February 25, 2022

"The U.S. could have refused to elucidate its security commitments to Ukraine, much as it has done vis-à-vis Taiwan for decades. The implicit threat of U.S. and NATO intervention..."

"... would have forced Putin to contend with the risks of further escalation. Instead, Biden granted Putin a free hand. The U.S. also refused to provide advanced weapon systems to Ukraine.... And for those who might argue that Russia would have preempted the shipment of weaponry by invading, I would contend that if invasion was already the predicted outcome, what was there to lose? All the while, the Biden administration failed to pair diplomatic overtures with sufficiently powerful, credible military pressure, perhaps over fears of a bilateral conflict with Russia. These fears were misplaced. I can say from my significant experience dealing with the highest levels of Russia’s military leadership that it has no interest in a bilateral confrontation with the U.S. Russian leaders have zero desire for nuclear war, and they understand that they would inevitably lose in a conventional war. However, Russia excels at compelling the U.S. to self-deter.... Over and over, the president’s longtime senior advisers seem to have recommended narrow, low-risk policy options, and these backfired."

From  "America Could Have Done So Much More to Protect Ukraine/The paths to deterrence were not taken" in The Atlantic.

That's by Alexander Vindman. Remember him?

73 comments:

rehajm said...

Crissakes, how quickly the Atlantic crowns itself a foreign policy expert...and so soon after crowning itself a vaccine/COVID expert...

Mike Sylwester said...

The USA's crucial mistake was to support the Maidan protest in 2014. Instead, the USA should have advised Ukrainians to allow President Viktor Yanukovych to serve his Presidential term normally, until the next election.

Because Yanukovych was removed from his elected position by the Maidan protest in 2014, Ukraine's ethnic-Russian regions decided to secede and join Russia.

What was Vinman's opinion about the Maidan protest?

rehajm said...

..and what analysis- Joe Biden- the Democrat, remember- wasn't quick/frequent/forceful enough with saber rattling and threats of war against another global superpower...and this...

...and they understand that they would inevitably lose in a conventional war...

...after how many millions have died?

...also no mention of Biden the biggest bargaining chip the US had with Russia, and Biden's biggest foreign policy blunder- the surrender of US energy independence.

Amadeus 48 said...

Vindman? Isn't he the namesake of a garage band, the Little Vindmans? He is the greatest military public servant since Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy.

Maybe he can organize a quiet coup against Biden the way he did against Trump.

iowan2 said...

He his trying to remain relevant, instead of the treasonous footnote in history. He carries the proper credentials, and is an immigrant from the USSR. He lacks any core values, to form a consistent controlling philosophy.

The policy he is advocating is pure Trumpian, but Vindman was sufficiently bribed and paid off by invites to the powerful cocktail party, cabal. Check it out, I bet he will be featured by the cruise packet conservatives.

Birches said...

When's the impeachment?

gspencer said...

"Russian troops are advancing briskly into Ukraine. Vladimir Putin has brushed off Old Joe Biden’s sanctions and made it abundantly clear that he is not afraid of Biden, as Democrat operatives and their propaganda arm, the establishment media, have long insisted.

"This is what happens when America has a feeble president, an obvious figurehead, and our military is compromised by Leftist ideologues. Clearly Putin is taking advantage of Biden’s obvious weakness and the decimation of our Armed Forces by wokeness and Covid hysteria. He knows that there is little likelihood that Biden will touch off World War III by committing American troops to the defense of Ukraine."

from https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/02/putin-sizes-up-biden-invades-ukraine

Strick said...

Keeping in mind that I know next to nothing about military issues, the analysis I've seen shows the US was in no position to do much about the Ukraine on the grounds. Air support, yes, and potentially naval support (at substantial risk), but not on the ground.

The US military is no longer massively more powerful than other militaries as it was during the Gulf Wars. More importantly, we simply don't have enough troops in position to respond to Russian forces invading the Ukraine in time, and quite possibly would be severely challenged if we tried to simply keep them adequately supplied. Might not be true, but the numbers seem to support that.

If, as most of us believe, Putin simply judged the West, particularly Biden, as weak and inadequately prepared, I doubt an empty threat would have had been much deterrent. Even an implied commitment would give the opportunity to show how the most powerful country in the world sometimes can't deliver when it counts. Most allies know that, but proving it would shake the current world order.

Big Mike said...

Oh I remember the Vindman twins, all right. They’re also trying to claim -with no evidence — that Republicans support Putin’s moves in Ukraine. So much for their alleged national security expertise.

gilbar said...

remember O'Bama?
Obama repeatedly told allies not to underestimate his former vice president 'ability to f**k things up'

Mr Wibble said...

That fat fuck helped bring this about, so I don't want to hear any whining from him now.

Howard said...

I can't find any real on the ground reporting. Michael Yon is with the truckers. Dexter Filkins is silent.

The rear view mirror shit isn't particularly interesting since the horses escaped the barn.

Heartless Aztec said...

Everytime I see a photo of Lt Col Vindman I'm reminded of Kent "Flounder" Dorfman from Animal House and the blandishment of Dean Vernon when reviewing Dorfman's 0.2 GPA: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

iowan2 said...

Don't mean to step on the hosts, intended discussion. I found this in a different Atlantic article by Applebaum and the motivating drive of Putin. Specifically I followed the link in Vindman's column for the definition of the word 'irredentism'
This paragraph stood out to me and the lack of awareness it demonstrates by Applebaum

This position makes Putin simultaneously very strong and very weak, a paradox that many Americans and Europeans find hard to understand. He is strong, of course, because he controls so many levers of Russia’s society and economy. Try to imagine an American president who controlled not only the executive branch—including the FBI, CIA, and NSA—but also Congress and the judiciary; The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Dallas Morning News, and all of the other newspapers; and all major businesses, including Exxon, Apple, Google, and General Motors.

tim in vermont said...

Vindman is a weapons salesman. Putin offered terms that should have been acceptable to any country that simply wanted peace and prosperity back in December, but it didn't offer enough vigorish to Vindman's paymasters in the weapons business. Trump didn't want to build out the American Empire, either in Ukraine, or in Syria, so he had to go, and Vindman was right there at the front of the effort.

Temujin said...

Yeah, I remember him. Just read about him the other day, going after Rep. Elise Stefanik for releasing a statement on how Joe Biden's feckless, weak approach to the world is what has led to this. Vindman said that Stefanik, being a Trump supporter, holds a great responsibility for this war. She pointed out in her comment that it's Biden's actions and appearance over the last year that has led to this, and other world events. She is not incorrect in her assessment. Vindman is saying what Biden should have done before it came to this in his article in The Atlantic. In essence, they are saying the same thing, Vindman being more specific, Stefanik more general, but both agree that Biden is failing.

So...as usual the question is: Will does Vindman see support of Trump as a cause for this...really?

Vindman is always consistent in his Trump hate. You gotta give him that. Even if he ends up stepping on his own feet. To misquote the late great Coach Dennis Green: "He is who we thought he was."

Iman said...

“I can say from my significant experience dealing with the highest levels of Russia’s military leadership that it has no interest in a bilateral confrontation with the U.S. Russian leaders have zero desire for nuclear war, and they understand that they would inevitably lose in a conventional war.”

The legend of Lt.Col. Bearclaw Vindman continues to grow in some circles…

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Biden and his corrupt clowns are incompetent. They get rich as the world swirls into WWIII

TreeJoe said...

I'm not disagreeing with Vindman in his analysis nor in his decision to escalate within the ranks his concerns about the propriety of calls with Ukraine. However, I find his use of the word retaliation distasteful. He unilaterally decided that Trump and his appointed executive team flagging Biden family questionable behavior in Ukraine, and suggesting or asking for an investigation, would lose bipartisan support and therefore hurt the policy he and his organizations had worked on. He then made such feelings public and used in an impeachment process. He took the position that career bureaucrats policies are more important than the elected executive team, and made it public.

He made those choices and he should have anticipated losing his job as a result. How could any future admin trust him either. Those were his choices. And he wasn't even fired, just transferred out of the white house.

The only thing I object to, without knowing if there was more specific reasons, was that his brother was exited as well.

tim in vermont said...

This reminds me of Henry V. Let's all go to Ukraine and fight for the Biden family's hereditary right to graft there! The US could have agreed to a neutral, Finlandia-type solution to the problem of peaceful co-existence with Russia, but instead we insist on having a knife to Russia's throat. This war is about greed and fear and didn't need to happen, but Biden is in thrall to the Ukrainian kleptocrats.

Howard said...

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-vs-ukraine-military/31664931.html

Russian has a ~5:1 advantage.

Robert Cook said...

Why should the US be responsible for intervening unilaterally in Russia's entry into Ukraine? Why do we even have the right? How can we pretend to have any moral right or obligation to do so, given our own immoral history of unwarranted military aggression into other countries?

If there is a basis to intervene, it is the obligation of the member nations of the UN Security Council, (of which Russia, of course, is one), to so determine. If they deem intervention necessary, the UN member nations, as a united global counterpoint to Russia, should take whatever steps are necessary. This is, after all, a part of the UN's founding and ongoing raison d'etre.

EH said...

That piece is dripping with arrogance, and it really reads like he wants a war with Russia. I also don't see why we would want to listen to this "expert" when it's pretty clear he has a bias at play (being Ukrainian-American). How much is he advocating for Ukraine vs. the best interests of the US?

wendybar said...

Vindman is trying to sell his book. He should be in Ukraine fighting for his country.

Josephbleau said...

Vindiman is so smart he trick fucked his precious Ukraine into destruction. Biggest dumbshit around.

jaydub said...

As two who know Slow Joe best, Barack Obama and SECDEF Robert Gates, said, respectively: "Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up," and "Joe Biden has been wrong on nearly every foreign policy and national security issue for four decades."

So, now there's surprise that Joe is still fucking up? Even after Joe's acquiescence to Hunter's misadventures in Ukraine and China? How stupid do you have to be to believe Biden has any degree of competence or strategic vision after Afghanistan? The old fool needs to be removed via the 25th Amendment or impeached before the last vestiges of our national character are pissed away.

We're going to be lucky to avoid catastrophe in the next three years.

Tank said...

When I hear Vindman, I associate it with Seinfeld saying Newman.

Can't you picture Jerry sneering Vindman?

Tank said...

Vindman is one of those State Department guys who think that the President reports to him on foreign policy. Vindman sets the policy, and the President executes it.

boatbuilder said...

Or the US could have maintained its opposition to the Nordstream pipeline and continued to produce oil and squeeze Russia, which is what worked. But Vindman would't get any of that arms cash, so no go.

Iman said...

Bearclaw stands right alongside Sun Tzu in the pantheon of military strategists.

Balfegor said...

I was curious whether the top quote was about Obama in 2014 or Biden in 2021. It's Biden:

For instance, early in December, President Biden openly acknowledged that he would not send American troops to fight in Ukraine, thus removing any possibility of strategic ambiguity. The U.S. could have refused to elucidate its security commitments to Ukraine, much as it has done vis-à-vis Taiwan for decades. The implicit threat of U.S. and NATO intervention would have forced Putin to contend with the risks of further escalation.


But that instantly gives the lie to Vindman's argument. The people calling the shots in the US right now are the same jokers who were calling the shots back in 2014. These are repeat players! Playing coy about active US/NATO intervention in 2021 wasn't going to make Putin think that somehow this time will be different. We engaged in the same bellowing histrionics in 2014 and then didn't actually do much at all. In 2008, our Bush II bellowing histrionics (over the Russo-Georgian war) were promptly followed by the new Obama team proposing a "reset" of our relations with Russia. With that track record, why on earth would Putin interpret "strategic ambiguity" to mean there was any chance NATO troops would actually intervene on behalf of the Ukraine? Especially when, thanks to Germany's Merkel-era Energiewende, he can basically hold Germany hostage.

I agree with him that Biden sacrificing the last shred of "strategic ambiguity" wasn't great, but let's not pretend we were giving up anything much.

Friendo said...

Don't trust anything that comes out of "Bearclaw" Vindman's fat, bloated pie-hole.

Balfegor said...

Re: Mike Sylwester:

The USA's crucial mistake was to support the Maidan protest in 2014. Instead, the USA should have advised Ukrainians to allow President Viktor Yanukovych to serve his Presidential term normally, until the next election.

I agree that supporting Euromaidan was a mistake, but I don't think it would have ended Russian designs on the Ukraine.

First, the Ukraine had been seeking a path to NATO membership off and on since 2008. Euromaidan or no, that issue would have come up again and again.

Second, clearly Putin just wanted the Ukraine back anyhow -- contrary to my expectations, he isn't just trying to firm up the eastern separatist provinces and bombing Kiev to disrupt Ukrainian counterattacks. He's invaded the entire country. With the benefit of hindsight, not supporting Euromaidan might have left us in a better rhetorical/moral position, since supporting a mob toppling the lawfully elected government when there was another election coming in like a year made us look like we don't think the Ukraine is a real country either . . but I don't think it would have made a difference for Russia's designs on the Ukraine. Maybe the timetable would be different, and maybe it would be more subversion and less open war, but they'd be pursuing the same objectives.

Sebastian said...

"they would inevitably lose in a conventional war"

Except there was never going to be one. Any threat was never credible, and Afghanistan made it a moot point. So Vlad believed he had a free hand, and he wasn't wrong.

Misinforminimalism said...

Hindsight dressed up as insight. I wonder what his thoughts are on Matt Ryan taking a sack in the 3rd quarter of the Super Bowl against the Pats?

Narayanan said...

are people really thinking Ukraine can fight to a draw?

if Ukraine was seeking to be Western why not Swiss model of neutral?

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

I still wonder why Vindman was allowed to eavesdrop on a presidential phone call?

MikeR said...

Wow. Indeed, the US could have done so much more to protect Ukraine: By not supporting the coup there. By not arming them against Russia. By not promising to let them into NATO. https://twitter.com/buddhimedia/status/1496783097534111746

Christopher B said...

The best thing the US, and all of NATO, could have done to deter Putin was ditch the Green Energy nonsense and keep oil at $30/barrel. This climate change BS is now becoming a major national security risk to the West. Anybody who backs it needs to be reminded that they funded Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Mikey NTH said...

Lt. Col. Bearclaw should haul his lardly self to Ukraine and show us how it is done.

Aggie said...

Ah, so one can assume that this stalwart, fearless defender of his motherland and country-of-origin is not there at present? And his twin brother? Also safely in the bosom of his adopted country? Isn't it nice to criticize from a safe secure distance.

Skeptical Voter said...

I do remember him--in the same way I'd remember a skunk at a picnic.

rcocean said...

This is so DUMB. Two things happened to bring on this invasion. First, Biden made it clear that Putin was going to get sanctioned no matter what. Biden wasn't going to budge on anything. So Putin decided to get hung for a sheep instead of a lamb.

Second, there's no way we could've provided Ukraine with enough weaponary to have stopped any Russian Invasion. And if we had started to provide such weaponary, it would've caused Putin to invade.

The bottom line is Russia (not just Putin) will not tolerate a hostile Ukraine on its border allied to NATO, anymore than we would tolerate a hostile Mexico allied to to Russia or China.

Vindman was offered the Ukrainian defense job and he was either born in the Ukraine, or came here as a young child. He is a dual citizen. maybe not the sort of man we should be taking advice from on Ukraine.

Yancey Ward said...

All of this has its roots in 2013 and 2014- our active supporting the overthrow of the fairly elected Yanukovych government. Imagine, if you can, the Chinese supporting the overthrow of the Mexican government, and then offering the victors a security arrangement that include Chinese arms and the presence of Chinese troops and air support. What would our response to such a situation be? Add to that we have been actively trying to get rid of the Belorussian government for the last year, and that we were probably behind the attempted coup in Kazakhstan last year, and you perhaps can understand, at least a little, the way the Russians might be viewing things. This is what the US does, and has done for most of my life- seeding chaos in what is repeatedly described, by us, as spreading democracy. This has been a bipartisan pursuit.

This isn't to defend what Putin is apparently doing, but I understand some of the motivation behind it. If he proceeds to try to occupy the country, he will surely come to regret it, but I am not sure that is really his intent- his intent, now clearly stated finally, seems to be the disarming of the Ukrainians, not an occupation. However, he may find the former requires the latter.

In short, there were never any good reasons to expand Nato to the Russian border, nor were there good reasons to try to destabilize the various countries on Russia's western and southwestern borders. It was an unnecessary provocation that the Ukrainians are now paying for with blood.

Bruce Hayden said...

Just maybe a SMALL correction - the Vindmans are Ukrainian. Yes, formerly a part of the USSR. But in this case, on the other side of the small war going on right now.

Andrew said...

What does Vindman think about the Russian bounties on American soldiers. Was that true, or false? Any other misinformation to cop to?

What does Vindman think about Burisma? Or Biden's famous comment about the prosecutor he got fired? Or, of course, Hunter himself? And other politicians' children who have ties to Ukraine?

Any comments on that?

Rusty said...

We could have done a lot more but the powers involved were getting fifty cents back on every dollar they gave. With DC it's all about the grift.

Michael K said...

Biden could stop oil imports from Russia, which is our largest source of imported oil right now. Ten dollar gasoline might create a problem in the election.

Bob Boyd said...

Now who's Putin's cock holster?

JAORE said...

Vindman is, by my reckoning, a disgrace to his uniform, puffing up his own status, inserting himself as a decision maker and the voice of America when he was not. Then undercutting his CIC.

I don't believe a word he says, even if I would otherwise agree with it.

LA_Bob said...

If NATO (both the American and European arms) were serious about "protecting" Ukraine from Russian aggression, they would have made preparations long ago, long before Russia annexed Crimea, long before Germany nailed down its dependence on Russian natural gas with its Energiewende and shuttering its nuclear reactors.

But nothing happened. Nothing was done. And here we are again, wringing our hands theatrically over Russia vs Ukraine. Because nobody, really, rightly or wrongly, ever gave a damn about Ukraine.

hombre said...

"... and they understand that they would inevitably lose in a conventional war."

Why would they understand that? Given our woke, enervating military leadership that outcome is hardly preordained.

Wince said...

They kept referring to Vindman as a "hero" and plugging his book when he appeared in Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Undoubtably, Vindman has an agent.

BarrySanders20 said...

If Dorfman is upset then I am certain successive that administrations from GWB forward were right not to move to admit Ukraine into NATO or provide any security guarantee. It will be interesting to see what comes out about the Biden family ties to Ukraine. People already spinning stories about how the Biden family and Trump impeachment are connected to the invasion/retranchment/reunification. Vinny Dorfman is not a credible source for anything given his bias.

Chris Lopes said...

These people are out of their minds. Russia is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia is a modern nation with a modern military. They are also a nuclear power. A conventional war with them could easily turn into the global thermonuclear kind. That's why threats of a military response (like American jets dropping bombs on Russian soldiers) ring a bit hollow.

If you wanted to deter Putin, making his oil and gas reserves more valuable by hampering your own country's energy industry isn't a good idea. With oil at almost twice the price it was under Trump, Putin has the cash reserves to deal with sanctions.

Joe Smith said...

Lieutenant Colonel Chalupa? Willing Democrat dupe? I remember him.

Earnest Prole said...

In other words, Trump would have been infinitely better for Ukraine than Biden. You probably should have factored that into your calculations.

Freder Frederson said...

Vindman is a weapons salesman. Putin offered terms that should have been acceptable to any country that simply wanted peace and prosperity back in December, but it didn't offer enough vigorish to Vindman's paymasters in the weapons business. Trump didn't want to build out the American Empire, either in Ukraine, or in Syria, so he had to go, and Vindman was right there at the front of the effort.

Think I have a new avatar for you.

tim in vermont has gone full Chamberlain on us. "All he wants is the Sudetenland, he swears that is the end of his territorial demands".

n.n said...

America undermined Ukranian security when it backed the abortion of demos-cracy at the Twilight fringe (i.e. elective). We have had 32 trimesters to support amends, withdraw our support of corruption, and negotiate remediation with the People, for our role in the Libyan/Syrian/Serbian/Afghan-style intervention/avoidance that backed separatist factions and a violent coup. Democracy dies in darkness.

Kirk Parker said...

Let's send Vindman as our first installment in defending Ukraine.

Ann Althouse said...

“ Don't mean to step on the hosts, intended discussion. I found this in a different Atlantic article by Applebaum …”

I blogged that when it came out 3 weeks ago.

Jim at said...

That fat fuck helped bring this about, so I don't want to hear any whining from him now.

Seconded.

Freder Frederson said...

Trump didn't want to build out the American Empire, either in Ukraine, or in Syria, so he had to go, and Vindman was right there at the front of the effort.

But he sure as shit was willing to sell weapons to anyone who ponied up the cash, so your argument is completely nonsensical.

Daniel12 said...

"Clearly Putin is taking advantage of Biden’s obvious weakness and the decimation of our Armed Forces by wokeness and Covid hysteria. He knows that there is little likelihood that Biden will touch off World War III by committing American troops to the defense of Ukraine."

Thank the good Lord regarding the second sentence. The first is that perfect combination of irrelevant and willfully stupid.

Ralph L said...

But what does the interagency think?

wendybar said...

Bob Boyd said...
Now who's Putin's cock holster?

2/25/22, 10:16 AM


Best comment of the thread!! Thanks for the laugh!!

Jay Quenel said...

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

It is February in Europe. Berlin high today 3 degrees Celcious. Putin has already restricted gas shipments and if he gets annoyed enough to shut off the rest Europe freezes to death.

If you haven't been paying attention, the European military forces have degraded to the point they couldn't fight off the Moscow Police department.

IRRC, Trump spent four years pointing out that being dependant on Russian energy and not living up to the Nato military treaty commitments were badness things.I also remember that Trump was excoriated for threatening alliances

Putin owns Europe.

Jay Quenel said...

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

It is February in Europe. Berlin high today 3 degrees Celcious. Putin has already restricted gas shipments and if he gets annoyed enough to shut off the rest Europe freezes to death.

If you haven't been paying attention, the European military forces have degraded to the point they couldn't fight off the Moscow Police department.

IRRC, Trump spent four years pointing out that being dependant on Russian energy and not living up to the Nato military treaty commitments were badness things.I also remember that Trump was excoriated for threatening alliances

Putin owns Europe.

tim in vermont said...

Freder has gone full neocon on us, what a surprise.

tim in vermont said...

Hitler needed to be crushed and Germany humiliated. Is Freder suggesting that we must crush Putin and Russia? If Putin crosses in to Lithuania, I may grumble that we shouldn't have baited the bear by bringing it into NATO, but I will accept we have a treaty obligation and war will be inevitable and I will shut my yap and support it. If he crosses into Poland? Then he's Hitler and Russia is Nazy Germany, and WWIII is on and I won't have to think twice about whose side I am on, and it won't be Putin's. As it is, this is none of our business.

Michael K said...

But he sure as shit was willing to sell weapons to anyone who ponied up the cash, so your argument is completely nonsensical.

The Field Marshal returns to educate us. Trump sold lethal weapons to Ukraine when Obama sent blankets and Biden took their money.

Vindman should be over there with a Javelin anti-tank missile instead of bloviating from safety. If Trump was in office we would still be exporting oil, oil would still be at $30 a barrel and Russia's bank account would be empty.

Bunkypotatohead said...

In two weeks noone will remember nor care what Biden said during this episode. Same as with the Afghanistan retreat.
He's irrelevant.

Chris Lopes said...

"But he sure as shit was willing to sell weapons to anyone who ponied up the cash, so your argument is completely nonsensical."

Weapons are not bodies. The point of selling them is so you don't have to send them (for free) later with 18 year old kids attached. One of Orange the Clown's few virtues was in being able to ignore the chicken hawk neocons.