Tag Archives: foreign policy

Still Waiting

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D), ‘way last summer, in the middle of his panicky running out of Afghanistan, promised those Afghanis who had worked with the US and with US forces there over the preceding 20 years that they would find welcome in the US.

He lied.

Afghan citizens who worked with the US are still waiting in third-party countries for their promised American visas eight months after leaving Afghanistan.

And this from Biden’s State Department:

After taking office, we worked to reduce the processing time for SIV [Special Immigrant Visa] eligible Afghans, while keeping in place our robust security and medical screening processes[.]

Eight months. Vetting certainly needs to be done thoroughly, but there’s no reason to dither about it. These folks already have been vetted to a considerable degree over those years that they had worked with/for us.

This is just more of Biden’s betrayal of those who helped us.

Putin Threatens Again

Posted on by
Reply

Now he’s “advising” the Swedish government that if they join NATO—or merely apply to join—it’ll be too bad for their nice little country:

Sweden’s accession to NATO will inflict considerable damage to the security of Northern Europe and Europe as a whole. The Russian Federation will have to take response measures, both military-technical and others, to curb the threats to its national security which arise in this context.

Because moving to defend itself against a threat is itself threatening. Putin is projecting. If he truly has no designs against Sweden (or Finland, come to that, or Europe), then there is nothing to fear from an alliance that is defensive in nature.

And this implied threat:

[M]uch will depend on the specific conditions of Sweden’s integration into the North Atlantic Alliance, including the potential deployment of strike systems of this military bloc on its territory[.]

Attempting to dictate the domestic military policy of a sovereign nation: “no foreign troops or systems on your soil are allowed by me.”

Putin continues to demonstrate clearly why a defensive buildup by free and sovereign nations is necessary.

Everybody but our President

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve seen European heads of state visit Ukraine to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; British PM Boris Johnson openly walked the streets of Kyiv with him.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) led a delegation of Progressive-Democrat Congressmen to Ukraine to meet with Zelenskyy.

Even our First Lady Jill Biden traveled to Ukraine to meet with Ukraine’s First Lady Olena Zelenska.

Now

[a] Republican delegation led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) has met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kiev….

But our President, Joe Biden (D), that accomplished master of…abundant caution…still won’t to go.

Force Ratios

Posted on by
Reply

But ratios of what? A simple ratio of three attacking soldiers vs 1 defending soldier is too narrow and dangerously misleading, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is demonstrating.

Soldier equivalents of a number of other factors apply, also, and “force ratios” of the following, at the least, must be included in developing the operational force ratio:

  • quality of soldier training
  • quality of commanders, officers, and NCOs
    • their ability to function in fluid, information-foggy environment
    • quality of intel available to them
  • quality and condition of equipment
  • technology of equipment
  • impact of other avenues of attack
    • cyber
    • space
    • propaganda
  • what’s being defended
    • home territory from invader
    • invader territory from counterattacking defender
  • who’s defending
    • attacked nation defenders
    • attacking nation now defending
    • attacker position on invaded territory
    • attacker position in attacking nation’s territory
  • who’s attacking
    • defending nation against attacker’s position in attacked nation
    • defending nation against attacker’s position in attacker’s nation

All of that disregards the nature of the terrain being defended/attacked, but terrain merely informs the level of required force ratio: 3:1 to 7:1, the upper bound of what’s nominally considered attackable or worth the cost to attack, or somewhere in between.

It may be that a 3:1 ratio of attackers to defenders is a valid minimum ratio for a successful attack. However, all of these factors have to be converted into their own weights on force-on-force—however hazily the estimated conversions might be—and included in the ratio calculations.

It’s especially critical, too, that cold-blooded, wholly objective estimates of the quality of one’s own soldiers vs the enemy’s be made. “The enemy is ten feet tall,” or “We are,” serve only to get friendly soldiers killed, and the attack likely defeated, regardless of the other factors incorporated into the final force-on-force estimate.

I Sympathize

Posted on by
Reply

Ukraine is preparing to put a captured Russian soldier on trial for a variety of war crimes committed over the course of the Russian barbarian invasion of Ukraine, an invasion still in progress. The 21-yr-old soldier stands accused of

fir[ing] several shots from a Kalashnikov rifle at the head of an unarmed 62-year-old man, who died on the spot just a few dozen meters from his own home in the village of Chupakhivka in Ukraine’s Sumy region[.]

Ukraine Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova says the murder occurred on February 28. The soldier is a tank commander, which in the Russian army makes him a junior NCO.

The soldier absolutely stand trial for the crime, and I think the 10-15 years to life in prison should he be convicted is light. This is the sort of crime that should draw capital punishment.

However.

It occurs to me that before those who are no more than foot soldiers are tried for the war crimes they’re accused of committing, their officers—who created the environment within which their subordinates felt free to commit these atrocities—should be tried for their complicity in war crimes.

Unfortunately and especially in the present case, where so many of the Russian barbarian officers have evaded capture (or those few of them remaining have been killed in action), it will be hard to bring the foot soldiers’ officers in, try them, and if convicted, execute them.

Put this 21-yr-old on trial, certainly. But be sure he’s being tried for what he did, and punished suitably for it if convicted; do not use him as a scapegoat for not being able to get at the officers who allowed, if not actively encouraged, these atrocities.