Tag: perpetual war

Everyone Wants US Forces in Ukraine Except the US

Russia’s now unstoppable advance across eastern Ukraine ushers in the inevitability that Ukraine has lost, and the war will end. The election of Donald Trump ushers in the inevitability that the war will end with a negotiated settlement. Two things are now clear about that settlement: Ukraine will not be in NATO, and Russia will be in Ukraine.

Ukraine will not be in NATO because Russia will continue the war if NATO membership is on the agenda in the negotiations. But Ukraine will also not be in NATO because Trump has made it clear that he will not support NATO membership for Ukraine.

Russia will be in Ukraine because Russia will not return Crimea or, at least part of, the Donbas. But Russia will also be in Ukraine because Ukraine has now accepted that de facto reality. Though he refuses to legally acknowledge it, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has conceded that Crimea and the Donbas are lost to Ukraine. “De facto,” he said, “these territories are now controlled by the Russians. We don’t have the strength to bring them back.”

That leaves security guarantees for the remaining sovereign Ukraine as the key issue in the coming negotiations. Zelensky seems to now recognize that. In a January 22 Bloomberg interview, Zelensky said, “The only question is what security guarantees and honestly I want to have understanding before the talks. If [Trump] can guarantee this strong and irreversible security for Ukraine, we will move along this diplomatic path.”

Though Zelensky has said that “the only guarantee, currently or in the future, is NATO,” he will have to settle for his second choice. That second choice is a large European peace keeping force with the fully committed support of U.S. troops.

Keep reading

The Europeans Are Unlikely To Accede To Zelensky’s Demand For 200,000 Peacekeepers

Zelensky demanded a minimum of 200,000 European peacekeepers during the panel session that followed his speech at Davos, which itself saw him propose that France, Germany, Italy, and the UK combine their forces with Ukraine’s in order to counter Russia’s in nearly equal numbers. He also suggested that Trump will abandon Europe in order to cut a deal over Ukraine with Russia and China. The subtext is that they should organize a large-scale peacekeeping mission before that happens.

They’re unlikely to accede to his demand, however, for the same reason that the UK is unlikely to actually establish a military base in Ukraine like it agreed to explore doing in their new 100-year partnership pact. None of the Europeans want to risk a war with Russia where they’d be left fighting on their own without American support, not even the nuclear-armed UK and France, since Trump isn’t expected to extend Article 5 mutual defense guarantees to allies’ forces in third countries like Ukraine.

He, who loves having as much control over everything as possible, naturally wouldn’t feel comfortable knowing that others could provoke a war with Russia that might then drag in the US. Trump’s grand strategic goal is to wrap up the Ukrainian Conflict as soon as possible so as to prioritize his far-reaching domestic reform plans while “Pivoting (back) to Asia” to more muscularly contain China. Anything that could come in the way of that agenda, especially others provoking a war with Russia, is anathema.

That said, it can’t be ruled out the Europeans might assemble a large-scale force on Ukraine’s Polish and Romanian borders for rapid deployment in the event of future hostilities, regardless of whether this is coordinated through US-controlled NATO or outside of it. For that to happen, however, Polish–Ukrainian ties would have to improve (Zelensky ignored Poland in his speech despite it having NATO’s third-largest army) and Romania’s populist frontrunner would have to lose May’s presidential election rerun.

Moreover, Europe would need to make meaningful progress on building the “military Schengen” for facilitating the movement of troops and equipment through the bloc to its eastern borders, otherwise whatever it assembles on the Ukrainian frontier and then sends across it would be logistically vulnerable. Polish-Ukrainian ties haven’t yet improved, Romania’s presidential election rerun hasn’t yet happened, and the “military Schengen” remains mostly on paper, all of which work against Zelensky’s plans.

Consequently, the likelihood of the Europeans assembling a large-scale force on Ukraine’s Polish and Romanian borders anytime soon is low, let alone them unilaterally deploying peacekeepers – whether 200,000 or just 2,000 – to Ukraine without prior US approval. Nevertheless, Zelensky’s Davos speech and panel session might serve to plant the seed of “ambitious thinking” in European policymakers’ minds, which could lead to them initiating such discussions with the US.

Keep reading

NATO Was Never About American Security

The evidence from the Soviet archives shows that Stalin’s policy during the 1947 pivot to Cold War was largely defensive and reactive. But even that departure from the cooperative modus operandi of the wartime alliance arose from what might well be described as an unforced error in Washington.

We are referring to the latter’s badly misplaced fears that deteriorating economic conditions in Western Europe could lead to communists coming to power in France, Italy and elsewhere. The truth of the matter, however, is that even the worst case – a communist France (or Italy or Belgium) – was not a serious military threat to America’s homeland security.

As we pointed out in Part 2, the post-war Soviet economy was a shambles. Its military had been bled and exhausted by its death struggle with the Wehrmacht and its Navy, which embodied but a tiny fraction of the US Navy’s fire-power, had no ability whatsoever to successfully transport an invasionary force across the Atlantic. Even had it allied with a “communist” France, for example, the military threat to the American homeland just wasn’t there.

To be sure, communist governments in Western Europe would have been a misfortune for electorates who might have stupidly put them in power. But that would have been their domestic governance problem, not a mortal threat to liberty and security on America’s side of the Atlantic moat.

Keep reading

US Army’s Next-Gen Hybrid Tactical Vehicle To Replace Humvee Tested In Germany

The US Army’s 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, recently tested General Motors Defense’s Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV), built on the chassis of a Chevrolet Colorado truck, in the snowy Bavarian mountains of Germany. 

GM Defense’s mobility solutions team designed the ISV with commercial off-the-shelf parts. ISV is based on the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 midsize truck platform, using a 2.8L Duramax turbo-diesel engine with an advanced 12-module battery pack. 

“The testing occurred during the annual Combined Resolve 25-1 exercise, where the Army’s 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, maneuvered the vehicle across various operational scenarios, demonstrating its adaptability and effectiveness in challenging terrains,” Interesting Engineering wrote in a note, adding, “The trial emphasized ISV’s capabilities in advanced reconnaissance missions, which are crucial for troops to collect and transmit vital battlefield intelligence, especially in adverse conditions.” 

Keep reading

Iran War Hawks Getting Wrecked In Trump Personnel Fight

A major whisper campaign is underway, led by neoconservatives in Washington panicked at President Donald Trump’s elevation of a string of foreign policy advisers who have spoken out against war with Iran. The first whack to the wounded war-hawk wing came when Mike Pompeo was blocked from a position in the White House, followed yesterday by the stripping of his security detail. That followed similar snubs to John Bolton and Iran hawk Brian Hook, both of which lost their security and have been kept out of the administration.

Hook’s firing was a comical display of Trumpian humiliation. Trump, on Truth Social, said that his

Presidential Personnel Office is actively in the process of identifying and removing over a thousand Presidential Appointees from the previous Administration, who are not aligned with our vision to Make America Great Again.

Jose Andres from the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, Mark Milley from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Brian Hook from the Wilson Center for Scholars, and Keisha Lance Bottoms from the President’s Export Council—YOU’RE FIRED!

What’s so amusing about Trump’s description of Hook as a member of the “previous Administration,” and his being lumped in with Democrats and a hated figure like Milley, is that Hook was named by Trump in November to chair the State Department transition. Anti-war Republicans vowed at the time to make sure he never got a job himself in the second Trump administration and sources tell me that Trump fired him after learning about his long record of criticizing Trump and his bellicose war rhetoric. Now he’s out, and is privately leading the rearguard fight against Trump’s nominees.

Keep reading

Did Trump Halt Aid to Ukraine?

Yesterday, there were a number of “headlines” in the US media claiming all foreign aid was stopped—except for Israel and Egypt. But the Pentagon weighed in today denying that it affects Ukraine:

“A Pentagon official confirmed that Trump’s executive order freezing foreign aid applies only to development programs, not security assistance to Ukraine.” -VOA

When I spoke with Judge Napolitano and Nima today, I had not seen these reports. However, while Trump’s order does not curtail security assistance (i.e., weapons, vehicles and ammunition) already in the pipeline, it does freeze the assistance funds that flow through State Department channels:

The Trump administration has reportedly frozen USAID projects as part of its foreign assistance audit

The Trump administration has frozen projects in Ukraine that were funded through the US Agency for International Development, Reuter reported on Friday, citing a USAID official.

The official told the news agency that USAID officers responsible for projects in Ukraine were told to stop all work. The projects that were frozen reportedly include support for schools and healthcare, including maternal care and the vaccination of children.

So part of the Ukrainian grift machine is shut down for the next three months. That is a start in the right direction.

Keep reading

State Department Reports Record Foreign Arms Sales in 2024

The State Department reports that US arms deals sold over $300 billion in weapons to foreign countries last year. The record-high sales include over $20 billion in arms paid for with US aid. 

The State Department’s statement on 2024 arms sales explained that “the total value of transferred defense articles and services and security cooperation activities conducted under the Foreign Military Sales system was $117.9 billion.” 

Compared to 2023, the State Department says last year’s totals represented an increase of  45.7%, adding, “This is the highest ever annual total of sales and assistance provided to our allies and partners.” According to the statement, $21 billion in the FMS was paid for with US aid. 

In addition to the FMS, US arms deals brokered $200 billion in other transactions. “The total authorized value for privately contracted Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) authorizations for FY2024 was $200.8 billion,” the statement explained. “This represents a 27.5% increase, up from $157.5 billion in FY2023.”

Combined, the FMS and DCS sales total over $318 billion. 

Most of the weapon sales went to US allies and partners in Europe, the Middle East or East Asia. In Europe, NATO countries continued to buy weapons at a rapid pace as they transferred older systems to Ukraine for the proxy war against Russia. China is the focus of American arm sales in East Asia as Washington prepares to fight a war with Beijing over Taiwan. 

In the Middle East, Israel bought, often with US aid, billions in weapons from American arms deals. Tel Aviv is conducting what multiple international human rights organizations have identified as a genocide in Gaza. During the Biden administration, the State Department was flooded with hundreds of reports that American weapons were being used to kill civilians in Gaza. 

The State Department asserted that the US arms transfers occurred in “accordance with the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and weighs political, social, human rights, civilian protection, economic, military, nonproliferation, technology security, and end use factors.”

Keep reading

Marco Rubio Exposes Biden Regime’s Cover-Up: Taliban Holds More American Hostages Than Reported — Calls for Massive Bounties on Their Leadership

Newly confirmed U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised alarms about the actual number of American hostages held by the Taliban—figures far greater than previously reported.

This disclosure, coming just days after the Secretary’s appointment, points to a disturbing possibility: Biden’s administration knew about the higher hostage counts but chose to hide this critical information from the public.

Marco Rubio, voicing his concerns on X, highlighted the dire situation: “Just hearing the Taliban is holding more American hostages than has been reported. If this is true, we need to immediately place a VERY BIG bounty on their top leaders, maybe even bigger than the one we had on Bin Laden.”

Rubio’s did not specify the exact number of Americans still captive.

Keep reading

Trump Reverses Course In Gaza, Now Says He Wants To Move Residents, Egypt Refuses

President Trump stepped on a land mine yesterday when talking with reporters on Air Force One about the situation in Gaza.

The comments come after Hamas humiliated female IDF hostages yesterday by putting them on stage in a public act of vengeance.

Hamas has also refused to provide an accurate list of the remaining hostages in violation of the terms of the ceasefire. The agreement to end the conflict is now in jeapardy.

The President mentioned he has a plan to ask neighboring countries to take in the million and a half residents remaining in the bombed-out territory.

This is a shift from his previous pressure to allow Gazans to return to the northern sector since the ceasefire.

“I’d like Egypt to take people…You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing and say, ‘You know, it’s over.”

“I spoke with the King of Jordan about the possibility of transferring Gazans to neighboring countries.”

“I told him to take more people because the Gaza Strip is in a real mess. I want Egypt to take in people too, and I will talk to Al-Sisi tomorrow.”

Keep reading

Pentagon’s New Mideast Policy Chief Wants To Scale Down US Presence In Region

The Trump administration has appointed a new Middle East policy chief in the Pentagon who believes the US should scale down its military presence in the region.

Michael DiMino, a former CIA analyst, was sworn in early this week as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Before taking the job, DiMino was a fellow at Defense Priorities, a think tank that calls itself the “hub of realism and restraint” and advocates for a less interventionist foreign policy.

Jewish Insider reported that DiMino’s appointment has alarmed pro-Israel Republicans due to his views on the region. The report cited comments DiMino made during a webinar last year where he said the Middle East does “not really matter” for US interests.

“Vital or existential US interests in the Middle East are best characterized as minimal to non-existent. And I think if you look at America’s experience as the primary security broker for the region… it has not rendered any lasting political, economic, or security benefits in service of US interests or the American people,” he said.

DiMino has opposed attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and war with Iran in general and has repeatedly called for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq and Syria, citing their vulnerability to attacks.

When President Biden launched a bombing campaign against Yemen’s Houthis in January 2024, DiMino opposed it and suggested the US should consider putting pressure on Israel to improve conditions in Gaza since the Israeli onslaught was the reason for the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping.

“Any multi-billion-dollar effort to fight a war in Yemen would render no political, economic, or security benefits to the United States. Strategies like ‘buck passing’ and diplomatic engagement are perfectly viable, would do the US no harm, and could resolve the crisis. Continued military action in Yemen, by contrast, presents dubious prospects for success,” DiMino wrote in Responsible Statecraft.

Keep reading