope, scale or timing of the effort.
......
A key challenge, Van de Beek said, is the shortage of F-16 trainers in Europe. The Netherlands, for instance, is in the process of transitioning to the more advanced F-35 and has switched the focus of its training away from F-16s.
“To train a fighter pilot you also need fighter pilots,” Van de Beek said. “That is expensive and a capability that smaller countries don’t have much anymore.” He stressed that training someone to fly an F-16 in combat is a complex task that must proceed step by step. He compared it to learning to drive a car — “first you need to operate the lights and blinkers” he said, “then, you drive it in a parking lot.”
But driving a car in a parking lot — or getting an F-16 in the air for training — does not equip you for battle, he said. The final step will be combat training.
......
“Ukraine only has a handful of pilots that are ready to begin training and roughly two dozen more that they’ve told us need some additional English language training before the pilots can move forward,” the official said.
Those small numbers have raised questions in Washington about how prepared Kyiv is to launch such an ambitious program in the midst of an existential fight.
While the administration has said it will move quickly to approve partner nations’ transfer of the jets to Ukraine once those deals are ready, as required under U.S. law, it has not signaled whether it would potentially conduct F-16 training on U.S. soil at a later date.
>>Ukraine appears to be running out of options in a ...
The ongoing war is the least surprising thing for the time being.
More equipments, more aids, more DIB investments, more organisational adjustments, more sanctions, more allies and more treaties, everything goes as smooth as it can be, like wiping arse with silk. Even Rheinmetall celebrates the billion € contract for shells.
For all the peace-huggers, what's not to love?
Not progressive enough? Or less funding for being that?
>>The donor network founded by billionaire philanthr...
Historical fact for a Jewish businessman in Weimar: a prominent entrepreneur, an assimilation-promoter and the foreign minister who signed a pact with Soviet Union, two months later assassinated by the right-wing members for Jewish-Communist-Conspiracy, whose death led to a countrywide protest and a state memorial ceremony. Yet despite that, the German society went on, toward a completely opposite direction.
A failed war, didn't then, and will not now, stop that grand trend.
Then and now, guess who's promoting it with every effort?
-------------------------
Tide riders of different epochs, a student of history has to salute your everlasting passion, and take caution beholding that satisfying fixation for a lovely 'change'.
Ukraine’s sluggish counter-offensive is souring the public mood - The Economist
...“The idea of a counter-offensive is bliss when you talk about it from an armchair,” she says. “It’s much harder when you understand that it means darkness, death and despair.”
The public mood is sombre. Criticism of Volodymyr Zelensky, the president, has increased, and the reasons for the dissatisfaction are clear. Having once promised a march to Crimea, occupied and annexed by Russia since 2014, the political leadership in Kyiv now emphasises more realistic expectations.
......
The grim mood is spilling over into Ukraine’s politics, which have been on hold for much of the war. Rumours have circulated all summer that Mr Zelensky’s office may call early parliamentary and presidential elections. The logic is that it is better for him to seek re-election while still a national hero, rather than after being forced into peace talks that might require an unpopular ceasefire or major territorial concessions. “Any election, if it happens, would be a referendum on Zelensky,” says Volodymyr Fesenko, a political analyst. “Apart from [commander-in-chief Valery] Zaluzhny, who is busy running the war, he currently has no obvious competitor. Zelensky’s team understands that could change.”
Conducting an election during a war, with up to 6m Ukrainian citizens living outside the country and hundreds of thousands fighting away from home, would be complex. And martial law precludes elections, meaning parliament would have to approve a change in electoral rules. The talk was initially of holding both elections this autumn, but it is now almost certainly too late for that—indeed, sources close to the presidential office insist the idea has been ruled out. In any case, polling suggests that Mr Zelensky’s team would have trouble persuading citizens of the need for an early vote. “There just isn’t a demand for it,” says Lubomyr Mysyv of Rating, a Kyiv-based sociological group. “The population is confused by the very idea.”
......
Many of Ukraine’s young are, of course, already bearing the burden of a war that has no end in sight. For young men, in constant danger of being served conscription papers and sent to the front, the pressure is particularly intense. Those keen to fight volunteered long ago; Ukraine is now recruiting mostly among the unwilling. “It makes the air so thick that you can actually feel it,” says Ms Zamula. Everyone knows that the cost of regained territory is dead soldiers. “Even hoping for success in the counter-offensive has become an act of self-destruction.”
...“The idea of a counter-offensive is bliss when you talk about it from an armchair,” she says. “It’s much harder when you understand that it means darkness, death and despair.”
The public mood is sombre. Criticism of Volodymyr Zelensky, the president, has increased, and the reasons for the dissatisfaction are clear. Having once promised a march to Crimea, occupied and annexed by Russia since 2014, the political leadership in Kyiv now emphasises more realistic expectations.
......
The grim mood is spilling over into Ukraine’s politics, which have been on hold for much of the war. Rumours have circulated all summer that Mr Zelensky’s office may call early parliamentary and presidential elections. The logic is that it is better for him to seek re-election while still a national hero, rather than after being forced into peace talks that might require an unpopular ceasefire or major territorial concessions. “Any election, if it happens, would be a referendum on Zelensky,” says Volodymyr Fesenko, a political analyst. “Apart from [commander-in-chief Valery] Zaluzhny, who is busy running the war, he currently has no obvious competitor. Zelensky’s team understands that could change.”
Conducting an election during a war, with up to 6m Ukrainian citizens living outside the country and hundreds of thousands fighting away from home, would be complex. And martial law precludes elections, meaning parliament would have to approve a change in electoral rules. The talk was initially of holding both elections this autumn, but it is now almost certainly too late for that—indeed, sources close to the presidential office insist the idea has been ruled out. In any case, polling suggests that Mr Zelensky’s team would have trouble persuading citizens of the need for an early vote. “There just isn’t a demand for it,” says Lubomyr Mysyv of Rating, a Kyiv-based sociological group. “The population is confused by the very idea.”
......
Many of Ukraine’s young are, of course, already bearing the burden of a war that has no end in sight. For young men, in constant danger of being served conscription papers and sent to the front, the pressure is particularly intense. Those keen to fight volunteered long ago; Ukraine is now recruiting mostly among the unwilling. “It makes the air so thick that you can actually feel it,” says Ms Zamula. Everyone knows that the cost of regained territory is dead soldiers. “Even hoping for success in the counter-offensive has become an act of self-destruction.”
>>...“The idea of a counter-offensive is bliss when ...
Historically speaking, the war is NOW expanding, and war machines of more countries are functioning properly as they should be, along with status quo of ECONOMY which is conveniently ignored by experts for the moment. Even a non-player as North Korea has to behave like it's readying. (poor, poor fatty caught in motion)
Public mood rarely can put a stop on that, and public sentiments are far easier to shape and direct toward where it needs to be, as it was done in 1914, 1922, 1930, 1939, 1951, 1960s, 1989, 2001, 2008, 2016, 2020, and 2022, and now, and in the foreseeable future, and in the dig-able past if one's interested.
Sympathy here is surely a double edged sword used as an already failing strategy.
----------------------------------
And most importantly, the 'dormant public' in the eyes of economists are long gone.
Ukraine war: The men who don't want to fight
Ukraine is struggling to meet its demand for soldiers.
Volunteers aren't enough. The country constantly needs to replace the tens of thousands who've been killed or injured. Many more are just exhausted, after 18 months fighting off Russia's full-scale invasion.
Some men though don't want to fight. Thousands have left the country, sometimes after bribing officials, and others are finding ways of dodging recruitment officers, who in turn have been accused of increasingly heavy-handed tactics.
......
President Volodymyr Zelensky has sacked every regional head of recruitment in Ukraine after widespread allegations against officers in the system, including bribe-taking and intimidation.
The family of one military draft chief in Odesa were even accused recently of buying cars and property on Spain's southern coast costing millions of dollars. The officer reportedly denies any knowledge of this.
Defence officials have told the BBC the alleged offences are "shameful and unacceptable".
Mobilisation is why most men under 60 can't leave Ukraine. Thousands often try to sneak out of the country, mostly across the Carpathian mountains to Romania.
For those who stay, mass group chats help them avoid being drafted. Telegram threads give tip-offs on where drafting officers are patrolling. There are chats for different regions and cities across the country, sometimes with more than 100,000 members each.
The officers in these groups are known as Olives, because of the colour of their uniforms. People they encounter are typically handed notices ordering them to register at a recruitment centre, but there are reports of some being taken away on the spot, without a chance to return home.
Ukraine's Defence Ministry urges people to keep their details updated on a national database, and says that if they are called up they'll be sent to a suitable posting.
But there are claims of officers using harsh or intimidating tactics. There are also reports of conscripts finding themselves on the front line with just a month of training.
Ukraine is struggling to meet its demand for soldiers.
Volunteers aren't enough. The country constantly needs to replace the tens of thousands who've been killed or injured. Many more are just exhausted, after 18 months fighting off Russia's full-scale invasion.
Some men though don't want to fight. Thousands have left the country, sometimes after bribing officials, and others are finding ways of dodging recruitment officers, who in turn have been accused of increasingly heavy-handed tactics.
......
President Volodymyr Zelensky has sacked every regional head of recruitment in Ukraine after widespread allegations against officers in the system, including bribe-taking and intimidation.
The family of one military draft chief in Odesa were even accused recently of buying cars and property on Spain's southern coast costing millions of dollars. The officer reportedly denies any knowledge of this.
Defence officials have told the BBC the alleged offences are "shameful and unacceptable".
Mobilisation is why most men under 60 can't leave Ukraine. Thousands often try to sneak out of the country, mostly across the Carpathian mountains to Romania.
For those who stay, mass group chats help them avoid being drafted. Telegram threads give tip-offs on where drafting officers are patrolling. There are chats for different regions and cities across the country, sometimes with more than 100,000 members each.
The officers in these groups are known as Olives, because of the colour of their uniforms. People they encounter are typically handed notices ordering them to register at a recruitment centre, but there are reports of some being taken away on the spot, without a chance to return home.
Ukraine's Defence Ministry urges people to keep their details updated on a national database, and says that if they are called up they'll be sent to a suitable posting.
But there are claims of officers using harsh or intimidating tactics. There are also reports of conscripts finding themselves on the front line with just a month of training.
Investigating the Nord Stream Attack: All the Evidence Points To Kyiv
...DER SPIEGEL, together with German public broadcaster ZDF, assembled a team of more than two dozen journalists to track them down over a period of six months. Their reporting took them around the globe: from the Republic of Moldova to the United States; from Stockholm via Kyiv and Prague to Romania and France. Much of the information comes from sources who cannot be named. It comes from intelligence agencies, investigators, high ranking officials and politicians. And it comes from people who, in one way or another, are directly linked to suspects.
At some point in the reporting, it became clear that the Andromeda had played a critical role, which is why DER SPIEGEL and ZDF chartered the boat once the criminal technicians from the BKA had released it. Together, six reporters followed the paths of the saboteurs across the Baltic Sea to the site of one of the explosions in international waters.
This voyage on its own did not reveal the secrets of the attack, but it made it easier to understand what may have happened and how – what is plausible and what is not. And why investigators have become so convinced that the leads now point in just one single direction. Towards Ukraine.
......
Officially, politicians and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor are still holding back with any conclusions. Currently, it is not possible to say "this was state-controlled by Ukraine," Federal Prosecutor Otte says. "As far as that is concerned, the investigation is ongoing, much of it still undercover."
Behind the scenes, though, you get clearer statements. Investigators from the BKA, the Federal Police and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor have few remaining doubts that a Ukrainian commando was responsible for blowing up the pipelines. A striking number of clues point to Ukraine, they say. They start with Valeri K., IP addresses of mails and phone calls, location data and numerous other, even clearer clues that have been kept secret so far. One top official says that far more is known than has been stated publicly. According to DER SPIEGEL's sources, investigators are certain that the saboteurs were in Ukraine before and after the attack. Indeed, the overall picture formed by the puzzles pieces of technical information has grown quite clear.
And the possible motives also seem clear to international security circles: The aim, they says, was to deprive Moscow of an important source of revenue for financing the war against Ukraine. And at the same time to deprive Putin once and for all of his most important instrument of blackmail against the German government.
......
Few in Berlin want to think right now about what action should be taken if the involvement of Ukrainian state agencies is proven. On the one hand, Germany couldn't simply brush off such a serious crime. But suspending support for Ukraine in its war against Russia also wouldn't be an option. "Everyone is shying away from the question of consequences," says one member of parliament with a party that is a member of the German government coalition.
...DER SPIEGEL, together with German public broadcaster ZDF, assembled a team of more than two dozen journalists to track them down over a period of six months. Their reporting took them around the globe: from the Republic of Moldova to the United States; from Stockholm via Kyiv and Prague to Romania and France. Much of the information comes from sources who cannot be named. It comes from intelligence agencies, investigators, high ranking officials and politicians. And it comes from people who, in one way or another, are directly linked to suspects.
At some point in the reporting, it became clear that the Andromeda had played a critical role, which is why DER SPIEGEL and ZDF chartered the boat once the criminal technicians from the BKA had released it. Together, six reporters followed the paths of the saboteurs across the Baltic Sea to the site of one of the explosions in international waters.
This voyage on its own did not reveal the secrets of the attack, but it made it easier to understand what may have happened and how – what is plausible and what is not. And why investigators have become so convinced that the leads now point in just one single direction. Towards Ukraine.
......
Officially, politicians and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor are still holding back with any conclusions. Currently, it is not possible to say "this was state-controlled by Ukraine," Federal Prosecutor Otte says. "As far as that is concerned, the investigation is ongoing, much of it still undercover."
Behind the scenes, though, you get clearer statements. Investigators from the BKA, the Federal Police and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor have few remaining doubts that a Ukrainian commando was responsible for blowing up the pipelines. A striking number of clues point to Ukraine, they say. They start with Valeri K., IP addresses of mails and phone calls, location data and numerous other, even clearer clues that have been kept secret so far. One top official says that far more is known than has been stated publicly. According to DER SPIEGEL's sources, investigators are certain that the saboteurs were in Ukraine before and after the attack. Indeed, the overall picture formed by the puzzles pieces of technical information has grown quite clear.
And the possible motives also seem clear to international security circles: The aim, they says, was to deprive Moscow of an important source of revenue for financing the war against Ukraine. And at the same time to deprive Putin once and for all of his most important instrument of blackmail against the German government.
......
Few in Berlin want to think right now about what action should be taken if the involvement of Ukrainian state agencies is proven. On the one hand, Germany couldn't simply brush off such a serious crime. But suspending support for Ukraine in its war against Russia also wouldn't be an option. "Everyone is shying away from the question of consequences," says one member of parliament with a party that is a member of the German government coalition.
Do as I say, don't do as I do:
Estonian PM pleads with companies to resist ‘ghost trade’ with Russia
The Estonian prime minister said she had to “plead” with local companies to find a “moral compass” and decline deals that may result in Moscow accessing sanctioned goods.
Kaja Kallas said in an interview that Russia’s lucrative trade circumventing western sanctions was attracting companies in the Baltic states despite the countries’ hawkish stance on the Ukraine war. Her comments come after the Financial Times identified $1bn of such goods having disproportionately passed through the Baltic states, believed to be part of Moscow’s “ghost trade”.
The Estonian leader accused local companies of hypocrisy, telling them: “You are very vocal about . . . Ukraine and Russia and security . . . but in a hidden way . . . you are agreeing [with Moscow]”.
Estonian PM Kaja Kallas urged to clarify husband’s Russian business ties
Estonia’s prime minister Kaja Kallas is under mounting pressure over a scandal involving her husband’s business dealings with Russia as the Baltic country’s president and her coalition partner called for more answers and opposition politicians urged her to resign.
Kallas’s husband Arvo Hallik owns a 25 per cent stake in Stark Logistics, a trucking company that has transported goods that are not under EU sanctions between Estonia and Russia, according to Estonian public broadcaster ERR.
Kallas, who loaned €350,000 to her husband’s investment vehicle that owns the stake, said neither Hallik nor Stark had any customers in Russia but had been helping an Estonian customer end its activities in Russia “in accordance with the law and sanctions”.
The report adds to a growing scandal for Kallas, who emerged as one of the loudest and most influential voices in the west urging ever tougher action against Moscow after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year and calling on EU companies to refrain from trade with Russian businesses.
Estonian PM pleads with companies to resist ‘ghost trade’ with Russia
The Estonian prime minister said she had to “plead” with local companies to find a “moral compass” and decline deals that may result in Moscow accessing sanctioned goods.
Kaja Kallas said in an interview that Russia’s lucrative trade circumventing western sanctions was attracting companies in the Baltic states despite the countries’ hawkish stance on the Ukraine war. Her comments come after the Financial Times identified $1bn of such goods having disproportionately passed through the Baltic states, believed to be part of Moscow’s “ghost trade”.
The Estonian leader accused local companies of hypocrisy, telling them: “You are very vocal about . . . Ukraine and Russia and security . . . but in a hidden way . . . you are agreeing [with Moscow]”.
Estonian PM Kaja Kallas urged to clarify husband’s Russian business ties
Estonia’s prime minister Kaja Kallas is under mounting pressure over a scandal involving her husband’s business dealings with Russia as the Baltic country’s president and her coalition partner called for more answers and opposition politicians urged her to resign.
Kallas’s husband Arvo Hallik owns a 25 per cent stake in Stark Logistics, a trucking company that has transported goods that are not under EU sanctions between Estonia and Russia, according to Estonian public broadcaster ERR.
Kallas, who loaned €350,000 to her husband’s investment vehicle that owns the stake, said neither Hallik nor Stark had any customers in Russia but had been helping an Estonian customer end its activities in Russia “in accordance with the law and sanctions”.
The report adds to a growing scandal for Kallas, who emerged as one of the loudest and most influential voices in the west urging ever tougher action against Moscow after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year and calling on EU companies to refrain from trade with Russian businesses.
>>Do as I say, don't do as I do:The Estonian prime m...
If one does learn history: words do not work in war, unless it works up your enemy.
Which is why all the appeasers, the progressive, the tree-huggers, the open society funders, the equalists, the xeno-philia infected, etc. will step aside when the war begins, without a doubt. Because they cannot even hold their own, no matter the conditions.
For all those who will not toe the line whatever the situation is, their blood will have to be the line.
As Ukraine’s Fight Grinds On, Talk of Negotiations Becomes Nearly Taboo - NYT
Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the secretary general of NATO, recently had his knuckles rapped when he commented on possible options for an end to the war in Ukraine that did not envision a complete Russian defeat.
“I’m not saying it has to be like this, but I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory and get NATO membership in return,” he said during a panel discussion in Norway, according to the country’s VG newspaper. He also said that “it must be up to Ukraine to decide when and on what terms they want to negotiate,” which is NATO’s standard line.
But the damage was done. The remarks provoked an angry condemnation from the Ukrainians; a clarification from his boss, Jens Stoltenberg; and ultimately an apology from Mr. Jenssen.
......
But given that even President Biden says the war is likely to end in negotiations, Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, believes there should be a serious debate in any democracy about how to get there.
Yet he, too, has also been criticized for suggesting that the interests of Washington and Kyiv do not always coincide and that it is important to talk to Russia about a negotiated outcome.
“There is a broad and increasingly widespread sense that what we’re doing now isn’t working, but not much of an idea of what to do next, and not a big openness to discuss it, which is how you come up with one,” he said. “The lack of success hasn’t opened up the political space for an open discussion of alternatives.”
“We’re a bit stuck,” he said.
......
“Trading territory for a NATO umbrella? It is ridiculous,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Mr. Zelensky, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “That means deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy, encouraging a global criminal, preserving the Russian regime, destroying international law, and passing the war on to other generations.”
German officials are eager for a negotiated solution and are talking about how Russia might be brought to the negotiating table, but are only doing so in private and with trusted think tank specialists, said Jana Puglierin, director of the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
“They understand that they can’t push Ukraine in any way, because Russia will smell weakness,” she said.
Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the secretary general of NATO, recently had his knuckles rapped when he commented on possible options for an end to the war in Ukraine that did not envision a complete Russian defeat.
“I’m not saying it has to be like this, but I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory and get NATO membership in return,” he said during a panel discussion in Norway, according to the country’s VG newspaper. He also said that “it must be up to Ukraine to decide when and on what terms they want to negotiate,” which is NATO’s standard line.
But the damage was done. The remarks provoked an angry condemnation from the Ukrainians; a clarification from his boss, Jens Stoltenberg; and ultimately an apology from Mr. Jenssen.
......
But given that even President Biden says the war is likely to end in negotiations, Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, believes there should be a serious debate in any democracy about how to get there.
Yet he, too, has also been criticized for suggesting that the interests of Washington and Kyiv do not always coincide and that it is important to talk to Russia about a negotiated outcome.
“There is a broad and increasingly widespread sense that what we’re doing now isn’t working, but not much of an idea of what to do next, and not a big openness to discuss it, which is how you come up with one,” he said. “The lack of success hasn’t opened up the political space for an open discussion of alternatives.”
“We’re a bit stuck,” he said.
......
“Trading territory for a NATO umbrella? It is ridiculous,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Mr. Zelensky, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “That means deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy, encouraging a global criminal, preserving the Russian regime, destroying international law, and passing the war on to other generations.”
German officials are eager for a negotiated solution and are talking about how Russia might be brought to the negotiating table, but are only doing so in private and with trusted think tank specialists, said Jana Puglierin, director of the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
“They understand that they can’t push Ukraine in any way, because Russia will smell weakness,” she said.
‘Where Is the Money?’ Military Graft Becomes a Headache for Ukraine - NYT
...Just last week, the United States’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, met with three high-ranking Ukrainian officials to discuss efforts to stamp out wartime corruption. It comes as some lawmakers in the United States have used graft as an argument for limiting military aid to Ukraine.
Zelenskyy has responded to the pressure from allies and criticism at home with a flurry of anti-corruption initiatives, not all of them welcomed by experts on government transparency. The most controversial has been a proposal to use martial law powers to punish corruption as treason.
......
...At one point this year, about $980 million in weapons contracts had missed their delivery dates, according to government figures, and some prepayments for weapons had vanished into oversees accounts of weapons dealers, according to reports made to parliament. Though precise details have not emerged, the irregularities suggest that procurement officials in the ministry did not vet suppliers, or allowed weapons dealers to walk off with money without delivering the armaments.
Ukrainian media reports have pointed to overpayments for basic supplies for the army, such as food and winter coats.
The public revelations of mismanagement so far have not directly touched foreign weapons transferred to the Ukrainian army, or Western aid money, but they are nonetheless piercing the sense of unquestioning support for the government that Ukrainians had exhibited throughout the first year of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
......
Ukrainian investigative journalists have highlighted overpayment for basic supplies for the army, like eggs for 17 hryvnia, or 47 cents, each — far above prevailing prices, according to a report in Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, a Ukrainian newspaper. Canned beans were bought from Turkey at more than the price for the same cans in Ukrainian supermarkets, the newspaper reported, even though the military would be expected to purchase at less than retail prices.
The ministry also bought thousands of coats that turned out to be insufficiently insulated for Ukraine’s bitter winters.
Western donors are closely watching how Ukraine tackles the problem, said Anastasia Radina, the chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s anti-corruption committee.
...Just last week, the United States’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, met with three high-ranking Ukrainian officials to discuss efforts to stamp out wartime corruption. It comes as some lawmakers in the United States have used graft as an argument for limiting military aid to Ukraine.
Zelenskyy has responded to the pressure from allies and criticism at home with a flurry of anti-corruption initiatives, not all of them welcomed by experts on government transparency. The most controversial has been a proposal to use martial law powers to punish corruption as treason.
......
...At one point this year, about $980 million in weapons contracts had missed their delivery dates, according to government figures, and some prepayments for weapons had vanished into oversees accounts of weapons dealers, according to reports made to parliament. Though precise details have not emerged, the irregularities suggest that procurement officials in the ministry did not vet suppliers, or allowed weapons dealers to walk off with money without delivering the armaments.
Ukrainian media reports have pointed to overpayments for basic supplies for the army, such as food and winter coats.
The public revelations of mismanagement so far have not directly touched foreign weapons transferred to the Ukrainian army, or Western aid money, but they are nonetheless piercing the sense of unquestioning support for the government that Ukrainians had exhibited throughout the first year of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
......
Ukrainian investigative journalists have highlighted overpayment for basic supplies for the army, like eggs for 17 hryvnia, or 47 cents, each — far above prevailing prices, according to a report in Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, a Ukrainian newspaper. Canned beans were bought from Turkey at more than the price for the same cans in Ukrainian supermarkets, the newspaper reported, even though the military would be expected to purchase at less than retail prices.
The ministry also bought thousands of coats that turned out to be insufficiently insulated for Ukraine’s bitter winters.
Western donors are closely watching how Ukraine tackles the problem, said Anastasia Radina, the chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s anti-corruption committee.
Ukraine to cost half-trillion more if war ends now
...The World Bank has done a revised estimate on reconstruction needs, based on data from the first year of the war (February 2022 to February 2023). The Bank says that Ukraine needs $411 billion for reconstruction over a ten-year period.
That estimate will need to be significantly increased to account for February to August 2023 and beyond. It would make sense to think that even if the war stopped tomorrow, reconstruction aid would come to $600 billion or more, or more than half a trillion dollars.
For purposes of comparison, the war in Iraq featured a reconstruction program of $60 billion. The US also spent $90 billion over twelve years to support Afghanistan (although the war continued in that country.)
......
The US and its allies will need to cough up $60 billion annually to support Ukraine, and expect that a lot of it will be stolen. It will have to keep the funding up for 10 years.
Consider that Germany has committed to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes” at $5 billion annually. But the German government in power is likely to be replaced soon, and that pledge is about as worthless as the Weimar mark.
Likewise, the UK economy is very dodgy, and finding serious money in future will prove a real challenge. The bottom line is that most of the money will have to come from Uncle Sam.
......
When the “big” reconstruction money starts flowing, assuming that happens, political and military officials in Ukraine will enthusiastically help the United States line their pockets.
Ukraine’s corruption was highly visible this month as President Zelensky fired all the military recruiters in the country because they were selling recruitment passes to young men seeking to avoid the war.
Ukraine will end up being the most costly operation ever carried out by the United States. The US Marshall Plan for European reconstruction after World War II cost the United States $13.3 billion. That amount, in 2023 dollars, would be $173 billion, roughly a third of what reconstruction would cost for Ukraine.
...The World Bank has done a revised estimate on reconstruction needs, based on data from the first year of the war (February 2022 to February 2023). The Bank says that Ukraine needs $411 billion for reconstruction over a ten-year period.
That estimate will need to be significantly increased to account for February to August 2023 and beyond. It would make sense to think that even if the war stopped tomorrow, reconstruction aid would come to $600 billion or more, or more than half a trillion dollars.
For purposes of comparison, the war in Iraq featured a reconstruction program of $60 billion. The US also spent $90 billion over twelve years to support Afghanistan (although the war continued in that country.)
......
The US and its allies will need to cough up $60 billion annually to support Ukraine, and expect that a lot of it will be stolen. It will have to keep the funding up for 10 years.
Consider that Germany has committed to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes” at $5 billion annually. But the German government in power is likely to be replaced soon, and that pledge is about as worthless as the Weimar mark.
Likewise, the UK economy is very dodgy, and finding serious money in future will prove a real challenge. The bottom line is that most of the money will have to come from Uncle Sam.
......
When the “big” reconstruction money starts flowing, assuming that happens, political and military officials in Ukraine will enthusiastically help the United States line their pockets.
Ukraine’s corruption was highly visible this month as President Zelensky fired all the military recruiters in the country because they were selling recruitment passes to young men seeking to avoid the war.
Ukraine will end up being the most costly operation ever carried out by the United States. The US Marshall Plan for European reconstruction after World War II cost the United States $13.3 billion. That amount, in 2023 dollars, would be $173 billion, roughly a third of what reconstruction would cost for Ukraine.
Defence Ministry amends order on military medical commissions, expanding limits of fitness for service
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has approved a new Schedule of Medical Conditions, which is used to assess fitness for military service and regulate the service of those with limited fitness.
Source: Ukrainian Military Pages, referring to the Defence Ministry Order No. 490; Defence Ministry Order No. 402
Details: Amendments to the Regulation on Military Medical Examination in the Armed Forces (Order of the Ministry of Defence No. 402) were introduced by Order of the Ministry of Defence No. 490 dated 18 August 2023, and entered into force on 25 August.
......
Previously, paragraph 20.4 of Section III of the Regulations stipulated that in wartime, under the articles of the Schedule of Medical Conditions that provide for the options of individual assessment of fitness or limited fitness for service, a military medical commission should make a decision of "fit for military service", with the exception of articles 2c, 4-c, 5-c, 12-c, 13-c, 14-c, 17-c, 21-c and 22-c.
Now, the words and figures "with the exception of articles 2-c, 4-c, 5-c, 12-c, 13-c, 14-c, 17-c, 21-c and 22-c" have been removed from the Regulation, i.e. everyone will be recognised as fit under the "controversial" articles:
2-c – clinically treated tuberculosis;
4-c – viral hepatitis with minor functional impairment;
5-c – asymptomatic HIV carrier;
12-c - slowly progressive and non-progressive with minor functional impairment and rare exacerbations of anaemia, blood clotting disorders, purpura, haemorrhagic conditions, other diseases of the blood and haematopoietic organs, and some disorders involving the immune mechanism;
13-c - diseases of the endocrine system with minor functional disorders;
14-c - mild, short-term, painful manifestations of mental disorders;
17-c - neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders with moderate or short-term manifestations, with an asthenic state;
21-c – slowly progressive diseases of the central nervous system with minor functional disorders;
22-c – episodic and paroxysmal disorders, except for epilepsy, with minor impairment of organ and system functions.
As for those with limited fitness, from now on, simultaneously with the regulation on limited fitness for military service, a military medical commission must make a decision on the fitness of a serviceman for service in a specific military specialism (SMS).
......
...Zelenskyy announced that the system of determining fitness for military service must be reassessed to make it easier for commanders to recruit soldiers for combat missions and to prevent the concept of limited fitness from being manipulated.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has approved a new Schedule of Medical Conditions, which is used to assess fitness for military service and regulate the service of those with limited fitness.
Source: Ukrainian Military Pages, referring to the Defence Ministry Order No. 490; Defence Ministry Order No. 402
Details: Amendments to the Regulation on Military Medical Examination in the Armed Forces (Order of the Ministry of Defence No. 402) were introduced by Order of the Ministry of Defence No. 490 dated 18 August 2023, and entered into force on 25 August.
......
Previously, paragraph 20.4 of Section III of the Regulations stipulated that in wartime, under the articles of the Schedule of Medical Conditions that provide for the options of individual assessment of fitness or limited fitness for service, a military medical commission should make a decision of "fit for military service", with the exception of articles 2c, 4-c, 5-c, 12-c, 13-c, 14-c, 17-c, 21-c and 22-c.
Now, the words and figures "with the exception of articles 2-c, 4-c, 5-c, 12-c, 13-c, 14-c, 17-c, 21-c and 22-c" have been removed from the Regulation, i.e. everyone will be recognised as fit under the "controversial" articles:
2-c – clinically treated tuberculosis;
4-c – viral hepatitis with minor functional impairment;
5-c – asymptomatic HIV carrier;
12-c - slowly progressive and non-progressive with minor functional impairment and rare exacerbations of anaemia, blood clotting disorders, purpura, haemorrhagic conditions, other diseases of the blood and haematopoietic organs, and some disorders involving the immune mechanism;
13-c - diseases of the endocrine system with minor functional disorders;
14-c - mild, short-term, painful manifestations of mental disorders;
17-c - neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders with moderate or short-term manifestations, with an asthenic state;
21-c – slowly progressive diseases of the central nervous system with minor functional disorders;
22-c – episodic and paroxysmal disorders, except for epilepsy, with minor impairment of organ and system functions.
As for those with limited fitness, from now on, simultaneously with the regulation on limited fitness for military service, a military medical commission must make a decision on the fitness of a serviceman for service in a specific military specialism (SMS).
......
...Zelenskyy announced that the system of determining fitness for military service must be reassessed to make it easier for commanders to recruit soldiers for combat missions and to prevent the concept of limited fitness from being manipulated.
>>The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has approved a n...
Obviously, lack of mental fitness for war is a bigger problem than medical conditions.
For now, there are already 20,000+ Ukrainian men been stopped from leaving the country, and papers excluding you from military duty cost more than 10,000 US dollar each.
For Russia, that kind of numbers can only be much higher. Fortunately for Mr. Putin, and presumably for Mr. Winnie in the future, they don't suffer the lack of low class population.
I think President Zelenskyy should open the official channel selling those papers at a much higher price, probably charging at 80% of personal wealth with a base line price, whichever is higher, or even ask those rich families to take up extra loans for not enlisting their sons. Squeezing with a personal hope, that can be much more productive for Ukraine's military mobilization.
Comparing to the 'big bang' of McCarthy ousted, I find that something else far more impactful, even long after its due.
Anybody remember the 'Robinhood Glitch'?
Robinhood inc., after years of 'being investigated', finally settled its 'operational deficiency' charges with a $10.2M fine this year.
----------------------------------
If one cannot see the problem deep down to the 'bone marrow' within Uncle Sam of A being revealed by this 'consequence of misbehaving', then its message is certainly not for you.
I, personally, almost feels at home (in China) watching a state-operating broker being 'punished for deeds against the customers'.
Anybody remember the 'Robinhood Glitch'?
Robinhood inc., after years of 'being investigated', finally settled its 'operational deficiency' charges with a $10.2M fine this year.
----------------------------------
If one cannot see the problem deep down to the 'bone marrow' within Uncle Sam of A being revealed by this 'consequence of misbehaving', then its message is certainly not for you.
I, personally, almost feels at home (in China) watching a state-operating broker being 'punished for deeds against the customers'.
Today's BANG!
Arrests at banned pro-Palestinian rally in Paris as Macron calls for calm
WOW!
Since when, that supporting-Islamic-thing is no longer a thing in France? And Paris?
That title, for me, feels much louder than a 155mm shell hitting its mark.
-------------------------------------
Shall we celebrate the 'successful turning-back' of France?
Maybe, but I still feel it is too late for the Fifth Republic, for there is no way to avoid that '30% Islamic Population' future now.
At least, NOT possible for the ongoing routine.
Arrests at banned pro-Palestinian rally in Paris as Macron calls for calm
WOW!
Since when, that supporting-Islamic-thing is no longer a thing in France? And Paris?
That title, for me, feels much louder than a 155mm shell hitting its mark.
-------------------------------------
Shall we celebrate the 'successful turning-back' of France?
Maybe, but I still feel it is too late for the Fifth Republic, for there is no way to avoid that '30% Islamic Population' future now.
At least, NOT possible for the ongoing routine.