I could do something popular and give you a You Tube of the Eagles song….but why it would not add anything to the post.
The US has been throwing money and equipment at Ukraine for about a year now…..Russia is said to be losing its hold on the country…..then we are told that ….well we are told a lot of things and some believe every word of it….I am not one of those mindless minions.
Some of us are asking ‘how will this end’?
I have seen and read many opinions on the Ukraine/Russia conflict….do not get me wrong I do not disqualify anyone’s thoughts on this conflict and there is a wealth of these….but few have any answers to the deeper questions.
My interest in international relations lets me read many report and white papers on different subjects…..so when I read a white paper issued by the RAND surprised me since this think tank is mostly funded by the M-IC…the study says something that seems to contradict all the promises made on this war.
The RAND Corporation issued a new report that warns against a “protracted conflict” in Ukraine and says a prolonged war is against US interests, breaking from the view of many hawks in Washington that the US should support the fight against Russia for the long term.
RAND is funded directly by the US military and often shapes US policies, including hawkish ones toward Moscow. A 2019 report titled “Extending Russia” examined the risks and benefits of ways the US could try to “extend” Russia, and many of those policies have been implemented, including the provision of “lethal aid” to Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, and “hindering” the country’s gas and oil exports.
The new report from RAND titled “Avoiding a Long War” examines the risks of the current conflict and acknowledges a protracted conflict heightens the risk of nuclear war.
A summary of the new report reads: “Discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington is increasingly dominated by the question of how it might end. To inform this discussion, this Perspective identifies ways in which the war could evolve and how alternative trajectories would affect US interests. The authors argue that, in addition to minimizing the risks of major escalation, US interests would be best served by avoiding a protracted conflict.”
The authors say the war in Ukraine makes it harder for the US to focus on its efforts to prepare for a future conflict with China. “The US ability to focus on its other global priorities — particularly, competition with China — will remain constrained as long as the war is absorbing senior policymakers’ time and US military resources,” the report reads.
The report says that the major risk of a long war in Ukraine is that there would be “a prolonged elevated risk of Russian nuclear use and a NATO-Russia war.” It says that “avoiding these two forms of escalation is the paramount US priority.”
When it comes to Ukraine retaking more of the territory that Russia captured, the report says this is only a “less significant benefit” and that “avoiding a long war is also a higher priority for the United States than facilitating significantly more Ukrainian territorial control.” It places “weakening Russia” as a greater benefit to the US than Ukrainian gains, but still not worth the risk of a long war.
The report recognizes that there is currently little hope for peace talks and suggests that the US could “condition future military aid on a Ukrainian commitment to negotiations.” Another suggestion to foster negotiations is for the US to establish conditions for sanctions relief for Russia. The authors acknowledge the Biden administration has made no effort to push the warring sides toward peace talks.
The conclusion says that due to the political situation in the US, a “dramatic shift” in US policy toward Ukraine is unlikely. But the authors say that “developing these instruments now and socializing them with Ukraine and with US allies might help catalyze the eventual start of a process that could bring this war to a negotiated end in a time frame that would serve US interests.”
Will all the West’s support for Ukraine help end this event?
I say no it will not and I am not alone……
American and European officials now assess that time is on Russia’s side, according to the Wall Street Journal. Washington and its Western allies transferred billions in weapons to Kiev under the mistaken belief it would force Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate.
“Officials in some capitals now fear the Kremlin…could gain the upper hand in any lengthy war of attrition,” the outlet reported on Sunday. Adding, there is “a worry in some Western capitals that time might be on Russia’s side.”
The Journal spoke with Western officials who believed the massive military aid packages that members of the NATO alliance provided Kiev would break the Kremlin’s resolve. However, Moscow has weathered Western economic sanctions and a fall offensive by Ukrainian forces. Moreover, Russian soldiers are now on the offensive.
Questions. There are always questions and as usual few answers.
The West sent aid then it sent artillery then it will be tanks and what will be next?
So far, the Biden administration has described this as a “red line,” and West European diplomats have expressed private “concern.” But given that one NATO weapon after another that was previously seen as absolutely tabooed has been supplied since the Russian invasion began, Ukrainian officials have good reason for expressing confidence that the Biden administration and NATO will sooner or later agree to this.
If it is correct that several recent Russian missile strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure have been launched from long-range Tupolev bombers flying over Russian territory, then if the Ukrainian armed forces receive fighters capable of shooting them down, there is little reason to think they will not do so. They would indeed be perfectly within their rights. Whether it carries an acceptable level of risk, however, is another matter.
There are a couple of curious features about this progressive escalation of Western military aid to Ukraine; ironic in one case, extremely dangerous in the other. The first is that when Russia invaded almost a year ago, and most NATO military analysts predicted a sweeping Russian victory, there was no official talk of heavy weapons for Ukraine — and indeed, the Ukrainian forces stopped and turned back the Russian advance with a combination of their own courage and grit with light Western infantry weapons: Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.
First artillery, then tanks, then warplanes, then what?
Next will be long range missiles (that should be a hoot)….
The US is preparing another major escalation of military aid to Ukraine as Reuters reports the next arms package will include rockets that have a range of 94 miles, almost double the range of the munitions Ukraine was provided for the HIMARS rocket systems.
Citing two unnamed US officials, Reuters said that the US will provide Ukraine with the longer-range Boeing-made Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) for the first time as part of an over $2 billion arms package that could be announced as soon as this week.
None of this sounds like there is any inclination to find a solution for this situation….
As the war in Ukraine nears the end of its first year, Americans are starting to believe Washington is sending too much support to Kiev. Pew Research conducted a poll in January and found the number of Republicans that are opposed to the current level of support for Ukraine is now 40%. The U.S. has pledged well over $100 billion in aid to Kiev, mostly in arms and military equipment.
In March 2022, Pew reported 49% of Republican voters believed the US was not giving enough aid to Ukraine and only 9% responded that Washington was sending too much support to Kiev. Those numbers have now nearly reversed with 40% saying there is too much support for Kiev, while only 17% said the Joe Biden administration is not doing enough for Ukraine.
Democratic voters have had a far slower, but a similar trend. In the early months of the war, only 5% of blue voters believed Washington was sending too much aid; that number has grown to 15%. However, Pew’s poll conducted in 2023 found nearly a quarter of Democrats want the White House to do more, up three percentage points from the September results.
The Pew results reflect polls conducted by Morning Consult and Concerned Veterans for America in September. The surveys found a growing number of Americans opposed to giving more aid to Ukraine, led by Republican voters.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
4 thoughts on “The Long Run”
How will it end? It will end in a similar manner as this one: the first Chechen war humiliated post-Soviet Russia, exposed its weakness, strengthened hard-liners and enabled the rise of Vladimir V. Putin. So who will follow Putin?
Good question….one that few people ask for it is not in the news and they could care less. chuq
I have seen Russia expend herself in a few wars in my lifetime and it always ends with them retreating in the end after having wasted herself on the battlefields. They still fight their wars with world war i tactics and techniques.
But that ism what we want…a long war…makes Pentagon happy….makes M-IC happy and will make Zelensky happy….it is a win win . chuq