Ukraine
1
UKRAINE IS A LAB FOR WESTERN WEAPONS
UKRAINE: A LAB FOR WESTERN WEAPONS
0:00 - INTRODUCTION
1:07 - HOW UKRAINE TURNED INTO A LAB FOR WESTERN WEAPONS
1:54 - LESSONS THAT WEST IS LEARNING FROM UKRAINE
3:59 - UKRAINIAN INNOVATIONS IMPRESS EXPERTS
6:32 - AN OPEN MARKET FOR DRONE MAKERS
In a 2022 article titled "Ukraine now amenable to test West's weapons," Lito Gagni cites the example of the deputy head of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry Volodymyr Gavrilov who, before an audience of weapons manufacturers euphemistically termed defense industry representatives and military acquisitions personnel at the Future Force Capabilities Conference and Exhibition in Austin, Texas on September 21, 2022, expressed confidence that after using the weapons in Ukraine, it will be very easy to sell it, as it comes back as a competitive, "warzone tested" product. Along similar lines, the New York Times ran an article on Nov. 15, 2022, with the title, "For Western Weapons, the Ukraine War Is a Beta Test," pointing out that even as the traditional warfare is underway, new advances in technology and training in Ukraine are being closely monitored for the ways they are changing the face of the fight. Beyond Delta, they include remote-controlled boats, anti-drone weapons known as SkyWipers and an updated version of an air-defense system built in Germany that the German military itself has yet to use. Lara Jakes cited Ukraine's vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation Mykhailo Fedorov as saying that "Ukraine is the best test ground, as we have the opportunity to test all hypotheses in battle and introduce revolutionary change in military tech and modern warfare." He was speaking in October at a NATO conference in Norfolk, Va., where he publicly discussed Delta for the first time. He also emphasized (as Jakes goes on to note) the growing reliance on the remote-controlled aircraft and boats that officials and military experts said have become weapons of choice like those in no previous war. Federov also said that "in the last two weeks, we have been convinced once again the wars of the future will be about maximum drones and minimal humans." Jakes also observes that the Western lethal aid that is being sent to Ukraine consists, for the most part, of recently updated versions of older weapons, and goes on to cite Gen. Philippe Lavigne of France, who leads NATO’s Allied Command Transformation and who said that Ukraine had shown how future warfare was likely to be fast-paced and highly contested not just on the ground or in the skies, but also, most important, in cyberspace. "This is the future operating environment," General Lavigne said.According to reports, Ukraine has been used as a testing ground for US and its allies' weapons and military technology. Media report states that the Pentagon has closely studied the conflict for future lessons, with Ukraine being referred to as "a veritable battle lab" by experts. The military operation in Ukraine has provided the US and its allies with the opportunity to observe the performance of their own weapons systems under intense use. Additionally, the West is reportedly noting the types of munitions used by both sides and how effectively they are being used. The conflict in Ukraine has also served as a source of data for the US military on the utility of their own systems. Furthermore, US military officials have been monitoring Russia's use of inexpensive, disposable drones in the conflict.
Ukraine's friends, Eliot A. Cohen tells us, have poured a considerable amount of weaponry into the nation's fight for survival. This begs the question: How considerable is this aid? According to the all-seeing, all-knowing Eliot A. Cohen, the United States alone has provided more than $25 billion of matériel, including 160 modern artillery pieces, 38 medium-range HIMARS rocket systems, hundreds of armored vehicles, and tens of thousands of advanced munitions of all types. Allies such as Poland and the Czech Republic, moreover, have done even more (in relative, not absolute terms), supplying hundreds of Soviet-model tanks, an array of modern artillery systems, and all kinds of nonlethal support. Even hesitant Germany has sent a score of advanced guns and missile launchers, some antiaircraft systems, and more. In total, the West has sent more than 320 tanks, 2,400 other armored vehicles, 450 artillery pieces, and more than 135 air-defense systems to Ukraine, and more is on the way. However, it must also be said that we shall never know for sure just how considerable it was or is. But this aid is not enough. At least, according to Cohen. For him more is less. And more is never enough. As everybody should know by now. And as this Atlantic article titled "Western Aid to Ukraine Is Still Not Enough" sadly makes clear. This is still not enough, as he himself states and as becomes painfully clear later in the article. I do not doubt in the least that Eliot A. Cohen is having sleepless nights over Ukraine, and I don't have any doubt in my mind that he's been having "sleepless nights" thinking about the threat of nuclear apocalypse that, as the New York Times stated, limits the West's options toward our emboldened Eastern rivals. What is worrying, however, is the fact that he thinks that any result other than a victory for Kyiv will make the world a more dangerous place for all of us. There is no middle ground here. And there is definitely no splitting of the difference. There is no compromise or middle way here, or a deal to be had there. He understands that peace with this nuclear enemy can only be achieved through total and complete victory. And it is, dare I say it, about the "struggle for total Aryan Victory" and the "Nazification of Ukraine". So what is "enough?" It's like asking how long is a piece of string, or how thick is Eliot A. Cohen, really, a conundrum or dilemma that, when you really get down to it, can never be answered precisely and can never be precisely determined. This sort of insufferable nonsense is nearly enough to set alarm bells off in anyone's mind. It really makes one wonder whose agenda Cohen is promoting and whose agenda is being pushed. It also makes one wonder if there isn't something deeper at work here than deception and lies.
Russia is indeed big, ruthless, and counting on the sanctuary of its territory. But at the same time, Russia has been badly bloodied. But, perhaps, that should come as no surprise. For behind Ukraine lies the power and the problem of the West, understood, as he defines it, in the old-fashioned sense of a free coalition of states led by the United States. Remember that you can never do "enough" to free Ukraine from the shackles of the past and to create, as the Guardian explains, "a new national identity based on events repressed or rewritten by the Soviet regime". That much appears to be obvious. Cohen also admits with disarming frankness that this is, in many ways, a war between a calcified society lost in its brutal past and a free society looking toward a decent future. But it appears obvious, at least, to Cohen, that "we" are not doing enough and "we" in the West are sacrificing nothing beyond modest financial resources. "War weariness" in Western democracies, he claims, is a tired trope. The true picture is of a person one step away from declaring, "Onward, Christian Soldiers". As a number of analysts have noted, spending some tens of billions of dollars to shatter the land and air forces of one of Russia, one of our chief opponents, is both a bargain and a triumph, and a great way to spend, but Cohen goes further to say that spending some tens of billions of dollars more, for as long as it takes, is no less worth it. Obviously, for him, and others like him, there's no better way to spend taxpayer money. For as long as it takes. But what can be said of Russia can also be said of America as a whole. And the same can be said of Britain and Europe. The Economist, quite rightly, points out that Europe increasingly wants to be seen as a unified force, and it is also worth noting that the story of Britain and the story of Europe have always been intertwined, as the Guardian notes. But not always in a good way,, and sometimes but not always peacefully and contentedly. America's capacities and resources are "not infinite", but neither are they exhausted. Although it may now be cracking, and overstretching won't be conducive for them or the EU as a whole, or for both the host and the intruder. Like many observers, Cohen paints a rosy picture of the transatlantic community, but the reality is that America is on its knees, struggling to get up, and it obviously needs extraordinary measures now. It is also, as the Guardian rightly notes, "a very tribal place." These have already been observed by several investigations. For instance, it was observed by Christianity Today back in 1970 that the showy facade of affluence, technological advance, great knowledge, military might, and a high standard of living cannot hide the internal rot. Macdonald (1998) rightly predicts, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Experts have long predicted this on theoretical and observational grounds. Macdonald went on to say, and it is widely expected, that these groups will eventually develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-à-vis the other ethnic groups. Other groups, moreover, will be expelled if possible or partitions will be created, and Western societies will undergo another period of medievalism. Either way, it is the likes of Eliot Cohen who seem to be self-serving and to be implicitly guilty of employing double standards and hypocrisy for deception and manipulation and for outside consumption by the globalized community, but most importantly seem to be promoting a war that could bring them new power. Here is the key passage in the Atlantic article, and one that is likely to set off alarm bells for those who care about the direction our country is headed. Cohen seethes with resentment and complete frustration along the way. But hey, who can blame him? Especially with despised leaders like Sunak at the helm. To quote Cohen:
The real reasons for reluctance look to be timidity and a lack of imagination. So perhaps the best thing for Western leaders who cannot bring themselves to treat war as war is to clarify for them what they have to fear if they do not take the actions that both strategic calculations and moral imperatives demand. In a world where a large predatory state is stalled but not beaten decisively, the only resort for its smaller neighbors is to acquire weapons of cataclysmic power. Their leaders would be irresponsible if they did not consider that option.
Reply With Quote
Russia Slams West's 'Final Solution'
RUSSIAN VICTORY IN UKRAINE
Originally Posted by LETTER "Z"
United States
Italia
Bookmarks