The US does not yet Have a Winning Ukraine Strategy

You can't change President Putin, but you can absolutely destroy his military in Ukraine.  The latter is achievable. 

Photo Credit: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Warofua.jpg

 

Mr. President,  Secretary Hegseth, 

You are not being given a winning strategy in Ukraine if the plan is really to use Patriot missiles to defend the country versus Russian drones such as Shahed, which is crudely estimated to cost about $50,000.  The Patriot costs $4 million per throw, which is 80 times higher cost, not including the billion-dollar-class launcher.  This is not winnable in the long run. At all.  America will lose if you follow this strategy. 

May I suggest that part of the problem is that President Putin has succeeded in making us believe that the Ukraine war is all about him, Vladimir Putin.  The whole point is do find a way to get him to the negotiating table, or to not upset him to much into broadening the war and getting our "Allies" (using the term loosely, of course) angry, and so on.  

Well, the Village Elliot does not know much, however, if you try to be nice to Putin, he posts unflattering photos of FLOTUS on the Internet.  Ask him to negotiate, he bombs hospitals and schools. So our plan is to deploy so-called "defensive weapons," namely Patriot missiles, at $4 million each to destroy $50,000 dollar weapons being used for terrorist purposes.  But we really will not go after the military, preferring to use this defensive strategy that we hope will not upset Mr. Putin too much, and eventually tire him out and bring him to the negotiating table.  Village Elliot to Mr. President! Sir, it ain't working!

I propose we have to quit worrying about the influence on Putin.  Instead, we have to return to the military objective, which is to REMOVE EVERY MILITARY THREAT ON UKRAINIAN SOIL. If you can outspend Putin 80 to 1, use it to go on OFFENSE instead of letting him bleed us to death in a well-intentioned but futile effort to defend against the unlimited supply of drones.  Shoot every solider, destroy every tank, every aircraft, every plane, every missile.  We have to use weapon systems that are designed to destroy Ukrainian military forces.  The current strategy perpetuates the Russian presence in Ukraine and allows them to continue to build drones and fly them into civilian population centers.  

When I was a kid, in a karate school, one guy was a hippie and only wanted to block the other guy's punches. The instructor, Sensei Kim, threw a fit.  "What are you DOING, Jim?"  Jim replied, "Well, I want to learn the culture of non-violence and only practice defensive techniques, and use persuasion to end the fight."  Sensei Kim screamed back at him, "Knock the other guy out!  Then he will quit throwing his offense at you!!"  

Similarly, in Ukraine, persuasion has failed.  Mr. Putin cannot be persuaded and blocking his punches is not a viable strategy.  We are going to have to dismantle his military in Ukraine. Mr. President, you're going to have to knock the M****r out!  

Why Can't NATO Defeat Russia?

If the West can outspend Russian 9 to 1, why can't we defeat Putin in Ukraine?

 Here is some simple math.  In Russia spent some $129 billion dollars on defense last year.  A lot of it was spent on Ukraine of course, but not all of it.  There was a lot spent on updating the nuclear arsenal, protecting the long border with China, adventures with Syria and the Middle East. Then there's North Korea,  plus other miscellaneous plots to take over the world and other fraud waste and abuse that has to be funded in Russia.  Plus nobody is quite sure how to translate Russian rubles to American dollars, but $129 billion seems reasonable.

NATO is supposed to be spending 2% of its budget on the military, but by its own admission is short of that (1.28%). Nevertheless, they came in at $430 million in 2024.  Had they met their goal, they would be up around $623 million. Neverthess, the actual numbers are that NATO outspends Russia by 3.3 to 1.  If the US is added, with its gargantuan $755 billion defense spending, the good guys spent $1185 billion compared to Russia's $129 billion.  That is, overall we outspent the Russians 9.2 to 1. Of course, the US spends money on Israel, South Korea, the Middle East, keeping shipping lanes open worldwide and many, many activities.  Nevethess, NATO alone far outspends Russia, and combine with the US the defense spending differential is decisive. 

Recently, NATO agreed to increase its defense spending to 5% by 2025. The good thing about that is that, hopefully, President Trump will be out of office by then and perhaps they can get out of it.  But in any case, if that were true, the NATO total would be the equivalent of around $1.68 Trillion in today's dollars, and NATO plus America would be outspending Russia by 19 to 1, assuming no increase in American spending. 

SO WHY CAN'T WE BEAT PUTIN IN UKRAINE? 

Everywhere the news says that Russian soldiers don't want to fight; the Russian military is incompetent, the West has better weapons and the West is so much more clever than Russia.  SO WHY CAN'T WE WIN?

If you watch video footage from the Ukraine War, the Ukraine military looks like Rambo, and the Russians look like the Three Stooges. However, very little land is every taken back by Ukraine.  WHY IS THAT? 

The press narrative was that Putin thought he would win the war in three days when he invaded.  He was then shocked to find resistance.  I no longer believe that.  He ran the calculations shown above and was terrified that Ukraine was going to invade Russia with NATO assistance and he would be powerless to stop them. His hope was to overwhelm the place with a 1:9 disadvantage. Putin's fears turned out to be well founded, as Ukraine was well defended by NATO assets.

One possible explanation--a horrible one-- is this:  perhaps the Biden Administration's plan was never to achieve victory at all. Rather, the intention may have been to not upset anyone by having either side achieve a victory. The fear was that, if backed into a corner, Putin might unleash strategic weapons and expand the war, and perhaps the Biden Administration wanted to avoid that at all costs. Thus the plan may have been to achieve a perfect stalemate, and if so, it was successful. Could it be that the West was not sincere in aiding Ukraine but simply containing Russia?

    

I don't believe the US and its allies intend to win in Ukraine. The objective is a negotiated settlement at all costs. 

References

https://cepa.org/article/russias-year-of-truth-the-runaway-military-budget/

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

https://politact.com/ukraine-russia-stalemate-ensues-concerns-multiply/

Max L.Lake: Scientist, Innovator, Husband, Father.

Max L. Lake, one of the most brilliant individuals I have ever known, passed recently.  Max worked for me when I was a Project Manager at Wright Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. At the time, President Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative was in full swing.  I wanted a high temperature conductor of electricity because I calculated that massive platforms planned for space would have to reject heat at red-hot temperatures at least.  Max realized that a semi-metal like graphite might be a really good conductor at very high temperatures. 

Max, John Woolam (U of Nebraska), Gary Tibbetts (General Motors Research) and Bob Alig (Delco) put their heads together and concocted a high-atomic-order carbon strand which was dubbed Pyrograf-I. The also had a fiber that was produced in a puff of smoke, using the right  catalyst. This was called Pyrograf-III, and you could argue that it was the first true nanocarbon in history.  

In 1990 I decided to join Applied Sciences Inc.  Together, Max, Jyh-Ming Ting, Jerry Hardin, Jim Farmer, Bill Tarasen, David Burton, Ron Jacobsen and I created many variations of carbon fibers which naturally grew from decomposing methane. But the ultimate vision was always Max's. He was the one who wanted to build a production plant.  

Now, in 1991, Iijima of NEC Corporation in Japan published an article describing the structure of carbon nanotubes. Max realized immediately, gee, our fibers are hollow as seen by electron microscopes.  Maybe our stuff is related to the nanotube?

Most of the physicists thought we were kooks. Max was looking for customers interested in buying tons of material at a time when others were bragging about being able to produce a few grams per day of similar material. But Nobel Prize winner Richard Smalley offered his opinion that our materials were indeed part of the nanocarbon family.  Suddenly, Max was not so crazy.  Professor Smalley had great plans to work with us, but unfortunately, he passed due to leukemia and his initiatives were not realized.  I believe, however, that if we had been permitted to work together a bit longer, we would have made substantial achievements together.

We found new allies, from Japan, at GSI Creos.  We formed a Joint Venture, and when we announced it in Tokyo, their stock went up in value by many millions of dollars.  That actually made Max a little mad. Perhaps we didn't see our own value properly?  

On the other hand, the past several years saw interest in nanofbers diminish. A new nanomaterial--monolayer graphene--was isolated in 2004 and launched interest in a new way to create reinforcement of polymers (and by the way, we probably made graphene in 2002, and there is rather firm evidence that this is so.  But, we truly did not understand the significance  of graphene until Novoselov and Keim published the paper which made them Nobel Prize winners; so, no, we have no claim on their Nobel. But this is a story for another time).

By the 2020's graphene and other nanomaterials became more popular and it became very tough to compete. Other companies, especially from the Pacific Rim, were producing lower cost materials.  Perhaps it was inevitable that our team had to disband and we are all working on other things.

One time, one of our young employees asked me "Was Max always in a wheelchair?"  I laughed, heck no!  Yes Max had polio as a kid which left him paralyzed.  But he was like Hercules!  He could get around on crutches just fine, and that developed his arms and chest like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He was unbelievably strong.  

Max could do most anything. Being from Oklahoma, he rode horses, and enjoyed the outdoors.  Max was married to an absolutely gorgeous woman from Germany, Inge, and together they raised four children: Stephanie, Caroline, Max Jr. and Patrick. 

However, I'll relate a story about Max.  For years Max had his office on the second floor of our office building.  He went up and down via a wooden staircase using his crutches.  But one day in his mid-40's, I noticed he was a bit wobbly. So he lamented, "You know, Elliot, all my life I have never considered myself handicapped. But now I have bifocals.  NOW I'm handicapped."  So we soon had an elevator installed so he didn't have to go up and down that rickety staircase anymore.    

This article is really about Max, but I can't help but mention that polio really sucks.  I would say Max overcame polio and did not let it ruin his life, but it was not without great pain. He suffered immensely, especially later in life. Accordingly, I hope that parents will read this and factor Max's experience into their decision whether to protect their children from awful diseases. God bless you all. 

The Browns are Still Obsessed with Quarterbacks

 

Deshaun Watson, P.J. Walker and Dorian Thompson Robinson.  None of them were good enough to turn a weak offense around. 

The Browns still don't get it.  They think that 

     a) the more money you pay a quarterback, the better they play.  So, if you pay a quarterback more than Patrick Mahomes, that quarterback must be even better than Mahomes.  So come on down, Deshaun Watson!

   b) The way you solve a quarterback controversy is to trade away the backup quarterback lest he make the front office look silly.  So, they got rid of Joe Flacco, because he proved the Watson deal was preposterous. Prior to that, they axed Case Keenum, Jacoby Brissett, and Josh Dobbs. We're getting ready to cut Jameis Winston, despite the fact that he proved himself to be vastly superior to Watson. All of these players are miles ahead of Dorian Thompson-Robinson, the Crown Prince and favorite of the Realm.  For that matter, they are also better than the current number one, Deshaun "Generational Talent" Watson.  

   c) Quarterbacks reach their prime in their rookie season.  How else can you justify drafting Dorian Thompson Robinson in Round 5, and promoting him to second string on Opening Day?  Good grief!  Once in a while there is a Russell Wilson who has success immediately after being drafted in a middle round, but this is very rare.  This writer does not hate DTR, but he probably needs 3 or 4 years to become an acceptable backup, just like Josh Dobbs rode the bench behind Big Ben Roethlisberger and Mason Rudolph.

   It's like this:  if you believe that the salary cap is real, than the object is to get the players who will contribute the most and cost the least. It's not that different from Fantasy Football. So, if you pay someone more than Mahomes, he must contribute more than Mahomes. If you are paying more than your opponents and fielding players who contribute less than their peers around the league, you are unlikely to have a winning team. You cannot pay $70 million dollars a  year for a lousy quarterback on a lousy offense for a lousy team, and then run out and outplay the Chiefs.  This is common sense.  

    A good team makes the QB look good.  Get five tough fat kids for the offensive line, two stud tight ends and two good running backs, and and average QB with average wide receivers can score points in the Stefanski offense.

  Joe Flacco was good enough to get into the playoffs, and once you're in you have at least some chance for a Ring.  Brissett, Keenum, Winston and Dobbs had a legit shot also, especially if the Browns had had six draft picks and $230 million dollars to build with. 

Look at the Steelers. With Russell Wilson at a quarterback and when T.J. was healthy, they were a playoff team.  They collapsed down the stretch because their defense was old and injured, but the point is they proved they could win with a low-cost quarterback. 

The Browns can't wait to throw money at ineffective big name quarterbacks, live in fear of their own backups. That's why they will pass on generational talents on defense in order to draft Shedeur Sanders, who Pro Football Focus ranks as the 43rd best prospect in the Draft.  But he plays Quarterback, so that's our guy!