Give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defeat Russia quickly
The moral and strategic importance of a Ukrainian victory seems hard to overstate. A protracted, frozen conflict would be a humanitarian disaster for Ukrainian civilians in Russian occupied areas and war zones, it would lead to continued slaughter of troops on both sides, it would strip Ukraine of critical ports, it would embolden further adventurism by Russia and by China against Taiwan. An extended war might cause or contribute to a worldwide recession. Domestically, stalemate and economic stress would damage Biden’s re-election prospects. Finally, a victory by Russia would damage the confidence of democratic countries and the reputation of liberal democracy around the world, at a time when democracy is very much at risk. A victory by Ukraine would do the opposite.
Victory by Ukraine seems likely but by no means is it assured. Offense is harder than defense, and with its past losses Russia is now defending much shorter lines. Putin seems to be willing to put all his chips on the table. It’s hard to know how truthful Ukraine is being about its supplies of ammunition, but it seems like there are grounds for concern. Faltering support from the United States is still the biggest risk to Ukraine. Although support is holding up so far, it would be a mistake to assume it will last indefinitely. We need to strike while the iron is hot. The risk of failure is too great to settle for half measures.
So what should we do? Many observers are calling for the U.S. and its allies to send more weapons to Ukraine as quickly as possible. Mark Hertling wisely reminds us that our political and military leaders have much more information than we do about a wide range of issues, especially the logistical challenges of delivering and integrating new weapons systems into the Ukrainian army. His warnings are well taken, but it seems clear (i.e., at least in the case of ATACMS) that we are holding back weapons delivers in part for strategic reasons – fear of provoking Russia, or the need to retain our own stocks.
I’m no expert, but this seems misguided to me, given the stakes outlined above.
I also believe that President Biden should give a major speech declaring in a matter-of-fact way that Russia has lost the war, that Ukraine is not a threat to Russia, and that the longer Russia waits to recognize this the more Russian soldiers will die and the more Russian civilians and the Russian economy will suffer. It’s difficult to know how far such a speech will seep behind the Russian information curtain, but it may help Ukraine with its information war. In addition, Putin seems worried about his political standing and a clear speech by Biden combined with accelerated arms deliveries may help convince Putin that it’s time to quit.
This is the standard NeoCon POV these days, is it not?
After all, soon-to-be-former GOP Rep Adam Kinzinger says NATO can defeat Russi in about three days. Really?
NATO Could Take Out Russia in 3 Days
Newsweek – Dec 19
NATO probably could massively disrupt Russian efforts in Ukraine in 3 or 4 days. But that would require direct participation. Giving Ukraine more/better weapons is a bad policy if direct NATO participation is never going to happen. Pretty sure NATO could mimic the deelectrification campaign, but east of the line of engagement and could mangle badly Russian artillery forces quickly. But NATO airbases would get attacked in response. Time to stop dreaming that Ukraine just needs weapons and support. What they need is an aggressive attack on Russian forces by NATO forces, and don’t think they’ll get it. Italians (and others) not so likely to green light strikes out of Aviano.
I don’t think we should assess policy options by assigning ideological labels to them, whether neocon or progressive or whatever. A reasonable person could have opposed the invasion of Iraq and support aid to Ukraine. Here is what I said about similar reasoning from the left earlier:
As for NATO, it’s just not an option that’s on the table. I agree with the administration on this.
It seems like we really are withholding weapons from Ukraine. ATACMS are the clearest example. In other cases it’s hard for an outside observer to be sure, but there have been reports since the beginning of the war that fear of depleting stocks has led to reluctance to send Javelins, artillery ammunition, etc. to Ukraine. I just don’t get this.
Eric, Ukraine is losing. If direct NATO involvement is off the table, cut the best deal possibly immediately. It likely will be pretty harsh. Christmas is Sunday. End this by Sunday is what Biden ought to be trying for instead of making a speech guaranteed to prove humiliating as events crush Ukraine even further.
My post below was meant for here.
Eric,
Agreed.
There is a huge difference between ousting a tyrant that rules a backwards tribal culture and then leaving a vacuum of civilized order in our wake and intervening to save a civilized nation from brutal outside attack. If one cannot consider the individual situation then how can one hope to be ethical?
This is clearly a NeoCon posture. It could quite possibly lead to catstrophic results.
If people are not reminded of this, the worst can quite possibly befall the world.
Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons, Vlad Putin has vast numbers of them.
We have to understand there are limits on how far we & NATO can go to help Ukraine, for the good of the rest of the world.
I agree that if aid to Ukraine increases the risk of a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia that this is a potentially strong reason not to aid Ukraine. I’ve said this on this blog in the past, and I still think it. More plausibly, risk of nuclear escalation may be a reason to discourage Ukraine from attacking Crimea, and fear that the United States will not be able to restrain a well-armed Ukraine from attacking Crimea is I suspect a prime reason the administration is taking a go-slow approach to arming Ukraine.
But . . . it is not clear to me that the balance of nuclear risks favors letting Russia have a free hand in Ukraine. It could lead to further Russian aggression, and to nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up its nukes; if we let Russia succeed how many other countries will do this in the future? It could encourage a Chinese invasion of Taiwan which would arguably have a much higher risk of nuclear escalation. And the risk of “battlefield” use of a nuke by Russia is not a decisive reason to withhold aid to Ukraine. It is not at all clear use of a “small” nuke in Ukraine would kill more people than a post-war Russian genocide. We should leave the decision to take that risk to the Ukrainians.
Douglas MacArthur thought use of nuclear weapons was a good idea to defeat China in the Korean War. He was fired for such notions.
The use of ‘small nukes’ in Ukraine is a terrible idea, because it will lead to the use of larger ones. It is unthinkable to suggest their use. With all due respect, please STFU.
I am not suggesting the use of any kind of nuclear weapon. It’s Putin who may use them; all we can do is try to influence his decision making. The Ukrainians are aware that Putin may use a nuclear weapon on one of their cities if Putin is on the verge of defeat. All I am saying is that the decision of whether to push the war to the point of Ukrainian victory – with the risk that this might provoke a Russian nuclear response against Ukraine – should be left to the Ukrainians. They could reasonably conclude that a small chance of a nuclear attack is a price worth paying to avoid a genocidal subjugation to Russia. We cannot make this possibility go away by not talking about it. Of course, we should do what we can to deter Putin, but not by pressuring Ukraine to capitulate.
History tells us that Afghanistan is the graveyeard of empires. Not Ukraine?
The USSR fell apart after their Afghan invasion failed. That has taught Vlad Putin that he had better not lose in Ukraine. He thought he could get away with ‘reclaiming’ a part of the USSR that had seceeded, but it hasn’t turned out well to say the least. These are very dangerous times.
(We lost in Afghnistan also. What price do we pay?)
Putin has pointed out that only the US has used nuclear weapons in war, having invented them. That is supposed to imply that if he uses them in Afghanistan, we will be to blame.
Are we to at last fully understand what Robert Oppenheimer, atomic bomb architect, meant when he said after the first of his devices exploded in NM in 1945. ‘Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds’, a piece of Hindu scripture. Many Manhattan Project scientists felt this way.
well, i think we understood it when we first heard him say it.
but, the Bomb was invented and used to end [win] a war that would have changed the world for the worse if Hitler or Japan had won. Millions had already died.
After it’s use, most people were horrified enough to try to prevent its ever being used again…even if that meant “mutual assured destruction” remeber this was meant to be a deterrent///a mutual deterrent.
Putin is, so far as I know the first person to invade a small coutry and threten todesroy the world if anyone interfered
This is a serious problem. There will be other putins if this one succeeds.
If you are going to use history, try to use some judgement.
Coberly,
“…If you are going to use history, try to use some judgement.”
The Manhattan Project was initiated and put on a fast path because German scientists were also developing a nuclear weapon. We were able to bomb their heavy water plants to slow them down so that we won the war in Europe before Hitler had the A-bomb. By the time we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki we had effectively already beaten Japan. Our cover story was that we saved the lives of many thousands of US troops that would have been lost in an amphibious beach assault on Japan. Of course an amphibious beach assault on Japan would have been the dumbest invasion tactic in the history of war. Japan was an isolated island by then that could not feed itself or sustain its own weapons production without imports. We controlled the air and the seas. A blockade would have taken longer, but still concluded the war before the next presidential election although probably not before the 1946 mid-term election. More important though was that we had spent the money already to develop the A-bomb and ending the war quicker with it was the best chance that we would ever have to show the Commies how well it worked. Unfortunately the USSR had grabbed enough German scientists at the end of the war that our strategic advantage with the A-bomb was short-lived. Otherwise, I agree with your conclusion despite the historical inaccuracy.
Besides, who needs nuclear weapons to destroy the world when we have big oil and big coal? Robert Oppenheimer should have known that since the science was largely worked out a half century or so before he was born and then buried under a mountain of coal ash from the perspective of folk outside of the scientific domain. US scientist Eunice Foote documented the Greenhouse Effect and its potential to change global climate if mankind kept burning carbon based fuels in 1856. Three years later Irish physicist John Tyndall made the same discovery.
“…This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
‘ try to use some judgement.’
Likewise, I am (totally) sure.
Ron
I have the same understanding of the history of the bomb as you do. I don’t see that I said anything that conflicts with that. There are people who say w could have won the war without it. I think they are probably right, but we didn’t know that at the time we were building it. And may not have really understood what we were doing when we used it. I am sure part of the reason it was used was to convince the Russians of the unwisdom of taking advantage of the end of war situation more than they already had. Korea suggests Stalin was not over-impressed.
One distinction about history I like to make is that there are “facts” we can be sure of…”what happened”…and facts we can’t…”why.”
In any case the situation at the end of WW2 was different than the situation in Ukraine today.
The people here who want to “stop the war” are all looking for some moral equivalence between “bad things America did” and “bad things Putin is doing” so they can justify to themselves letting Putin do bad things to Ukraine. This is very very bad morality. And bad judgement about history.
Coberly,
Yes, I know that facts are facts and reasons are conjectures, but facts occur for reasons. However, many have doubts about the knowable and certainty about the unknowable. Somewhere in between lies reality. Still, you are correct and I am only within the realm of probability.
Ron
I don’t need to be right. It’s hard ehough to get understanding when I agree with people.
Ron
I missed the opportunity to agree entirely with your December 20, 8:54am
comment. [ If one cannot consider the individual situation then how can one hope to be ethical?]
Why we did what we did to end the war with Japan is now largely irrelevant, except that we ushered in the Atomic Age.
The situation in Ukraine comes down to the urgency of NOT having the earth devastated in an attempt to save Ukraine. That’s a bad bargain.
If we can manage to do it otherwise, I am all for that. However, we must understand that Putin is not necessarily bluffing. He would like us to back down, and NATO also. Can a way be found around this?
Coberly,
Yep. As usual we are in agreement on the basics, while providing different shading on the details. Makes for good conversation.
You guys seem to be ready for a major war for US already.
Really? So soon? Getting itchy?
Even though we have been try pretty hard to keep the current one limited.
U.S. Colonel Says Troops Watching Outside Ukraine ‘Ready if the Call Comes’
Newsweek – Dec 22
American troops in the 101st Airborne Division positioned near Ukraine are prepared to respond if the war with Russia reaches allied territory, U.S. Army Colonel Ed Matthaidess recently said.
The troops are positioned in a way that allows their artillery to be within easy range of Ukraine. The proximity also allows members of the division to gather intelligence and monitor fighters around the Black Sea, according to Stars and Stripes, a U.S. military news organization.
Matthaidess said on Monday that troops are “ready if the call comes.” …
Sitzkrieg over soon?
The Phoney War (French: Drôle de guerre; German: Sitzkrieg) was an eight-month period at the start of World War II, during which there was only one limited military land operation on the Western Front, when French troops invaded Germany‘s Saar district. Nazi Germany carried out the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939; the Phoney period began with the declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, after which little actual warfare occurred, and ended with the German invasion of France and the Low Countries on 10 May 1940. …
Sitzkrieg over soon?
The Phoney War (French: Drôle de guerre; German: Sitzkrieg) was an eight-month period at the start of World War II, during which there was only one limited military land operation on the Western Front, when French troops invaded Germany‘s Saar district. Nazi Germany carried out the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939; the Phoney period began with the declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, after which little actual warfare occurred, and ended with the German invasion of France and the Low Countries on 10 May 1940. …
One obvious difference with Afghanistan (and Vietnam) is that the Ukrainians are fighting for themselves.
The Afghans weren’t fighting for themselves? Against the British, the Russians, and US, at least to some extent.
You are suggesting that the Taliban were not Afghanis? If so, that’s a stretch.
Who Are the Taliban?
Well, the Afghans we were supporting needed U.S. troops on the ground to sustain their regime.
Just like the Vietnmaese!
Eric:
Kind of hard to ignore a nation willing to defend themselves by themselves even if poorly armed. HIMARS gave them an edge and has 6 per launcher. Good for about 50 miles. ATACM goes ~ 200 miles an 375 pounds of explosives. Only one can be shot from the same HIMAR launcher. Moscow is 500 miles from the Ukraine border. I would give them a half a dozen as a weapon of last resort. Hold another six back in another country. Threaten the hell out of Zelinsky that there better be a damn good reason to use them.
run
there is a damn good reason to use them.
‘The moral and strategic importance of a Ukrainian victory seems hard to overstate.’
Like Vietnam and Afghanistan? Good grief. Domino theory? what? Then state it, like a man.
Tis strategically important for the MIC. No one else.
well, Doug,
the rise of Putin makes me think the industrial/military complex has been right all along. we have the power now to stop Putin. the danger is that we will not use it.
before Feb 23 [sic] I would have been one of those who opposed American imperialism, with always a sense of unease that the other side’s bad guys were as bad as our bad guys. And while all American wars since and including Vietnam have been mistakes or worse, Vietnam was the last war that had a colorable excuse, at the beginning, that it was stopping Russian/Chinese imperialism. Trouble was, we handled it so stupidly and imorally we lost the war as well as our claim to be the good guys. It may be that wars, like power, corrupt inevitably. But what is the answer: lie down and let every Hitler that comes along rape you while you pretend to enjoy it?
Fred C. Dobbs:
Douglas MacArthur thought use of nuclear weapons was a good idea to defeat China in the Korean War. He was fired for such notions.
The use of ‘small nukes’ in Ukraine is a terrible idea, because it will lead to the use of larger ones. It is unthinkable to suggest their use. With all due respect, please STFU.
[ Perfectly expressed. ]
ltr / dobbs
it is Putin threatening the use of nukes, not us. certainly not Ukraine. they gave their nukes to Russia, remember, in return for guarantees we would defend them from russian aggression.
so, first, the fact that you can’t read suggests a limit to the extent that we should trust your entirely unsupported opinions.
second… the suggestion of possible uses of nukes in Korea was denied. suggestions are sometimes madeand rejected as people come to understand their implications.
third, North Korea (that is Russia and China) started that war. Putin started this one.
The whole point of keeping nukes after WW2 was to deter aggression. after Russia got its own nukes, that reason lost its cachet, Korea was early in our coming to understand that. Then MAD took over as a reason neither us nor the Russians could let go of. Sanity did not prevail…but it never doees or can in the middle of a dog fight.
Now Putin has changed the equation again…we have the prospect of a madman blackmailing us with his nukes to do whatever evil he wants in the world. We don’t yet have a good answer for that.
Thank you for advancing bad arguments. It makes me feel better about mine.
Give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defeat Russia quickly
[ Please, please, never ever. This is madness. ]
I really don’t get it. Without our military and economic assistance Russia would defeat Ukraine and subject the Ukrainians to a genocidal rule. There is a real possibility that Russia would not stop at Ukraine, and that China would be emboldened to attack Taiwan. Is opposing this madness?
Is Taiwan to be the next Ukraine?
Who didn’t see that coming?
…and that China would be emboldened to attack Taiwan. Is opposing this madness?
[ Absurd, and surely prejudice in this supposition and madness in the entire premise. The stereotypical disdain for China is beyond unfortunate. ]
As soon as a Russian missile lands on NATO territory, it’s all over.
Unless some plausible excuse is found. (Perhaps that’s already happened.)
As soon as a NATO missile lands on a target inside Russia, likewise.
Until Vlad Putin or Joe Biden say ‘enuf is enuf’ and declares war,
we are all pretty safe, except for the poor souls in Ukraine
who are only looking to have their country back.
It does not look like Putin is going to
allow that to happen.
It’s up to Vlad.
…and that China would be emboldened to attack Taiwan. Is opposing this madness?
[ Repeatedly provoking while dictating policy to a nation of 1.4 billion with a 5,000 year history, a nation that is remarkably peace-seeking and peace-wishing, is beyond all reason. Such however is the blindness that comes with an historical prejudice that is now being actively fostered. ]
Calling Communist China remarkably peace keeping and peace wishing is an odd assertion. The Taiwanese and Uigers might dispute it.
If anything, China has the same history as Russia in terms of supporting and maintaining frozen conflicts around it.
China probably won’t invade Taiwan though, they’re generally more pragmatic than that and they’re tied up with COVID at the moment.
It’s ‘Uyghurs’.
The Uyghurs are the largest minority ethnic group in China’s north-western province of Xinjiang. – BBC
alternatively spelled Uighurs, Uygurs or Uigurs – Wikipedia
The second ‘u’ is apparently most important.
and what is the historical blindness that almost cost England its freedom by thinking
germany in 1932 was the same as germany in 1914?
“And thus is the native hue of resolution sicklied over with the pale cast of thought.”
I agree with Kramer except when he hesitates.
we need to do what we should have done on Feb 23.
Line up our air force in Ukraine. Give Putin 24 hours to get out of town.
Assuming Putin doesn’t get he message, either obliterate russian forces in ukraine with our air force, or give Ukraine the tools to do the job.
If we don’t want to trigger Putin, we do this in just noticiable difference steps, but including giving Ukraine the missiles it needs to take out the bases in Russia the bombs are coming from.
And if “fighting the last war is stupid,” so is “not fighting” the last war. I can tell the difference between Hitler and Afghanistan, and I can tell the difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine.
Not stopping Putin ASAP increases the risk of nuclear war, and increases the cost of half-ass defending Ukraine. It is morally unthinkable not to defend Ukraine.
For a different take on negotiating with Russia now, try Vlad Vexler
[what’s different? well, I think he knows more than other commenters, not only those of us at AB, but the big names in the official commentosphere. That may not be obvious from this one video,but if you listen to him over time, it’s inescapable.]
Voices of the Confederacy are speaking here.
Is our honor somehow at stake here if we do not rescue fair Ukraine,
which has had the misfortunate luck to be placed on the southwest
corner of Russia? It would seem so. We risk having the planet
destroyed around us to bring this about. We really should
do what ever is necessary to avoid this, at least for the
sake of all the other people on earth, if not for us.
We could be at the brink here.
Meanwhile, all hail plucky Ukraine who are standing up for Freedom!
Dobbs
the current risk of nuclear war was/is created by one man. appeasing him will not reduce that risk. it will in fact increase it.
so far the Biden administration seems to be addressing this problem in the best way possible for those who take Putin’s threat seriously. I worry that he is not doing enough., and is giving Putin reason to feel his threat is working.
You seem to be showing disdain for human decency. If you see a man beating a woman on the street, do you just ignore it because you are afraid you might get beaten yourself? Would you do that if you were the strongest man on earth?
Would the Confederacy’s honor have been at stake if they did not defend fair slavery?
You may have got your metaphor backwards.
Okay. ‘Speaking here are voices of the Confederacy.’
I agree it’s up to Vlad. However, he will at some point get around to reminding us that we still have not committed to ‘No first use of nukes’ because we may choose to use them to respond to any chemical or biological attack, ostensibly.
That is long-standing US policy.
well, apparently Putin has not committed to no first use.
we created the nucler shield so we wouldn’t have to fight a Russian army in Europe. seemed like a good idea at the time. no first use would have been ridiculous under those circumstances. it may be past its sell by date. but the prospect should make Putin a little nervous. and it hardly hurts the situationn in Ukraine. makes me wonder what the hell bringiing it up has to do with anything.
The USSR (aka Russia) had a no-first-use policy under Brezhnev, but it was dropped in 1993. They decided apparently that large NATO armies might overwhelm them otherwise and they needed their ‘nucler shield’.
By the way, it perhaps should be remembered that when the US became the ‘first users’ of atomic bombs in 1945, they were secret weapons. The public and the Army as a whole had no proper idea how powerful they were beforehand, but they are thousands of times more powerful NOW than back then, and practically everyone should know this.
Perhaps someone else will point out that at least some of them have ‘dial-back capability’ to allow for ‘selectable yields’, which makes them much less fearsome perhaps.
Did Yuri Andropov lead the way for Vlad Putin?
The man who lost an empire
Brookings – Dec 2017
(That would be Mikhail Gorbachev, who succeeded Yuri Andropov.)
‘Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the prime mover of what Putin has called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the twentieth century.’ …
‘Yuri Andropov (was) the head of Soviet intelligence for fifteen years before he became party leader in 1982. … Andropov met Gorbachev in 1968, soon after he took over the KGB.’
Nuclear weapons have ‘kept the peace’ sort of for 75 years.
They have worked to the extent that those who possess them have been terrified about using them, as have most of those who don’t have them. Hardly got in the way of little wars at all!
That could be about to change. Just as many of the Manhattan Project scientists thought they would.
Just remember to Duck & Cover. Bend over and kiss yourself good bye.
Calling Communist China remarkably peace keeping and peace wishing is an odd assertion. The Taiwanese and Uigers might dispute it.
[ Absurd and offensive, of course, but such is what comes from America and Britain fostering generations of anti-China racism.
“Uigers,” say what?
“Uigers,” tells just how remarkably unknowing this disdain for China is. ]
ltr
your comment does not have enough actual content to tell us h0w ignorant we are.
Eloquent speech by President Zelinsky before Congress.
If this doesn’t get us into WW3, nothing will.
Fortunately, Russia will not last more than 3 days.
US Aid Is ‘Not Charity,’ Zelensky Tells Congress as a Lengthy War Looms
NY Times – Dec 21
President Volodymyr Zelensky described military assistance for Ukraine as an investment in global security and democracy in the face of Russian aggression.
We have learned so much from our experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan that surely we wont f—k this up again.
Maybe Trump will run again, on a ‘Peace in Our Time’ platform.
If it’s not too late by then.
For Zelensky, a Celebration of Resilience and a Sales Pitch for Support
NY Times – just in
… Mr. Zelensky’s worries about the year ahead.
For all the repeated talk of “victory,” and the comparisons of the current moment to the turning of World War II at the Battle of the Bulge, Mr. Zelensky and his top military officials doubt that the Russian forces that invaded in February can be vanquished anytime soon. And the Ukrainian president surely knows his country’s remarkable resilience in the first year of the war could be threatened in the second, and the resolve of its saviors could begin to waver.
A Russian buildup of forces has many officials wondering if a humiliated President Vladimir V. Putin is plotting a new attack. And for the first time, there are hairline fractures — but not cracks — among some allies and partners, including a minority of Republicans who question whether America should be spending tens of billions for a nation that is not a treaty ally.
It was up to Mr. Zelensky to address all of that and make the case for more without actually reading out a shopping list. He did so in a speech that was carefully designed to appeal to many constituencies, one in which the Ukrainian president came off as grateful and yet gently demanding more. He wants Abrams tanks and F-16 fighters, layered air defenses and the Patriot missile system that President Biden announced would soon be on its way. …