Home » Posts tagged 'Politics'
Tag Archives: Politics
More on Winning in Ukraine
I asked my former student at West Point David Petraues (USMA 1974) for his thoughts on my original article. They and my thoughts are capture below
- “Russia is not engaging in mass infantry attacks anymore; rather, they infiltrate with very small numbers. But they do it a lot and thus sustain over 30K wounded and killed per month.
- The basic premise of the article on casualties is correct even though the Russian tactics may have appeared to have changed. A large number of infiltrations may be tantamount to dispersed massed forces if their infiltration is synchronized.
- “Ukraine now is superior in the strategic, as well as tactical and operational realms. They are going to bring the Russian economy to its knees, isolate Crimea and turning off the power there, and also not only cause more frontline casualties, but also isolate the frontlines by attacking the logistical support elements.”
- No basic differences except possibly in degree
- “Ukraine will produce at least 8 million drones this year of all types; no Russian ships can survive in the Sea of Azov or much of the Black Sea now. And the Ukrainians are already on the threshold of autonomous drones. That will enable swarms, for which there is no adequate defense. So Russia is in increasing trouble, and Ukraine can absorb what Russia is sending much better than Russia can absorb what Ukraine is sending. Given all that, Russia will have to seek a cease fire.”
- The Russians are currently trying to look strong with their missile and drone attacks on Kyiv. But estimates are they are using missiles faster than they can produce them.
- A cease fire can have two endings—some form of final peace agreement or a renewal of hostilities as the weaker party has used the cease fire to rearm and then recommence hostilities.
- But where does a cease fire potentially go? In the end the sought peace can only result from the degradation or elimination of the Russian leadership. The dilemma is that a degraded opponent may not have the power to end what it started given internal pressures, as mentioned in the article. The same is potentially true for an overthrown government. The conclusion to hostilities must be found somewhere in between.
The above provides items to watch.
The dangerous Iranian dilemma
President Biden vowed to respond after a drone strike by rebels I n Syria linked to Iran killed three U.S. service members and wounded at least 34 others. The drone hit American troops stationed in northeast Jordan near the Syrian border early Sunday. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a coalition of militias backed by Iran, claimed credit for the attack. “We had a tough day last night in the Middle East. We lost three brave souls,” Biden said during a stop at Brookland Baptist church in West Columbia, S.C. After leading a moment of silence, Biden said: “And we shall respond.”
The Iranians’ proxies—Houthis, Hezbollah, Islamic Resistance, and Hamas, to name most—are each and all attacking western and Israeli targets in multiple regions of the Middle East. The critical question is why? The obvious answer is to force the Israelis to cease their attacks in Gaza. One more piece of the overall intimidation strategy against everyone who supports Israel whether they be countries, political groups or commercial interests. A well-orchestrated multi-faceted political strategy to cause pressure to be brought to bear against supporters of Israel and thus Israel itself.
The obvious answer has resulted in air attacks against the Houthis for attacking shipping in the Red Sea. The multi-faceted political attacks have caused pressure from the Biden administration on Israel for cease fire periods, a two-state solution, etc. However, this is not the ultimate Iranian goal. The Iranians have a Middle East domination goal. To accomplish that their proxies need to eliminate their close in adversaries. The Iranians also need justification for the acquisition of nuclear weapons as an instrument in their domination. Perceiving the West (and especially the US) as weak, timid and bogged down in Ukraine they perceived this as the perfect time to launch this region wide assault. Should the US respond directly against Iran it must do so dramatically and devastatingly! Iran must be shown as a paper tiger and suffer a huge setback to its nuclear ambitions if the domination objective is to be denied. Success in such a limited but dramatic coordinated attack is probably not considered viable or politically beneficial by the non-strategists in Washington who have gotten the country into this dangerous dilemma.
One can be sure that the pseudo strategists are putting in extra hours trying to come up with a response that shows some degree of strength while not causing the Iranians to directly react vehemently—especially against the Gulf Cooperation Council states who produce a significant amount of the world’s petroleum.
The response that President Biden promised is going to be a dramatic event. It will either be so weak as to signal that politically a response was necessary but that the US is afraid of Iran and its proxies. Or it could be sufficient to justify the Iranians escalation or de-escalation. One must wait.
Bruce B.G. Clarke 