War Roundup 5/6/24

There’s been a flood of commentary on the war on Russia over the last week or so. Two articles by former DoD official Stephen Bryen are receiving quite a bit of discussion. I would characterize Bryen as generally Neoconnish, but he is also considered to be a straight shooter, especially with regard to the war on Russia. The most recent article, dated May 4, discusses the deployment of French Foreign Legion combat troops to the Ukrainian front lines—specifically, Slavyansk. Legionnaires are generally not French citizens, but they are commanded by French officers.

France sends combat troops to Ukraine: Russian report

Will the deployment of a Foreign Legion unit commanded by French officers trigger a wider European war?

I won’t go into the details, except to state that Bryen—and no doubt the Russians—sees this move as extremely provocative and that this deployment has not been approved by NATO. Doug Macgregor and others have stated that already 6 of the Legionnaires have been killed—the first of many.

A somewhat older article, dated April 26, is perhaps more alarming:

NATO starts deploying troops as Russia races to win

The plan to try and ward off disaster seems to be to fill in gaps in Ukraine’s forces by importing ‘advisors’

The basic idea is one that I disagree with, at least in part. Bryen’s idea is that the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine is setting the world on the slippery slope to World War III. The funding for WW3, at least for starters, is now in place and if Zhou is reelected the path to sending US troops is clear. Therefore, says Bryen, Russia is racing to win in order to head of WW3. The part I disagree with is the claim that Russia is “racing” to win. Every reliable commentator I’ve listened to or read maintains that, while there are indications of a Russian offensive to come, so far Russia continues on course with its war of attrition. Macgregor, speaking with Danny Davis, pointed out that the Russians have, indeed, made several “breakthroughs” in the Ukrainian lines, but they have not exploited those breakthroughs aggressively.

Here are some excerpts from Bryen’s article, which is definitely worth reading in its entirety:

NATO is putting out the word these are not combat soldiers but are in Ukraine to operate sophisticated western hardware. But if they are firing at the Russians the only proper way to interpret their presence is that they are playing an active part in the shooting war.

More or less this is the same pattern that the US used when it sent “advisors” to Vietnam.  In fact, they were US Special Forces who engaged in combat.

The Biden administration, at least for public consumption, says it opposes sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine. But Biden in truth may be waiting for his reelection before he gives the order for US soldiers to fight in Ukraine. After Biden is reelected, he will have a free hand. The recent passage of the $60 billion air bill for Ukraine signals that Congress will go along with whatever the Biden administration wants to do “fighting the Russians.”

…

The Russians know what is going on and they are targeting foreign forces while also grinding down Ukrainian fighting units, inflicting heavy casualties. …

…

A report on training of Ukrainian F-16 pilots also is revealing. According to some of the western officers working with the Ukrainians, progress even after a year teaching pilots to operate F-16s has been less than a success. Language barriers and unfamiliarity with western systems and combat tactics, has proven to slow the learning process. Rumors have it that when the F-16s finally begin arriving in Ukraine this summer, the planes are likely to be handled by “retired” pilots from European air forces.

NATO’s plan to try and ward off disaster seems to be to fill in gaps in Ukraine’s forces by importing “advisers,” waiting for the US to commit its army to the battle after the election in November. The Russians know this and are in a race to try and collapse Ukraine’s army before Biden returns to office, if in fact he does.  If the Russians are successful, a bigger war in Europe will be avoided. If not, with the introduction of US forces, Europe will be plunged into World War III.

Two comments.

First, Macgregor and Davis are of the view that the Ukrainian collapse could come much sooner than the conventional wisdom (which forecasts an October collapse) supposes. They argue that the scale of Ukrainian losses and munition and manpower deficits make continued operations almost impossible. Macgregor also maintains that the Russians will take both Kharkov and Odessa.

Second, Bryen’s claim that NATO personnel will be piloting any F-16s sent to Ukraine appears to be well founded, and is very disturbing. F-16s are nuclear capable, and Russia has publicly stated that Russia will regard any F-16s it encounters as actually carrying nukes. That suggests Russian strikes on wherever those F-16s are coming from. F-16s are not suitable for operation from the types of airstrips that are available in Ukraine itself. That means they are likely to be based in Poland and/or Romania. Further, the Russians have announced that their Southern Command, which includes Ukraine, is now practicing the use of “non-strategic”, i.e., tactical nuclear weapons. This looks like a direct response to the idea of sending F-16s to Ukraine or to neighboring countries for use in Ukraine.

Danny Davis and Doug Macgregor cover much of this ground and more in a video that I highly recommend: Col Doug Macgregor: Ukraine Front lines Buckled, Will Russian Troops Push Deeper?

Judge Nap had a series of excellent videos today. I took notes while listening to two of them, and append those notes. Both videos are worth the listen—the notes are only a few highlights:

Larry Johnson: US Supplied ATACMS Target Troops Inside Russia

The purpose of Xi Jinping's visit to Paris was almost certainly to tell Macron, Do NOT send troops to Ukraine. Xi was ignored. Those French troops will make no material difference, so it's shocking that Macron is sending them to their deaths in this way. (Bryen argues that this is largely about pique over France being forced out of Africa.)

To listen to the Neocons talking about Russia is a mind bending experience. They portray Russia as a Communist dictatorship under one man rule, Putin. This degree of disconnect from reality is unnerving--something that Macgregor also touches on. They fail to understand that the Russian nation is united behind Putin, and damage to a bridge in Crimea is not going to change a thing. Further, they demonstrate no appreciation for Russia's vast military capabilities. The question is, Do they really believe their own propaganda?

One narrative that is regularly deployed is that Russia is not a "democracy" and doesn't share our "values". Putin is intent on reestablishing the Soviet Empire and an "ultra conservative" culture. By which they mean Western queer degeneracy in all its manifestations, and especially the targeting of children for sexual exploitation--those are American values according to the CIA and the WaPo. The reality is that if we really wanted to defend "democracy" we'd be attacking Ukraine.

Meanwhile the Russians are methodically chewing up the Ukrainian army.

Russia WILL use tactical nukes if they deem it necessary. NATO has been warned. Meanwhile, the US simply doesn't have the type of weapons systems to conduct an industrial scale war such as Russia is waging. Lots of detail on our over engineered systems that cannot hold up to the conditions of intense warfare of that sort.

Aaron Maté : Kharkiv Under Fire. Russia Increases Attacks

You made a very interesting observation which did not get much currency in the media around the time that the Republicans were battling over whether the 61 billion in aid for Ukraine combined with Israel and Taiwan was even going to make it to the floor of the house for a vote. You referred to the 61 billion for Ukraine as "tying the hands of the future." I don't know where Donald Trump is on this. I don't know if he's going to defeat Joe Biden. But for years he has been saying, I'm not behind the war in Ukraine. Suddenly [Trump becomes best buddies with] Mike Johnson. The purpose of this 61 billion is to tie the hands of Donald Trump or any future president to compel the expenditure of this money in future years. That is the explicit aim. It was acknowledged in outlets like the Washington Post a few months ago, where the term used was that this is to "uture proof" the Ukraine war. But [Trump] basically gave his endorsement to the Ukraine proxy war funding after months of everyone claiming that he was against it. He embraced Mike Johnson and and backed him up when Mike Johnson allowed this vote. Mitch McConnell even thanked Trump for that.

Polls show that people are against additional funding for Ukraine, especially Republicans. But what a Republican speaker Mike Johnson just did, he ignored the voters. And Mitch McConnell openly thanked him for that. Mitch McConnell recently told the Wall Street Journal that he's grateful that enough Republicans were able to tell their constituents "what you think is incorrect" and, as the Wall Street Journal put it, McConnell was grateful that these House Republicans were able to quote "stand up to their voters".

This illustrates, if needed, the reality of the Uniparty State.

Maté brings up the example of Alexander Vindman:

What Vindman was saying was that it's not the president [who runs the government and sets policy], it's us, it's the permanent State, it's what's called the Interagency, the Deep State. Basically that's what all this has entrenched--on top of all the disasters of this proxy war fueling a conflict with nuclear armed Russia--also entrenching that the public should have no say and it's the unelected people behind the scenes who have real power.

Maté speculates that the Republicans will fail to capitalize on public anger over Gaza, simply because Republican support for genocide is more monolithic even than Dem support.

I think he's correct and that Trump and Republicans will have to win over voters on other issues--primarily economic and cultural.