At the macro strategic level nothing has really changed.  The battlefield dynamics have changed with Ukraine’s invasion of Russia near Kursk and Russian advances near Pokrovak.

The real issue is that neither side has found a way to terminate the conflict.  The Russians failed to size Kyiv at the beginning of their invasion and since then the conflict has become a war of attrition.  Both sides are seeking termination by exhausting the other.  In such a conflict Russia has the advantage in national manpower and strategic stockpiles.  However, Ukraine has the advantage with better fighting skills, especially at the tactical and operational levels.  Both sides are heavily dependent on “allies”.  Russia on China and North Korea and Ukraine on the NATO members.  The Russian’s allies are supporting it for payment and closer ties.  The NATO allies are supporting Ukraine as a way of preventing Russia form attacking the alliance—especially the recently joined Baltic states.

So how does an attrition war end?  One side or the other says it has had enough and withdrawing from the battlefield.  This is easier for the Russians to do than the Ukrainians. At the worst the Russian would lose Crimea and much more importantly “face”.  It would be difficult to claim to be a “world power” except because of its nuclear arsenal.  For Ukraine the withdrawal from the conflict would be catastrophic as it would amount to the loss of its political freedom.   As long as allied support continues and neither side wins a strategic victory one the battlefield the blood letting will continue.

The Ukrainian attack into Russia has slightly altered the equation as the political and actual losses have been increased several fold.  Ukraine’s ability to attack military and economic infrastructure targets in Russia has increased as a result of the increased proximity to targets.  This ability to cause more damage and thus up the  cost to Russia is potentially a dramatic factor in the conflict/  Had Ukraine been able to conduct a blitzkrieg like battle and roll up the attacking forces elsewhere on the battlefield could have resulted in a battlefield victory.  But Ukraine did not have the forces to encircle the forces opposing it elsewhere on the battlefield.

Similarly the Russian advances towards Pokroyak have created a significant penetration into Ukraine.  However, Ukraine has held the shoulders of the penetration creating an offensive opportunity that reminds one of the famous battle of Kursk during World War II when the Soviets held the shoulders and limited the depth of a German attempt to penetrate the Soviet lines and then counter attacked to destroy a large German formation and forced a German withdrawal which signaled the beginning of the end of the war on the Eastern Front.  One has to seriously doubt that Ukraine has husbanded the necessary assets to conduct the pincer-like attacks to seal the penetration and deal a disastrous loss to Russian forces.

As we consider the chess board that is the Ukrainian battlefield one must wonder if there is a battlefield solution to the war?  (It is critical to note that the use of nuclear weapons by the Russians has not been considered in this whole discussion.  Such use would change the entire dynamic of this conflict and must be dealt with in a subsequent effort,) At this writing the offensive actions of both sides do not provide a change of the strategic nature of the war.  It remains a war of attrition.  Th only way it will temporarily end is some form on negotiated ceasefire.  The term temporarily is used intentionally because the end of this conflict will only be the beginning of the next one.

New news:  The Russian attack on Pokrovak appears to be advancing and the defenses are not likely to hold.  Simultaneously the Ukrainians are expanding the seized terrain near Kursk.  The Russians just launched a large-scale drone and missile attack killing at least 40 at a Ukrainian military school.  Most certainly Ukraine will respond.  Finally, it is reported ed Zelenskyy is travelling to the US with a new proposal to end the conflict.  To guess what the proposal is difficult, but a personal guess is that he is going to ask the Biden administration to remove the limits on attacking Russian soil with US weapons.  That may be coupled with a request for longer range missiles that would put Moscow at risk.  Such a threat would provide leverage to negotiate a ceasefire followed by subsequent negotiations.  We’ll see.

When I was a cadet at West Point and over the almost 60 years since I was graduated, I have heard older alumni and now some of my own classmates, since we are now older alumni say: “The Corps has.”  The meaning of this is that the Corps of Cadets has gone to hell because this or that changed since we were cadets.  The current hubbub of “the Corps having” is about the dropping of the West Point motto of “Duty, Honor, Country” from the United States Military Academy (USMA) mission statement.

When I first read of the newest concern that ‘wokism” was becoming more dominant at West Point I immediately wen to the bible of my father’s time and mine-The Bugle Notes.  Each plebe when he enters West Point is given a copy of The Bugle Notes and required to memorize certain contents such as:

• The Corps
• The Alma Mater
• The mission of the United State Military Academy
• Some football cheers and songs such as On Brave Old Army Team
• Etc.

In neither my father’s Bugle Notes published in 1934 nor mine published in 1961 did the USMA motto of “Duty, Honor Country” appear in the mission statement.  The motto was not added to the mission statement until 1998.  And now it has been replaced with the term “Army values”.  This term is really what has excited those who want to say that the Corps has.  They fear that this term is a buzz word for some diversity, equity or inclusion initiative (DEI).  There are several points about this concern.  First many former and current graduates of the military academies and other serving members of the US military are rightly concerned that DEI activities in the military are divisive–not team building and threaten the teamwork that is required for a military unit to function with the highest effectiveness and efficiency.

In the last year or so there are at least several organizations primarily made up of service academy graduates that are seeking to be a voice against DEI in the military—STARRS and the MacArthur Society are two that stand out.  To say that the concern about DEI in the service academies is real would be an understatement.  Therefore, the concern about the term ‘Army Values.”

The Army basic training manual stresses that new recruits must learn what the words Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage mean. The manual goes on to stress that these seven these “Seven Core Army Values are what being a Soldier is all about.” In reading the meaning of each of these values one can find some greatness in every soldier who abides by these values.  The Army acronym for these values is L.D.E.R.S.H.I.P. However, the devotion to country is not as clear and sharp as it is in the West Point motto.  In the discussion of Loyalty, it says; “Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.” But it does not link that statement to the country that was founded based upon the U.S. Constitution. This may be a weak link.

The weak link is trumped by the continued emphasis on the three hallowed words; “Duty, Honor, Country.”  For the younger reader you should know that the speech General Douglas MacArthur gave at West Point in May of 1962 was based on the reverence and criticality of those terms. Some may say so what? I was on the plain at West Point when the General trooped the line standing in a jeep with Major General William Westmoreland and the First Captain of the Corps of Cadets Jim Ellis.  I was also in the audience with spring athletes in their uniforms of the day—football, baseball, tennis, etc.– sitting on the floor in the aisles of the “mess hall” when General MacArthur made that speech without a note. (https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2001/11/04/general-douglas-macarthurs-farewell-speech-to-west-point-1962/) To this day I can vividly remember his demanding that:  “Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.”

So, for today, if the Corps of Cadets and all past and future graduates abide by the West Point motto and MacArthur’s admonition about the three hallowed words, the term “Army Values” in the new West Point mission statement is less worrisome.  In fact, future leaders must learn and understand the values that their future troops are being taught.

I hope that coming out of this whole ‘hubbub” is a renewed interest in “Duty, Honor, Country” and ensuring that the Corps never has.