More On Expeditionary War; A Moral Reckoning For The West

Yesterday we were discussing the difficulty—probably even the impossibility—of waging an expeditionary war against anything like a peer opponent. Expeditionary wars—what US strategist like to refer to as “power projection”, in which our military travels great distances to threaten or to kill people—can be somewhat successful in certain circumstances. For example, against overmatched or “third world” militaries. However, in the current state of military science, the logistical problems for the US of transporting its military forces overseas against active peer opposition are daunting, at the least. This is why the US is waging a proxy war against Russia—a face to face war of the US against Russia would be a disaster for the US. There’s nothing noble about what’s going on. America has conned Ukraine’s power elite into sacrificing its country for interests that are unique to a certain class of Americans.

Yesterday we recommended a substack that discussed this conundrum of empire in some detail:

The End of Power Projection?

We can't get there from here, anymore.

Today I’ll recommend a substack by Will Schryver on the same topic. Schryver has, in my opinion, been one of the most perceptive commentators on the American war on Russia—at least as regards the Ukraine aspect of that war. It was from Schryver that I got the link to the “End of Power Projection” article. Schryver’s new article doesn’t add much if anything to the analysis, but it does state openly the conclusions that we should all be considering—because those conclusions go very much against the common assumptions of most Americans since the end of the Cold War.

Staggering Towards the Abyss

General Mark Milley — a man who knew but said nothing as his country slouched towards Armageddon.

Here’s the heart of Schryver’s view:

I have long asserted, and I continue to be convinced, that the US could NOT establish air superiority against Russia, China, nor even Iran — not in a week; not in a year. Never. It simply could not be done. It would be a logistical power projection challenge well beyond the current capabilities of the United States military.

…

American suppression of enemy air defenses would prove woefully inadequate to the task.

And even if any of the US's aerial wunderwaffen were to prove, in ideal circumstances, to be potent weapons, US air power as a theater-wide undertaking could not be sustained in the context of a non-permissive regional and global battlefield.

In a high-intensity combat scenario in either eastern Europe, the China seas, or the Persian Gulf, the maintenance requirements for US aircraft could not be met. ...

The US would, quite literally after only a few days, see sub-10% mission-capable rates for the F-22 and F-35, and sub-25% rates for almost every other platform in the inventory.

…

And this is hardly hyperbole. It is more or less common knowledge among those who think about these aspects of war — the only aspects that really matter in the final analysis.

…

Russian and Chinese submarines and long-range anti-ship missile systems would wreak havoc on US seaborne logistics.

I emphasize: The US could not fight an overseas war in a non-permissive environment against a peer adversary. It doesn't have the means, let alone the experience and competence, to do so.

In eastern Europe, Russia would savage NATO bases and supply routes. The Baltic and Black seas would effectively become Russian lakes where NATO shipping could not move.

In the China seas, US carrier strike groups and amphibious assault formations would be subject to massive and relentless attacks from the air and the sea.

Against Iran, the Persian Gulf would become an Iranian pond in which Iran controlled both ingress and egress via the Strait of Hormuz, even as Iranian missile strikes devastated US bases throughout the region.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the people who know—or should know—better to raise these issues publicly in the coming electoral campaigns. WW2, the Cold War, the faux-triumphalist years of the New World Order of Dubya and Obama—all that’s in the past. America needs to redefine itself for the new multi-polar world.

---

Part of that redefinition should involve a moral stock taking of the role the US has played in that previous global order. America has operated as an international criminal for decades, causing untold suffering. That’s not simply my word of choice. As you’ll see below, it’s the word used by Michael Vlahos, who is a professor of strategy at the Naval War College and is appalled at what he’s seeing. We’ll get into Vlahos’ views in a moment, but to establish some moral perspective it’s worth recalling Madeline Albright’s words regarding the suffering the US has inflicted. Bear in mind that Albright is, of course, lying—just like so many of our ruling class routinely do to this day:

Albright was a long time and highly honored member of our Power Elite. I had occasion to refer to her multiple times at the height of the Russia Hoax. She epitomizes what could be called the literal de-moralization of America’s Ruling Class and, to a shocking extent, of the American people.

So, turning to Michael Vlahos. This transcript is from a 23 minute presentation that Vlahos made on the John Batchelor show:

What Creates A Defeated Army

Vlahos is discussing what it takes for an army to “break”. Here are his words that more or less define that concept, taken from his tweet promoting the show:

When Armies Break. Listen to the longer prognosis for Ukraine

"What makes for defeat in a war? One of the most critical elements that will lead to defeat is an army breaking. Because when armies break, wars end. Here we don’t mean individual armies … but rather the whole military enterprise of a nation, its armed forces … how does a nation get to a place where its fighters collectively refuse to go on, refuse to fight?

"I think this is the actual question that needs to be addressed about Ukraine today. Part of what breaks is the result of attrition, and I think attrition is noted, in terms of losses and casualties, but it is not fully understood … Attrition is not simply casualties, it is also the tremendous trauma that goes hand in hand with death in battle, and that trauma is extended to those who survive battle.”

Vlahos’ considered view—and bear in mind that he is undoubtedly privy to reliable information—is that Ukraine’s military is nearing that breaking point. He discusses this from an historical perspective, considering armies that broke or didn’t break, looking at casualties as a percentage of population, etc.

I’ll skip most of that because what interests me most is the moral dimension of the American role in conning Ukraine into self destruction. Vlahos gets into that in the last third of his presentation, and if you think my words are too sharp, too strong, read what Vlahos has to say and ask whether my own words are simply restating in bald terms what Vlahos is really saying. If you listen I think you’ll say how distressed Vlahos is by what’s going on. He’s distressed not only at the sheer criminality of it all, but also—and rightly so—at the way our de-moralized ruling class is forfeiting the moral authority that the West has, in the past, claimed to possess. I agree. I take no joy in the loss of moral authority, but hope for a reckoning.

14:50

The Vilnius [NATO] summit was an eye opener--for Ukraine and, especially, for the army of Ukraine. What they saw at the Vilnius summit, which was just revealed by a WSJ article, is that the NATO and the US knew full well that they were not giving Ukraine enough weapons for them to win even modest tactical victories. We went ahead anyway and pushed them to unleash their offensive. We hoped--as the French hoped in 1914, with their concept of elan vital, that French fighting spirit would overcome German guns. They lost 250k men in the first 3-4 weeks. Ukraine has been urged by NATO to do the same thing, with the hope that somehow their elan vital would overcome Russian mines, Russian guns, Russian drones, and artillery.

And so Ukrainians in the army are now increasingly restive. Not only do they now know that NATO was using them--and they would never get to be part of NATO--and now they're getting the feeling that they're being used by their superior officers and the national leadership, who are making millions--if not billions--off the US. The NYT admitted that over 30% of all weapons we've sent to Ukraine have been filched and stolen on the black market--sent out from Ukrainian ports to the whole world for billions of dollars. The billions that we're spending to fund pension relief for Ukrainians--how much of that has been sidelined and sequestered for the machers who run the state today? Not just the oligarchs but people like their own leader, Zelensky. How much has he made? Some people claim that he's already a billionaire.

This is a situation that is ripe for disaster. One of the things that happened in Italy in WW1, as a result of the flagrant sacrifice of Italians for nothing--for example, in the twelves battles of the Isonzo, throwing hundreds of thousands of Italians against mountains filled with Austrian machine guns--the Italian state essentially collapsed *after* the war. Why do you think Mussolini was able to make his march on Rome? The Italian ruling class and their establishment collapsed, because of the sacrifice in the war that was made for nothing, in the estimation of those men who served in the army.

I think this is very close to where Ukraine is going. And you have to remember, when we reckon Ukrainian casualties and the percentage that I've cited--500k irreplaceable casualties--when I say that those casualties are 2.5% of the Ukrainian population, I'm talking about the actual Ukrainian population in Ukraine, which is about 20 million, and I've talked about this before and gone through all of the data. Ukraine is a shrunken country. And for a country that's smaller than Taiwan and only a little bit bigger than the Netherlands [in terms of population], to have lost half a million in irreplaceable casualties is a crime.

Morally and ethically the West--NATO, the US--has suborned Ukraine to fight a war not only that it cannot win but one which will destroy Ukraine in and of itself, no matter how much territory it possesses at the end of the war. It is, as John Mearsheimer puts it, "wrecked." And this is, in effect, a crime of statesmanship. And it is already accomplished. We've destroyed Ukraine's future.

And I have to say, if their losses continue for much longer, before the army breaks finally and reaches the level of what France suffered in WW1--remember, France was a nation of 39 million people in 1914; in 1940 it was a nation of 39 million. Ukraine is not as well positioned for the future as France was at the end of WW1. In other words, France did not grow for 25 years. Ukraine will continue to *shrink.* It's best people have left. They're in the EU, or in Russia, or in the territories taken by Russia. What's left of Ukraine is very old and is a shrinking proposition. This is a terrible thing to have done, and so the exploitation of Ukraine by the West will undercut the West's reputation and its capacity to act with authority at any time in the future.

21:20

Will the American people wake up and revolt against the ruling class that has perpetrated these unspeakable crimes in our name? Such an awakening is what Alastair Crooke believes we’re starting to see in both the Trump and RFK campaigns. Where it will ultimately lead …