The View from Right Field

Ukraine and the Failure of Sanctions – One More Time

I’m sorry to keep harping on the failure of sanctions, but it’s important because they are not working, or at least not doing enough, in Russia’s war against Ukraine.  As I mentioned here, there were two articles in the Financial Times last week about how sanctions against Russia are being violated and how they are aren’t getting the job done. 

There was another article in yesterday’s FT¹, this one about the “ghost trade” in dual-use goods.  Dual-use goods are products that can be used for civilian purposes and for military or intelligence purposes.  The ghost trade is when goods are ordered by a company in one country and never show up there.  What is happening, among other things, is that the dual-use goods are ordered by companies in places such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia and are shipped, from EU countries, through Russia to get to their destination,  But the goods are never arriving.  They are disappearing.

The Feel-Good Purpose of Sanctions

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post asking: “Can Even More Sanctions Beat Russia?”  My answer was no.  More evidence to support this view came last week in both the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal. 

The FT had two articles.  One was about a Russian spy network that is buying machine tools and microchips Russia needs to maintain its military-industrial complex.¹  While people from Washington are traveling to western Europe to talk about tightening enforcement of sanctions, the point is the Russians are still able to get around them.

Can Even More Sanctions Beat Russia?

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the United States is proposing to the other G7 countries that they replace the current sector-by-sector regime of sanctions against Russia with a ban on all exports to Russia except for a few exemptions.¹  The EU and Japan are pushing back, but they trade more with Russia, so this kind of a ban would cost them more than it would the United States.

The frustrating part of this proposal is that it’s just another attempt to try to beat Putin with sanctions.  Too many people in our government seem to think Russia can be defeated in Ukraine if we just impose one more set of sanctions, if we just limit a few more things we sell to Russia or cut back a little more on what we buy from Russia.  It seems so easy – and cheap. Just impose enough sanctions and poof, Russia loses.  Except it doesn’t work that way, and it certainly hasn’t stopped Vladimir Putin so far.

The Air Force Wants to Get Rid of the A-10 Warthog – Again

The Wall Street Journal has a long article about the Defense Department’s effort to get rid of the A-10 Warthog in today’s paper.  The title of the article, “Why Is America Still Flying the A-10 Warthog, a Cold War Relic?,” pretty well tells the writer’s view.  But the story of the A-10 Warthog is more than just the Defense Department struggling to build the Air Force we need for the future against parochial members of Congress caring only about jobs in their states or districts. 

The Warthog has a specialized mission: providing close-in aerial support for ground troops.  And it has done a great job of it from the first Gulf War to Afghanistan.  But the Air Force says the A-10 doesn’t work on the modern battlefield.  Actually, though, the Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years.  The Warthog is not a fancy plane.  Its top speed is 420 mph.  It is not “stealthy.”  And its main purpose is to support the Army, not a job that appeals to Air Force generals who like advanced bombers and supercharged fighter jets.

NATO: And Finland Makes 30*

Finland officially joined NATO on yesterday, becoming the 30th 31st* member of the alliance.  And yesterday, a Kremlin spokesman said that Finland’s membership was an “aggravation of the situation” and “an encroachment on Russia’s security.”¹  I suppose it is true that Finland’s membership did aggravate Vladimir Putin.  As for it encroaching Russia’s security, it might have done so if Russia’s security is defined as being able to invade any country it wants to.

Also, Russia’s Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu, said that it was Finland’s membership was an “anti-Russian policy,”¹ which is actually 100% true.  There is no way Finland would have joined NATO if Russia had not renewed its invasion of Ukraine in February of last year.  Finland didn’t join NATO so it could attack Russia; Finland joined NATO so Russia wouldn’t attack it.  So, yes, it was an anti-Russia policy.  Or at least, an anti-Vladimir Putin policy.

If Russia wants to stops its neighbors from joining NATO because they are scared of Russia, maybe Russia should stop doing things that scare them.
---------
¹ Henry Foy and Anastasia Stognei, “Kremlin vows retaliation after Finland signs up to ‘anti-Russian’ Nato alliance,” Financial Times, April 5, 2023.
* Oops, 31st member.  I forgot about North Macedonia joining in 2020

We Need to Give Ukraine More. Now.

Joe Biden is doing a pretty decent job in Ukraine, but he could be doing better.  In fact, if we want Ukraine to prevail, we need to be doing better.  Americans are still supporting Ukraine – so far.  But how long will that last?  Americans lose interest.  We get tired, our attention lags, and we abandon our commitments.  So those of us who want Ukraine to prevail need to push to get it done now.

This is especially true with Donald Trump lurking in the background.  Who knows what he would do if he were elected again.  Or if some Republican gets nominated who tries to appeal to what he/she sees at the populism/isolationism of the Trumpian base.¹  Not to mention, how long will progressive Democrats support aid to Ukraine if we have a Republican president, instead of a Democrat?

An Operation Warp Speed for Weapons and Ammunition?

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said, while in Brussels earlier this week, that the West hopes better training will help Ukrainian forces to use less ammunition and artillery in defending against Russia’s attacks.  Russia is already using up to four times as many artillery shells as Ukraine, but somehow we think better training is the answer for Ukraine.¹  This is silly.  Better training is always good, but why can’t we get ammunition and artillery to Ukraine? 

It has been obvious since May or June of last year, if not before, that Ukraine needed ammunition and lots of it.  If we didn’t have enough, why weren’t we entering into contracts with suppliers last summer, so they could open plants, buy machinery, and hire workers to produce more ammunition?  If President Biden didn’t realize it, why didn’t the Pentagon tell him?

Helping Ukraine. Defending Taiwan. Talk Is Cheap. Actually Doing It Costs Money.

If you support Ukraine in its war with Russia, if you think the United States needs to defend Taiwan’s right to choose if it unites with China, then you need to support more money for defense.  The Russian attack on Ukraine is a new kind of war.  Actually, it’s not a new kind of war, but it is a kind of war that we have not seen for a long time.  It is a war of attrition, which means it is a war of weapons, supplies, and ammunition.

We are rapidly using up our inventories of all kinds of weapons and supplies in supporting Ukraine.  If we are going to continue to support Ukraine, we are going to need more of these things.  Right away.  And if we support the right of Taiwan to decide its own fate, we need to get supplies of these things to them – right away.  Plus, we need to replenish our own supplies because who knows where else trouble might arise.  There are countries and groups that might think now is a good time to take advantage.

Tanks for Ukraine. A Day Late and a Dollar Short Again? But It Could be Worse.

Ukraine is, at last, getting some tanks.  But consider how long it took for everybody to agree, and it’s going to what even longer for them to finally get delivered.  How much more could Ukraine have accomplished if they had gotten the tanks earlier.  But then, that seems to have been the story all along.  We’re always giving Ukraine weapons three or four months (or longer) after we should have.  We seem to be giving enough weapons to Ukraine so they can stop Russia from winning, but we never give them enough to actually get this war over with. 

There are lots of reasons people give for not giving Ukraine more weapons (and capabilities).  I’ll address two of them.  The first is that Vladimir Putin might escalate to nuclear weapons.  If that is the determining factor, then maybe we ought to stop giving any weapons to Ukraine, because otherwise we are just fighting to the last Ukrainian, without ever giving them a chance to win.  Is that fair?

Tanks for Ukraine and a “Conversation” Between Biden and Scholz

We have a problem in Ukraine.  Things were going great, but now they’re getting tougher for Ukraine.  There is only so much that Ukrainian grit and Russian incompetence can accomplish.  Also, while we can continue to rely on Ukrainian skill and bravery, we cannot assume Russia will always be stupid.

To shift the odds back in Ukraine’s favor, we need to ship more weapons to Ukraine, especially offensive weapons.  And even more especially tanks.  Nobody (except, of  course, countries like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, who understand what Russia can do, because it has done it to them) has wanted to send tanks to Ukraine.  But that is changing.  The UK is sending some Challenger tanks.  The United States says Abrams tanks are too complicated for the Ukrainians to use and maintain, etc.  Germany doesn’t want to send its Leopard 2 tanks either.  While Germany has never wanted to send tanks (they claim they don’t want to escalate the war.  Huh?  Russia invaded eleven months ago and is now sending mass rocket attacks at Ukrainian civilians,  And it would be the Germans who would be escalating?), they are now using the argument that they won’t send tanks unless the United States will, too.