Time has come for me to shut this now-dusty site down. But before I do, I'll leave with a few words of thanks and departing thoughts.
I want to do three things with this last posting, which may only be up for a few days or minutes if Wix pulls the plug on me:
I want to thank all of you who gave so generously.
I also want to let you know that I may have a long-form piece published in the coming months and can put you on an email list to receive it. If it doesn't get published, I'll just send you what I submitted .
And to give you some parting thoughts to keep in mind or stick in your back pocket for when foreign policy is front and centre in a conversation you're having or hearing.
With that said:
Thank you to all of you for simply paying attention and caring. I stopped this blog/site nine months ago because I knew I was asking others to care about something that was of intense personal interest to me, but not so much to you. I continue to donate to the cause myself, as I have always done, but I've become more prudent knowing that we've settled in for a long war and even longer struggle, and my resources are increasingly finite. So thanks again for all you did monetarily and psychologically.
I've continued writing on the subject of Ukraine, and continue my weekly TV spot on a current events panel. One bit that may be of interest to some of you is a lengthy article I submitted recently for publication. If you're interested in either the submitted or published form, should that happen, email me at tomgallagher72@gmail.com I won't send out either until the publisher has time to consider my most recent "re-edits".
Back to the subject of this blog: events in Ukraine. Well, in the last several months it might not be so much Ukraine that has been grabbing the world’s attention so much as the US Congress waffling on Ukraine support. Today, when the situation in Ukraine is raised in America, what often follows are many misconceptions and missteps of logic, which I'd like to address in quick bullet form. Many of you will already be familiar with these as readers of this blog, and so pardon me if it seems like I am beating you over the head.
Putin's aggression against Ukraine began in 2014 when Yanukovich (Putin's puppet in Kyiv) was thrown out by what became a popular uprising. The basis of the Maidan protests was Yanukovich pulling Ukraine out of the process of joining the EU, despite EU membership being very popular with Ukrainians. It had nothing to do with NATO expansion or any threat to Russia. It had only to do with Russia's diminishing influence, largely led by its economic and cultural decline. By that I mean its relative importance in the world continued to shrink well after the collapse of the Soviet Union over 30 years ago.
Putin's aggression toward Ukraine follows other acts to assert Russian influence in the region and is undoubtedly part of a larger plan he has to recreate something of a non-communist version of the Soviet Union. Ukraine is not the only piece to that plan, but came somewhat first (second if we consider the invasion of Georgia in 2008) because Putin grossly under-estimated Ukrainian sovereignty, and assumed that since it was a non-NATO member, it would be an easier target.
Putin does hope to break up NATO not because it's a threat to the Russian Federation as it was in 2022, but because NATO's existence makes adding former Soviet lands to the current Federation much more difficult. Indeed that's why so many countries want to join NATO; to save themselves from Russian invasion.
Putin would also like to see the EU and US weakened. Weakening the US militarily isn't easy, but getting the US to become isolationist would serve his purposes, as well as the purposes of China, North Korea, and Iran, to name a few.
These nations are among those I consider the "great disruptors”, and theirs is an alliance made of a common objective to weaken North Atlantic influence over the geopolitics and trade, but mostly to weaken how challenging the West can be on authoritarian regimes. There's compelling logic and some evidence that behind the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October was not only Iran, but also China and Russia. It certainly took the US's eyes off Ukraine as well as diminished talk about the defense of Taiwan.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is considered possible in this decade. I really don't know enough to say if it's more or less likely than that, but I do believe that if Xi thought he could have taken Taiwan by now, he would have. The Pacific alliance that promises to defend Taiwan in the case of an invasion is the major reason China has not invaded yet. US military involvement in such an event would call on a completely different set of capabilities than what Ukraine needs, with the exception of surface-based air defenses. Taiwan would call on mainly naval and air capabilities from the US, whereas Ukraine is a land-based conflict where Ukraine is only practicing what we call air and sea “denial”.
In my more than 50+ years on the planet, the US has spent trillions on developing and manufacturing weapons systems to defeat Russia in a land war in Europe. What the US has contributed to Ukraine from that purpose-built stockpile is an alarming insignificant portion. The US has over 5500 main battle tanks, and about 3000 M1 Abrams tanks in storage. The US gave Ukraine 31 M1 tanks, less than 1% of those that are collecting dust. What's more, the US is considering spending millions to scrap hundreds of still-functional M39 ATACMS precision long-range missiles that Ukraine badly needs.
Very little of the military aid that the US provides to Ukraine is in cash. Most has been in drawdowns of existing stock, much of which would eventually be decommissioned by the Pentagon if left unused. The second most common way aid is delivered is in the US government buying new weapons from American suppliers and shipping those to Ukraine or to a third party that in-turn provides Ukraine with familiar used hardware and munitions. Scranton, Pennsylvania is a leading manufacturer of NATO 155mm howitzer shells and has received billions of dollars in purchases from the US government. (And you thought it was just the home of the Dunder Mifflin paper company.)
Despite the $850-billion DoD budget seeming on the face of it to be a record high, compared to the size of the US economy, it's actually around the lowest in the lifetime of anyone reading this. (Don't share this with my 103yo grandmother in Catasauqua.) We're presently spending about 3.5% of GDP on the defense budget. When my buddy Ted volunteered for the Marines in the 1960s (and I know he is reading this), the budget was 3x higher than it is now; over 10% of GDP. Going back to my uncle Jim's birthday, nearly 80 years ago today, that number would be about 40%. In more recent history, the US military had 2-million people in uniform in 1990. Now that number is down to under 1.4-million, but the entire US population has grown by more than 80-million in that time. (80-million is almost the size of present-day Germany.) The US can and has afforded heftier defense spending, and can place more than twice as many people in uniform, something a lot of older veterans would applaud for other social reasons.
The US occupies a unique place in the world; one that has been hard-won and relatively well managed. It is the sole-producer of the world's most popular currency, and can make the very same Greenbacks that it uses to pay debts. How terribly convenient, but the US hasn’t printed money in any substantial quantity since the 1860s. While people should keep an eye on US public debt, they'd likely be better off tracking private debt. Public debt has not caused an economic crisis in the US in over 200 years, but over-lending has collapsed the financial markets and stressed the larger economy numerous times. Both the 2008 and the 1929 stock market collapses were caused by over-lending in real estate. For as long ago as I can remember hearing presidential debates, which goes back to Reagan/Mondale, someone on the stage has been claiming the US public debt was dangerously too high, and yet here we are. Still standing, with a strengthening dollar in recent years.
But there is another kind of currency that some would have us squander, and that's our legacy as a great and purposeful nation. If you are like most Americans, you view films like Saving Private Ryan or Midway or the series Band of Brothers with admiration for what those Americans were able to accomplish, and respect their sacrifice. Maybe your father or grandfather served during those extremely difficult times, but all Americans were asked to tighten their belts and roll up their sleeves, as it was necessary and patriotic. Often called the Greatest Generation, those folks rose to the challenges of the day and set the country on a course to victory and unparalleled prosperity. What does it say that so many will speak fondly of that history, and yet be so defeatist and openly selfish now when all that is being asked of us is a fraction of what others gave before us to get us here? If there's a path to America greatness, new or renewed, it most certainly will not come without sacrifice, hard work, brilliance, cooperation, and passion.
Ukraine is part of a larger geopolitical struggle between the West and a handful of authoritarian regimes that are threatened by open democracy and free markets. Still, Ukraine is at the forefront of that conflict and thus represents an opportunity for the US and its allies to re-establish a world order that most of the world prospered under for decades, especially the United States. Leaving the fight for others to worry about only puts the US in a weakened position with fewer choices should things not work out in light of our passivity.
Not sure for how long this will be up online, and so I rushed it a bit. If you found any part of this useful, please share it either intact or as ideas.
You know how to reach me if ever you need to. So long as I am "here", I am available to those who want to learn more about Ukraine or discuss the greater geopolitical climate.
