Bob Homans May 25

20220526

Ukraine – 5/25 Sitrep
By: Robert Homans
May 25, 2022
The NY Times Editorial & Gadgets and Gizmos

My Kyiv Collaborator is taking a well-earned 2 days off.   Both of us still have “day jobs.”

The NY Times Editorial

Supporters of Ukraine are rightly outraged over the May 19th NY Times editorial, calling on the United States to encourage Ukraine to make the right decision on how to end the war, likely by ceding territory to Russia.   Yesterday my former Harvard Government 180 Professor, otherwise known as Henry Kissinger, said much the same thing in his televised remarks at the Davos World Economic Forum.   In both the editorial and the speech, the NY Times and the former Government 180 Professor, gave Ukraine an “attaboy,” a pat on the back, and advice to Ukraine that they’ve had their fun, stop their game and go sit in a corner.

The NY Times editorial stated, “But as the war continues, Mr. Biden should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain.”

“Confronting this reality may be painful, but it is not appeasement. This is what governments are duty bound to do, not chase after an illusory “win.” “

There are several problems with the assumptions that the NY Times stated in its editorial, including:

·       “President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people” – By “his people,” I assume the NYT is referring to Ukrainian citizens.   In my opinion neither Pres. Biden nor Pres. Zelenskyy are capable of making the case to Ukrainians that they should agree to cede any land to Russia.   The NY Times evidently assumes that they can make such a case.

·       “A limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia.”  Stipulating that there is a limit on how far the United States can go to confront Russia, that limit doesn’t extend to, or has direct relevance to, limiting Ukraine’s willingness to continue fighting.

·       Throughout this war, the United States has always had “limits” on weapons we were willing to provide to Ukraine.  The NY Times appears to assume otherwise.  At the beginning of the war, based on the assumption that the Ukrainian Government would surrender to Russia within 5 days but continue to fight a guerrrilla war, the United States limited its weapons deliveries to Ukraine, to those items that the Ukrainians could use in small-unit combat, including partisan activities that would continue after Ukraine’s “surrender.”   Now that Ukraine has these weapons, we should expect that Ukraine will continue partisan activities in those territories that Russia may still control as a result of a “ceasefire,” regardless of exhortations that Ukraine stops fighting, from the United States, France, Germany, and the former Government 180 professor.

·       Ukrainians can rely on the memory of their grandparents fighting the Soviets in the Carpathians until the early 1950s, without any outside support.   Their descendants can rely on physical borders with friendly countries and the Ukrainian Diaspora, plus some limited access by sea, to allow continual re-supply.   Partisans in tiny Lithuania fought against the Soviets until the early 1950’s, partly because they had access to the sea and benefited from re-supply largely from the Lithuanian Diaspora. 

·       Ukrainians are familiar with the impact of ceasefires, and pressure from Western countries to agree to ceasefires.   Most recently, Minsk II.   Ukrainians will not allow their leaders to make the same mistake again.

Regardless of the mistaken conclusions of the NY Times and the former Harvard Government 180 professor, the only “end game” is a Ukrainian victory.   Anything other than a Ukrainian victory will result in mass murder in Central and Eastern Europe, primarily carried out in Ukrainian territories that may be occupied by Russia as a result of a “ceasefire,” privation, and possible famine in many parts of the World.

Gadgets and Gizmos

This is a fascinating article someone sent me, about the ability of Americans to invent gadgets and gizmos to resolve many problems that we encounter, and how this ability contributed to the development of weapons like the Javelin missile.   Ukrainians have the same talent, and our respective armies are both organized in such a way so gizmos can be quickly incorporated.   I’m no longer sure about the U.S. Army being so organized, but at one time they were.

After the landings at Normandy, the U.S. Army was stymied by the Hedgerow Country, consisting of fields surrounded by tall hedges made up of thick vines and trees that were virtually impossible to penetrate.   The Germans covered the entrances with their 88 mm anti-tank guns.

An American soldier owned a metalworking shop in Brooklyn.  He came up with an idea for a metal attachment that would fit on the front end of a Sherman tank, allowing the tank to cut through the hedges.   They found a place to fabricate a prototype and they solved the problem; no lengthy tender process required necessary to incorporate the gizmo into the Army’s toolkit.   At the time, the U.S. Army was organized in such a way so that gizmos could be quickly incorporated.   The same thing is true with the Ukrainian Army and this, as much as the weapons Ukraine is getting from the West, explains the success they’re having against the Russians.

Another example was when the navigator on my ship in the U.S. Navy rigged the sound-powered phone system in his stateroom, to allow him to answer calls from the ship’s bridge without getting up from his bunk.   Unfortunately for him, when the Commanding Officer saw it during a zone inspection he ripped it out of the wall.

Ukrainians are buying commercial drones that can exported from the U.S. without an export license.  They’re brought into Ukraine, and they’re modified to be able to drop munitions by remote control.