Haven't both the US and the UK very poor records when it comes to intervention in foreign countries? Have those interventions ever worked out well?
I recently re-read the book Charlie Wilson's War about the US involvement in Afghanistan when the Russians were there. It almost reads like a comedy except it wasn't.
I was thinking of "Charlie Wilson's War" (the film) this morning. I'd like to watch it again.
The film ends with a quote from Charlie Wilson about how the United States declined to engage in "nation building" after the Soviets exited. Maybe the Reagan administration got that aspect of the Afghanistan project right.
From 1973 (the US exit from Vietnam) through 2002, the US did not engage in nation-building projects. (I think that's right. I can't think of a counter-example right off.) And the initial American campaign in Afghanistan had more the flavor of a punitive campaign. But then it morphed into nation-building. There certainly would have been an argument for letting Afghanistan sort out its own issues after having helped the Hamid Karzai and the Northern Alliance run the Taliban out.
I'm British and one of the things which astonished me about Charlie Wilson's War was that it appeared to be a kind of private operation without any kind of oversight by the president. I think it was Carter at the time and the book implies that he didn't know about it. I may have got this wrong because I really don't understand how the US government works. I imagined that under normal circumstances there would be an overall strategy and policy about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and this policy would be determined by the President and his officials. He probably did have a policy but it must have been completely undermined by Charlie Wilson. So it seems hardly surprising that there was no follow up of the Russian withdrawal, it just wasn't in the plan. Either Wilson's or the president's.
It's worthwhile mentioning too that George H. W. Bush decided not to push for regime change after the Iraqi's had been pushed out of Kuwait. I think that decision was criticized at the time but in retrospect it was probably a good thing.
That's right. Even before going in to Kuwait in 1991, the administration of George H.W. Bush committed to securing a UN mandate to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait, and nothing more.
At the time, I did believe that commitment. But, yes, the administration stuck to it. And A central part of sticking to it was, I think, that bit about making big, ostentatious show of securing the imprimatur of the UN. Under the post-Soviet, "New World Order," the administration would elevate the UN to something greater than a debate society. UN-enthusiasts among member states were happy to go along ...
We can only hope no one in the Russian chain of command is as stupid or crazy as whichever Americans made the decision to destroy the Nordstream pipelines.
I would expect anyone (like me) who has studied the history of Russia to resolve to whatever extent possible never to go to war with that country. Russia is not like the United States, but that does not mean we shouldn't try as hard as we can to be friends.
The current American leadership absolutely disgusts me.
Nice refresh on history. While I've often read many histories that attempt to explain the why of war they always attempt to explain often irrational decisions made retrospectively. At the time they seemed wise and justified.
In terms of Ukraine, the Donbas has been historically a complex issue going all the way back to the Holodomor of the 1930's. The resettlement of Russians in the area afterwards has been a friction point to the ethnicities involved. Whether the E-W divides can be managed from Kiev has been an issue but one for the Ukrainians to sort. Russia's stealth annexation of Crimea led to a complete restructuring of the Ukraine military that now has become quite capable.
My take on what Putin has done relates to an apparent inability to quell unrest in the Donbas in Russia's favor. He was not winning militarily nor with hearts and minds. He mounted a huge threat right on the border of a low level combat zone and even that was not improving the Russian situation. His decision to try for a quick invasion failed because he badly misjudged Ukraine sentiment and a much stronger military. The truly inaptness of his attack assumed an awful lot, a failure of logistical planning. The nominal ability of his artillery to create victories has now been negated by better US supplied artillery. He has wasted a lot of expensive munitions on pointless targets and now has run out of the smarter weapons. While the Russians have always been less concerned over soldier's lives, his current tactics have resulted in huge losses that now matter.
Where this goes as Ukraine steadily rolls Russian troops back is unknown. Putin is in a very bad place and perhaps finds losing intolerable. I don't think Ukraine will settle until it retakes Crimea. Russian equipment is beginning to become impossible to replace or repair. Sanctions have worked well in terms of limiting Russian arms production. Sanction are now being felt in the overall economy as well but Russians are used to deprivation. Whether we can return to the days pre-2014 with Sevastopol and Crimea holding a long term Russian facility lease is uncertain, but Russia can't accept not having that port. A veritable rock and hard place issue as the war drags on. We could end it by denying supports but face a political backlash for that both domestically and internationally.
I have to admit that, in my mind, the Russians demonstrated some awareness of the prospect that their initial invasion might not yield the quick result: they made such an ostentatious show of flying bombers, escorted by fighters, over Kiev. It was a show not so much of shock-and-awe but all-show-and-awe. My gut tells me that they were really hoping to do this on the cheap and might not be up for a protracted campaign. But, here we are.
I've been following Graham for some time (https://grahamseibert.substack.com/p/history-leading-up-to-russias-defeat) and he passes on messages from Holmans. I've commented on his recent history lesson and one of the commentators adds even more history of the Donbas (most out of print). I think out gut instincts are in turn. I seriously doubt Putin wanted what seems to be a poorly run military to be exposed.
In earlier times, I'm told the US worked to help the Russians harden and secure many loose nukes and materials. At the time Russia was broke and nobody was minding those potentially hazardous items. At one point I interviewed an immigrated Russian scientist with skills in Electromagnetics. We really couldn't hire him because of security issues and I wished him well in academic efforts. But there was a time we were taking in numbers of unemployed scientists.
I do hope they are managing their stockpile well and fear Putin's bluster may lead to real troubles. I do know we attend to the care of our nukes in the extreme, not clear if the Russians are still doing that. The US has actually assisted in safeguard training but that was long ago. The world has a strong interest is securing those really awesome weapons.
I admit a lot of frustration with the media fog over the questions of who is "winning." On one side we have folks like Douglas MacGregor who is all in on the Russia-is-winning-the-war-of-attrition, and then we have others who keep demanding $billions more, because "1938," "Putin bad," etc. But, what is the reality on the ground.
Your idea of the Ukrainians going so far as to take back the Crimea is interesting. I look at the map and puzzle over the less ambitious objective of taking back Kherson and the "land bridge" between the Crimea and the Donbass. I wouldn't want to be in the vanguard of young men storming across the Dnipro. Judging from the map: There's a lot of wetlands to slog through under fire. But, if the Ukrainians can take Kherson /and/ plant themselves securely on the south of the river ... that would make for quite a development.
We are currently sending weapons from our forces to Ukraine which if needed might pose an issue. Clearly our leaders think China is not an immediate threat and that supporting Ukraine is a wise choice in reducing the Russian threat. Replacement of those weapons then becomes an industrial issue given limited production capability. Let's hope wise choices are being made.
Haven't both the US and the UK very poor records when it comes to intervention in foreign countries? Have those interventions ever worked out well?
I recently re-read the book Charlie Wilson's War about the US involvement in Afghanistan when the Russians were there. It almost reads like a comedy except it wasn't.
I was thinking of "Charlie Wilson's War" (the film) this morning. I'd like to watch it again.
The film ends with a quote from Charlie Wilson about how the United States declined to engage in "nation building" after the Soviets exited. Maybe the Reagan administration got that aspect of the Afghanistan project right.
From 1973 (the US exit from Vietnam) through 2002, the US did not engage in nation-building projects. (I think that's right. I can't think of a counter-example right off.) And the initial American campaign in Afghanistan had more the flavor of a punitive campaign. But then it morphed into nation-building. There certainly would have been an argument for letting Afghanistan sort out its own issues after having helped the Hamid Karzai and the Northern Alliance run the Taliban out.
I'm British and one of the things which astonished me about Charlie Wilson's War was that it appeared to be a kind of private operation without any kind of oversight by the president. I think it was Carter at the time and the book implies that he didn't know about it. I may have got this wrong because I really don't understand how the US government works. I imagined that under normal circumstances there would be an overall strategy and policy about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and this policy would be determined by the President and his officials. He probably did have a policy but it must have been completely undermined by Charlie Wilson. So it seems hardly surprising that there was no follow up of the Russian withdrawal, it just wasn't in the plan. Either Wilson's or the president's.
It's worthwhile mentioning too that George H. W. Bush decided not to push for regime change after the Iraqi's had been pushed out of Kuwait. I think that decision was criticized at the time but in retrospect it was probably a good thing.
That's right. Even before going in to Kuwait in 1991, the administration of George H.W. Bush committed to securing a UN mandate to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait, and nothing more.
At the time, I did believe that commitment. But, yes, the administration stuck to it. And A central part of sticking to it was, I think, that bit about making big, ostentatious show of securing the imprimatur of the UN. Under the post-Soviet, "New World Order," the administration would elevate the UN to something greater than a debate society. UN-enthusiasts among member states were happy to go along ...
We can only hope no one in the Russian chain of command is as stupid or crazy as whichever Americans made the decision to destroy the Nordstream pipelines.
I would expect anyone (like me) who has studied the history of Russia to resolve to whatever extent possible never to go to war with that country. Russia is not like the United States, but that does not mean we shouldn't try as hard as we can to be friends.
The current American leadership absolutely disgusts me.
..... (!) .... (sigh) ...
Nice refresh on history. While I've often read many histories that attempt to explain the why of war they always attempt to explain often irrational decisions made retrospectively. At the time they seemed wise and justified.
In terms of Ukraine, the Donbas has been historically a complex issue going all the way back to the Holodomor of the 1930's. The resettlement of Russians in the area afterwards has been a friction point to the ethnicities involved. Whether the E-W divides can be managed from Kiev has been an issue but one for the Ukrainians to sort. Russia's stealth annexation of Crimea led to a complete restructuring of the Ukraine military that now has become quite capable.
My take on what Putin has done relates to an apparent inability to quell unrest in the Donbas in Russia's favor. He was not winning militarily nor with hearts and minds. He mounted a huge threat right on the border of a low level combat zone and even that was not improving the Russian situation. His decision to try for a quick invasion failed because he badly misjudged Ukraine sentiment and a much stronger military. The truly inaptness of his attack assumed an awful lot, a failure of logistical planning. The nominal ability of his artillery to create victories has now been negated by better US supplied artillery. He has wasted a lot of expensive munitions on pointless targets and now has run out of the smarter weapons. While the Russians have always been less concerned over soldier's lives, his current tactics have resulted in huge losses that now matter.
Where this goes as Ukraine steadily rolls Russian troops back is unknown. Putin is in a very bad place and perhaps finds losing intolerable. I don't think Ukraine will settle until it retakes Crimea. Russian equipment is beginning to become impossible to replace or repair. Sanctions have worked well in terms of limiting Russian arms production. Sanction are now being felt in the overall economy as well but Russians are used to deprivation. Whether we can return to the days pre-2014 with Sevastopol and Crimea holding a long term Russian facility lease is uncertain, but Russia can't accept not having that port. A veritable rock and hard place issue as the war drags on. We could end it by denying supports but face a political backlash for that both domestically and internationally.
I have to admit that, in my mind, the Russians demonstrated some awareness of the prospect that their initial invasion might not yield the quick result: they made such an ostentatious show of flying bombers, escorted by fighters, over Kiev. It was a show not so much of shock-and-awe but all-show-and-awe. My gut tells me that they were really hoping to do this on the cheap and might not be up for a protracted campaign. But, here we are.
I've been following Graham for some time (https://grahamseibert.substack.com/p/history-leading-up-to-russias-defeat) and he passes on messages from Holmans. I've commented on his recent history lesson and one of the commentators adds even more history of the Donbas (most out of print). I think out gut instincts are in turn. I seriously doubt Putin wanted what seems to be a poorly run military to be exposed.
In earlier times, I'm told the US worked to help the Russians harden and secure many loose nukes and materials. At the time Russia was broke and nobody was minding those potentially hazardous items. At one point I interviewed an immigrated Russian scientist with skills in Electromagnetics. We really couldn't hire him because of security issues and I wished him well in academic efforts. But there was a time we were taking in numbers of unemployed scientists.
I do hope they are managing their stockpile well and fear Putin's bluster may lead to real troubles. I do know we attend to the care of our nukes in the extreme, not clear if the Russians are still doing that. The US has actually assisted in safeguard training but that was long ago. The world has a strong interest is securing those really awesome weapons.
I admit a lot of frustration with the media fog over the questions of who is "winning." On one side we have folks like Douglas MacGregor who is all in on the Russia-is-winning-the-war-of-attrition, and then we have others who keep demanding $billions more, because "1938," "Putin bad," etc. But, what is the reality on the ground.
Your idea of the Ukrainians going so far as to take back the Crimea is interesting. I look at the map and puzzle over the less ambitious objective of taking back Kherson and the "land bridge" between the Crimea and the Donbass. I wouldn't want to be in the vanguard of young men storming across the Dnipro. Judging from the map: There's a lot of wetlands to slog through under fire. But, if the Ukrainians can take Kherson /and/ plant themselves securely on the south of the river ... that would make for quite a development.
I'be also seen MacGregor who plays to Tucker's tune. But see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h--3wTmLSw where Petraeus has a different view. Also Jack Keane latest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXIuq07I7vs. We might take heart from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUf16DRNXIw as Pompeo mentions multiple back lines of discussion.
We are currently sending weapons from our forces to Ukraine which if needed might pose an issue. Clearly our leaders think China is not an immediate threat and that supporting Ukraine is a wise choice in reducing the Russian threat. Replacement of those weapons then becomes an industrial issue given limited production capability. Let's hope wise choices are being made.