As a young man, Ernest Hemingway tested his mettle in combat by serving in the Italian Army as an ambulance driver, during World War I. His wartime experiences also included service as a war correspondent during the Spanish Civil War, and in World War II during the Normandy invasion and the liberation of Paris.[1] These experiences changed his opinion about war and experiencing combat, somewhat. He is credited with the following:
Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.
The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.[2]
Hemingway recognized, however, that once war has begun a nation’s survival depends on its doing whatever it takes to win:
Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.[3]
On Fox News today, Trace Gallagher asked retired General Jack Keane whether the United States should send military forces to Ukraine. General Keane remarked that U.S. forces “should already be there.” We can safely conclude that his answer to Mr. Gallagher’s question was ‘yes.’ In context, I understood General Keane’s meaning to be that the only sure way to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine is to create circumstances in which an invasion would run a high risk of engaging American forces in combat – thus providing justification for a war to the United States and its NATO allies.
Please allow me a couple of qualifying remarks. First, General Keane is a distinguished soldier with the highest military credentials. I have the greatest respect for his opinions as a Fox News analyst and military expert, and I seldom disagree with him. Second, his analysis that stationing U.S. military forces in Ukraine would provide a deterrent to a Russian invasion is correct. I think that in this case, however, we need to depart from the way things have been done in the past.
Before we send troops to Ukraine, we need to ask ourselves what we will do if that does not work? What if President Putin decides to invade anyway? What will we have to do to prevail? What if the conflict escalates? Are we willing – are we able to fight a regional or world war against Russia; and possibly China? Do we have an exit strategy if Russia invades, or will we be locked into an armed conflict with the Russian Federation? At what point will we be able to say, “we won” and leave?
Before we risk a “hot war” with Russia in Ukraine, there are some things we need to think about:
Russians
are chess players. Vladimir Putin has a
game plan for what he will do three moves ahead. We need to go beyond the ideas about Putin
that are being popularized in the American media. President Putin is much more than an ex-KGB
operative who wants to restore the old “Soviet Empire,” and reestablish Russia
as a world power. Historically Russian
goals have been:
1. to gain ice-free ports,
2. to establish a buffer zone of client states against invasion from Western Europe,
3. and to move from economic dependence on exporting raw materials by “modernizing” their productive capacity to be competitive in the world economy.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy was devastated. Their military capabilities were severely diminished. The United States and others provided aid and technical assistance to avoid a resurgence of the totalitarian government and aggressive belligerence that were characteristic of the Soviet Union. Things didn’t work out as planned.
The eventual result was a Russian economy that is dependent on exporting energy products to Western Europe, and the enrichment of an oligarch class. Ultimately, the oligarchs gained political control and empowered Vladimir Putin to (effectively) become a “President for Life.”
The current distribution of political power in the Russian Federation might have been foreseen if we were better students of History. It is reminiscent of the Czars and the Boyars, and the Premier and the Politburo.
Enter George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush invited Vladimir Putin to visit the United States. He was a guest at the ranch. President Bush portrayed their relationship to the world as one of friendship. Then, intoxicated with the idea that the U.S. was (at that time) the world’s only superpower, the Bush administration put air defense missiles in Poland. The Russians began conducting war games near their borders with the Baltic States, and NATO began admitting Eastern European Nations into the alliance.
Putin saw it as a threat. Most of us in the West understand that there is no risk whatever of the United States and the NATO allies invading Russia, except in the event that Russia starts a war. We are too well off and too comfortable to see it all destroyed with such folly. The Russians, looking at the circumstances from a different paradigm, came to the wrong conclusions.
We have only to look at subsequent events. Russia got stronger on its earnings from petroleum exports. They rebuilt their military. They invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, and invaded Ukraine. They deployed ultra-modern attack submarines to the Atlantic. They developed hypersonic nuclear missiles, and they have recently demonstrated that they can destroy satellites while they are still in orbit.
Now, both sides feel threatened. That makes the world more dangerous for everybody.
Because the Russian economy is still relatively one-dimensional, they may not be able to sustain the military spending needed to be a superpower. They are, however, very able to give the U.S. and the NATO allies more of a fight than we really want to take on. As the saying goes, “Don’t poke the bear. He may wake up and have you for lunch.”
Since the end of WWII, the United States has always been faced by opponents with numerically superior armed forces. We have been able to maintain our unequaled military capabilities with better technology and the threat of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the antimilitary policies of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, we have lost much of that advantage.
Fighting Russia would not be like combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. If Russia invades with 100,000+ mechanized troops, five to eight thousand American ground forces in Ukraine would be overrun. The best we could hope for is that they might be surrounded, cut off from withdrawal, and forced to surrender - in which case we would be humiliated. In short, it is unworthy of General Keane and others, to suggest that American young people be placed in an overextended position, where they are exposed to a superior force, with no way to withdraw, be extracted, or be relieved.
Further, the Russians have the advantage of short resupply lines. They can resupply their forces by moving men and material about 50 to 200 miles. However, the Russian attack submarines in the Atlantic could severely disrupt the resupply of American forces in the Ukraine. Germany is dependent on Russia for energy. Even now, the Germans are resisting the use of their air space and ground transportation routes to move “lethal aid” to Ukraine. Resupply through Europe may become difficult if the United States sends in ground forces without the unanimous consent and cooperation of our NATO allies.
Theater air superiority is vital in modern warfare. If they invade, the Russians will have air superiority in the skies over Ukraine.
At least initially, the only way the United States could prevail if we send troops to Ukraine, and then Russia invades, would be to use tactical nuclear weapons. That would destroy the very country we are trying to save. Also, it may trigger a nuclear exchange resulting in at least the partial devastation of both the United States and the Russian Federation.
No sane person wants nuclear war. However, the risk level in this situation is great. Things could go wrong very quickly if somebody makes a mistake.
Conclusion:
It has been and remains our position at Lamp in a Corner that American military forces should never be committed unless the United States is willing to do whatever it takes to totally destroy the enemy’s ability and will to fight. If our troops are drawn into a fight in Ukraine, how far are we willing to go to win? Do we have a realistic and workable plan to win? If not, then our troops should not be sent in.
It is time for all parties to take a step back, breathe deeply, and act like rational beings. Geopolitics must no longer be a high-stakes poker game. A lot of people can die in a lot of nasty ways.
We call on the people of the United States and the Russian Federation to oppose war in Ukraine. Our leaders on all sides must find a peaceful way to resolve this matter. The United States must be willing to do anything short of committing troops to preserve the right of the Ukrainians to self-determination.
No comments:
Post a Comment