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/