Who are these Austrians?

And why do we waste any more time supporting them, for instance via the OECD and OSCE?

In William Nattrass’ op-ed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Poland’s functional ascension to European leadership regarding the barbarian Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he cited a couple of remarks by Austria’s Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg.

Mr Schallenberg had claimed Europe’s “security architecture will have to take Russia into account in future”….

Certainly, since, contra Putin, Russia’s existence isn’t at stake. But with a Ukrainian decisive victory, that future would include a less capable-of-threat Russia.

Schallenberg also was upset that Poland had successfully blocked Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s attendance at a recent OECD meeting.

Mr Schallenberg said Mr Lavrov’s presence would have provided a rare chance for Western politicians to communicate their criticisms directly to the Kremlin.

This is just breathtakingly stupid. It’s almost like Schallenberg doesn’t understand that Russia and Western nations have exchanged embassies.

Hold Off, Guys

That’s what the American “defense” establishment is advising Ukraine now as that nation fights for its existence against the invasion of barbarian Russia. Wait until the new arms transfers, just agreed at a NATO meeting, arrive, those worthies say.

The US has advised Kyiv to hold off on any major counter-offensives against Russian forces in Ukraine until Washington’s latest supply of weaponry and trainings have been provided, a senior White House official said, according to Reuters Saturday.

And

A senior US official told reporters that the US believes Russia will gain an advantage when it comes to a war of attrition and therefore Ukraine needs to change the dynamic on the battlefield.

And

The official did not clarify for how long the US wants Kyiv to hold off on launching a counter-offensive or when Washington will deem Ukraine ready to do so….

That’s…foolish…for a number of reasons.

The US is notoriously slow even to get the promised equipment out the door, let alone delivered into Ukrainian hands. For how long must the Ukrainians “hold off?” These US officials are careful to avoid answering that question.

On the other hand, “Washington” claims to know better than the Ukrainians when Ukraine will be ready to go over to the offensive again. “Washington” Know Betters, after all, are looking from the vantage point of their airconditioned DoD, State, and White House offices. The Ukrainians can only see the whites of the barbarian’s eyes, see the barbarian’s fatigue, the way the winter cold saps the poorly equipped for winter barbarian’s will to fight or the manic rage of Wagner’s horde sitting right across from them. This is just quintessential ugly American arrogance. The Ukrainian forces in the field don’t need to be ready enough to suit “Washington.” They only need to be readier than the barbarian for a winter offensive.

Which brings me to: rather than sitting on the defensive, ceding the initiative, and thereby fighting the war of attrition that Washington is rightly worried about, the best way for the Ukrainians to change the dynamic on the battlefield is precisely to prosecute a winter offensive of their own. Just like they changed the then-dynamic with their Kherson offensive last spring.

Aside: The Pentagon doesn’t want to ship M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. The US has argued its tanks are too costly and difficult to maintain. Then why are they still in our inventory soaking up money and time and soldiers to keep some fraction of them combat ready? At least DoD officials aren’t arguing (publicly, anyway), like the Germans are vis-à-vis their Leopard tank, that the dumb Slavs are just too stupid to learn how to drive a tank.

Another Aside: These Washington officials plainly are projecting their own imperatives onto the Ukrainians. That suggests dangerously meek positions vis-à-vis our own government’s willingness to defend the Republic of China. Or our own nation.