Ukraine: Dwight Einsenhower was right all along

 

General Dwight Einsenhower
(later President Dwight Einsenhower)

When the then Commander of Allied Forces in Europe raised the alert about the power of weapons industries to get completely out of control, he was right all along and what happened along decades has proven that he was rightly concerned about the consequences of the fever to make vast amounts of money by promoting conflicts everywhere.

During a recent interview, Oliver North - a former advisor to President Ronald Reagan - merely confirmed that the military escalade not just in Europe but also across areas bordering China - is a business much more than a geopolitical issue. This is the place where geopolitical reasons are used as a pretext to spend and spend taxpayers money to enrich the military industrial complex.

William Hartung, especialized in defense analysis and coverage of economics of the Pentagon, indicates that the United States and its NATO allies have spent tens of billions in the conflict in Ukraine, but that the Pentagon, the military services and the big weapons contractors appear to be poised to seize on this crisis to permanently expand the size and scope of the US arms industry in ways that go far beyond what is needed.

Amont the plans being floated, indicates William Hartung, is the construction of new weapons factories, dramatically increasing production of ammunition, anti-tank weapons and others systems, and easing oversight of weapons procurement. This is reducing controls in terms of the monies spent.

Lack of supervision of monies spent to create something that William Hartung indicates is both unnecessary and unwise. There is the certain risk of lowering safeguards against waste and poor performance. To put in everyday language, there is the danger of producing bad quality equipment and wasting resources that could be used to meet other urgent priorities.

The issue remains that, as Oliver North stated, so called aid for Ukraine is in fact monies that never reach Ukraine, but benefit directly the military industrial complex in the USA transforming aggresion into a very profitable business for corporations but being very bad deal for the USA.

More will be revealed once Congress passes the Fiscal Year 2023 Pentagon spending bill and the administration announces its proposal for Fiscal Year 2024 early next year, states William Hartung. Given the present impass concerning the election of the Leader of the House of Representatives with Republicans that don't seem to be to agree who is going to replace the outgoing Nancy Pelosi, one can imagine that the present political entanglement will add delay upon delay. In the meantime, there is every sing that procurement will go ahead without much needed supervision. The amount involved much exceed the amount  committed to the conflict in Ukraine.

Apparently, Army Acquisition chief Doug Bush announced that there are plans to triple ammunition production and double production of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems and High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems launchers. The Pentagon's overall weapons acquisition chief William LaPlante is said to be pushing measures to speed up production of weapons and this would include multy-year production commitments. William LaPlante counts on Congress to add billions of dollars into the so called industrial base to fund these production lines.

Going back to Ukraine being used as justification for massive long term military investment, this looks and sounds like preparation for another conflict - namely a war against China. Having said that the equipment being made would be for fighting on the ground and there is no prospect of the US fighting a war against China on land.

Judging by other endeavours like the F-35, that has been seen as overpriced and underperforming, there is the issue that the numbers being built will exceed what is needed as a trend towards unmanned aircraft is prevailing. With regards to aircraft carriers, William Hartung says that aircraft carriers are extremely expensive and increasingly vulnerable and that this makes them a very poor investment.

No need to be reminded of Admiral Erich Raeder who gave priority to the construction of big ships like the Bismark, ship that ended up being sank no long after a naval encounter. Karl Dönitz asked for more U-Boots, but Admiral Raeder had other ideas. After a major encounter, the surface fleet with its expensive ships could not play a major role and by the time Karl Dönitz became Admiral crucial had been lost because Germany did not have enough U-Boots to take advantage of a temporary window of opportunity. This risk is ever present when it comes to weaponry. By the time the Eurofighter became available it was already outdated. Mechanical failures and delays have the F-35 not a very good choice.

In recent months, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that Germany was planning to invest more than 230 billion Euro to beef-up German Armed Forces and among his plans was the acquisition of F-35 aircraft. While the now President of the European Commision Ursula von der Leyen - was then German Defense Minister - Germany had big issues with the F-35. At one point, only a few of all F-35 were actually fit for flying. Having to depend of supplies provided by foreign providers is always an issue. Something similar happenend when Britain launched its two newest aircraft carriers going to sea without fix wing aircraft. There were problems of either availability or of lack of maintenance parts.

If far too many aircraft are built that end up being obsolete even before they leave the factories, it all becomes a massive waste. This is why with American military expenditure at Pentagon level set to reach 850 billion US Dollars in 2024, William Hartung believes that the time is long overdue for a more realistic strategy and more disciplined spending priorities. 

The danger is that almost always greed takes precedence over sound decision making and that there are always excuses to over spend.

   

The Russian Federation is going now for the Dwight Einsenhower Strategy

 

After the bombing of the bridge in Krim, the strategy of the Russian Federation has certaintly changed. They will now go for vital infra-structure and this means energy, bridges, transport and this is the difference between Arthur Harris's strategy and Dwight Eisenhower's strategy.

Without oil, without electricity, without communications, without railways, without transport, the Wehrmacht became a sitting duck and therefore the strategry of Russian Armed Forces will follow the path set out by the American Commander of Allied Forces in Europe.

Winter is coming and Ukraine will have to make hard decisions. It will be about leaving the civilian population without energy and without transport or providing its forces with energy and transport. 

Ukraine is already suffering blackouts and there will be more if dams and bridges are blown up. Isn't this what the Americans did to Serbia during the war that led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia?

It was revealed that Ukraine's efforts to destroy Russian drones are much more costly than the cost of the drones they are trying to destroy. Russian fighter planes are now coming dangerously close to British jets operating in the Black Sea Region. Britain will have to decide if it really wants to get involved. This weeks events in the United Kingdom are not reassuring. One thing is certain: the new British Prime Minister whoever he or she might be, will be served a bunch of very hot potatoes and will have to prove that he or she is capable of dealing with them.

In the meantime, populations of the zones at war are being evacuated by the Russian Federation to that only combatting forces are present so that Russian Forces have a free hand to exterminate anything on their path and so that Ukrainian forces cannot use civilians as shield. If you are in the area, you will have to a combattant and face the risk faced by combattants. This will be a "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed).

How far will be EU countries be willing or able to go is a major question. Zelensky's desperate efforts to get the kind of support that neighbouring countries are far from willing to offer tell you that all the messages about Ukrainian successes only exist in the imagination of those in charge of a massive propaganda effort carried out by politicians and mass media.

 

  

Moscow sends clear message to London and other interested parties: We have not even started

While in London politicians are busy talking about the successors of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, Russian forces in Ukraine keep moving forward apace and Moscow sent a very clear message stating that 'the war in Ukraine has not even started'. Whether those pushing and pushing get the message is another matter. 

I myself have come to accept that comments made by Sergei Ivanov some time ago about conventional wars and nuclear wars do not necessarily reflect today's realities. In the same way that the USA decided to use atomic weapons against Japan in 1945 to prevent a massive number of casualties if American troops were forced to fight on Japanese soil, what President Harry S Truman decided to do then might well be what the parties involved in the conflict in Ukraine decide to do now in 2022. I consider that what is happening in Ukraine right now is what happened in Spain during the so called Spanish Civil War. Spain was a testing ground on which both Germany and the Soviet Union tested their military capabilities. The German Luftwaffe was tested. The Condor Legion had the much needed training that had been forbidden by the Versailles Treaty. Ukraine is a testing ground. Troops needed to be hardened to get them ready for a much bigger operation. Methods of strategic bombing were developed. While the Luftwaffe operated under Hugo Sperrle's command, Wilhelm von Thoma was in charge of ground forces. The logic is pretty straightforward. Bombing from the air to soften the target followed by ground forces to eliminate any resistance on the ground.

Having gained total control of Luhansk, on the way to control Donestk and having closed access to the Black Sea, hardened Russian forces will move forward to paralize any possible resistance. General Dwight Einsenhower spoke about cutting off vital links including communications as a way to block the enemy's capacity to move on the battlefield. Roads, railways, communication links and energy resources will be targetted and Kiev and other remaining cities will become Warsaw, forcing the Ukrainian government to accept an unconditional surrender. Ukrainian mass media will be taken over thus cutting all outside links. By impeding Russian media operations, the so called West has shot itself in the foot. When things go wrong, Western media will be completely isolated and unable to know what is actually happening (if they wished to report the truth, something that Western media seldom do).

As Moscow already stated, the longer the war goes on the lesser the chances of reaching a negotiated peace settlement. 

How signals are interpreted

In 1991, the Soviet Union came to an end and this was very much the consequence of the efforts to remain ahead during the so called Cold War. The Soviet Union had to invest a vast amount of resources to remain significant in the arms race and it came the point when it could no longer afford to keep up because it did not have the financial muscle to do so.

The resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev as Soviet President is very much the end as soon after the Soviet Union disintegrated, leaving the USA as the one major superpower without any close competitors as China itself was far from being what China is today - economically, technologically and militarily. It could be said that the USA could attack Yugoslavia and dismember Yugoslavia without a UN mandate and without any real opposition and this is something that could not have happened if the Soviet Union had been around with the power to prevent such attack.

Having said that, 2022 is a different story. The Russian Federation is much more powerful than the Soviet Union for several reasons and one of them is the fact that the Russian Federation like China are much more homogenous countries with less ethnic and political contradictions. The Russian intelligence networks was magnifically helped by the fact that former Warsaw Pacto countries and regions were integrated into the European Union. If you were to look for an image to represent what has happened the Trojan Horse comes to mind.

The USA has used Britain as an extension of the USA in Europe and beyond. The USA has used Britain to justify USA agendas before the American people. If Tony Blair had not joined forces with George Bush Junior, it would have been difficult for the American President to sell his agenda to the American people. Britain has been used as a junior partner and as a propaganda tool and Britain has had to pay a very high price for it. It happened in Iraq and it happened in Afghanistan and it is happening in Europe. Inflation and financial difficulties that Britain is facing don't come out of nowhere. They are the direct result of sanctions and other measures taken against the Russian Federation that have had a boomerang effect not just in Europe, but worldwide. What happens when oil prices measured in US Dollars go up? Britain will pay higher prices not just because of market prices going up, but also because the loss of value of Pound means that Britain will need a lot more Dollars to pay for energy supplies and this has a direct impact on the British economy. If the Treasury cannot keep up with increasing expenditure and if the private sector in Britain has to translate cost into prices charged to consumers, industrial unrest is already on the horizon.

Just a few days ago, the British government was offering salary increases of 3% when inflation was already at 9% and more. Active workers will suffer and pensioners will suffer when the government is not able to adjust salaries and pensions taking into account the rate of inflation. The private sector already hit very badly by Covid, hit now both by inflation and consumption reduction will face an even harsher economic environment.

Liz Truss as Foreign Secretary said that she was in favour of cutting down the manpower of the British Armed Forces at a time when tensions are rising and there is the prospect of open conflict with both the Russian Federation and China. While would the UK be talking about cutting down its military capabilities? While is she asking other countries to increase their defense budget? My educated guess is that Britain does not have what it takes to beef up its Armed Forces and is therefore asking others to invest more to level the field in terms of what NATO can do or not do. President Donald Trump raised the concern that USA was the one feeling the pain created by military expenditure while other NATO members were not doing enough. Chancellor Olaf Scholz talked about hundred billions of EUROs to beef up German military capabilities, but how does this fit in with the fact that Germany is facing serious issues when it comes not just to the availability of energy sources, but also to the cost of existing energy sources. When both big economic players like Bayer and Thyssen-Krupp and the trade unions talk about the risk of economic collapse, what will Olaf Scholz be willing to sacrifice to beef up the German military capabilities? When you look East, Poland was offering to send their outdated Mig fighter jets to Ukraine if the USA could give Poland F35s in exchange, something that was rejected outrightly by the USA. What about other countries of the NATO block and what about those who are not members of NATO? Do they have the financial muscle to beef up their military capabilities or will they always depend on what USA or Britain can give them? Germany made many promises, but has delivered none of them.

Behind the speeches, this is the reality and today the British Primer Minister Boris Johnson fell not because of the scandals involving sexual misconduct of Conservative MPs. He fell because of economic realities. What were Conservative MPs talking about? VAT and Corporation Tax. Britain has been overspending for several reasons, including the fight against COVID when caution regarding budget was put aside to deal with a national emergency. On top of that, there is another national emergency created by British geopolitical decisions that have backfired. 

Look at the economy. For decades, Britain had remained relatively stable with very low interest rates and a significantly higher rate of employment and low prices in the shops. As the CEO of Poundland explained, he used to pay about 2,000 Pound for a container and now the price has jumped and it costs 20,000 Pound to bring imported products to the United Kingdom. Add to that fixed overheads and utilities and economic margins are dramatically reduced. This is not sustainable and on top of it the devaluation of the Pound compared to the US Dollar will make imports ever more expensive. Put aside Poundland and the situation many importers and exporters face and focus on food supplies. If Britain imports 60 per cent of what Britain consumes, then the costs of food will rise exponentially combining importation, transportation and distribution and costs involved in retail operations. Retail costs have been reducing by reducing manpower at the shops. You see today that the number of employees employed by retailers has been reduced with the introduction of automation. Automation reduces the numbers of jobs across the board whether we are talking about banking and financial institution, retailers and even transport. Much of the dispute affecting transport and leading to strikes is due to the declared intention of cutting jobs to cut costs. Having said that, if jobs been eliminated in one segment of activity are not created in other areas, the welfare bill will have to rise to pay for unemployment benefits and other social benefits in a country in which the number of non active population is rising while the number of those active at work is falling. This happens naturally because of an ageing population, but it is accelerated when people who are still fit to remain active lose their jobs.

What happened to the Soviet Union will happen to Britain. There is a time when your economy is not strong enough and everything is translated into accumulated and rising debt and when this happens there are social and political consequences.