Ukraine on the Brain

Vivek's 'naive' and 'unserious' foreign policy framework

By
37

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Luke Coffey returns after an appearance last October with esteemed Remnant guest host Klon Kitchen. In that time, a whole mess of insanity has gone on in Ukraine—some of it good, some of it worrying. Now that we’re a year and a half into the maelstrom, do Ukrainians still like Zelensky? How long can Russia keep its hand on this kind of a hot burner before wrenching it away? And above all, Luke gives us the reasons for optimism about the situation and why it’s not only desirable but important to keep that optimism alive for Ukraine’s sake.

Show Notes:

-Watch: Jonah Goldberg and Luke Coffey on our YouTube channel

-Vivek’s Foreign Policy Is “Naive” and “Hopeless”

–Luke’s page at the Hudson Institute

–Luke: “How the War Could Make Ukraine a Defense Powerhouse”

–Luke: “Don’t Hold Your Breath for an End to the Ukraine War”

– The Remnant with Leon Aron

By
Comments (37)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Abacaxi

    I really liked this and agreed overall with Luke Coffey. One thing I'd take issue with -- while I think Coffey is right that Biden has not done a really bad job in explaining why helping Ukraine is in America's interest, I disagree that the "rules based international order" is too abstract to be part of it. I think it's absolutely central. Our political leaders need to explain clearly how historically rare and precious the post-WWII order has been in creating a norm against territorial aggrandizement through aggressive war, and how that norm -- which has had to be underwritten by America and its allies -- has been absolutely central to those decades of peace and prosperity, and how dangerous a world we will inherit if that norm gets lost, which it will be if Russia is allowed to keep any part of Ukraine that it has invaded.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Marianwcates

    Great pod! I agree with you and Luke Coffey about support for Ukraine. I would be glad for you to end the no-you-won't ... Why not run a poll of Dispatch members to see how many want to keep or get rid of the ending?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Thank you to Luke for saying what I felt about the “endless war” crap about Afghanistan and Iraq! Most Americans didn’t sacrifice anything. Some sacrificed a lot, and I’d always say that anyone who did has a right to want to us to get out of those places (even if I think they’re wrong).

    Collapse
  4. Pohl

    Is there a rule that TD writers and all guests have to sign on to the bad idea that proxy rationales are legitimate? And everyone wonders why no one is articulating our aims to the public. I’m certain no one here should be writing Biden’s speech. This bears repeating until someone articulates the best case for aiding Ukraine, without mentioning “degrading” or “bleeding” Russia. If it’s a fringe benefit, it’s not why we’re helping. Jonah makes that argument, but then always goes too far.

    He also makes a good point about how a robust case from Biden would ratchet up GOP opposition. Biden’s War! I tend to think the danger of faltering public support trumps those concerns. I think the case should be forcefully made, perhaps from a NATO or European stage. The problem is that it may be perceived as too provocative. But the West obviously can’t pretend we’re not helping. I’d like it if he couched his case for aid to Ukraine within a plea for peace. None of it can hurt. Unless he bumbles it all.

    Collapse
  5. Bigdonmck

    One of your best. Now I am up to date on Ukraine. Well worth my time.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    I haven't finished listening, but could you ask Luke whether he thinks the Ukrainian probes on the eastern side ("left bank") of the Dnipro River (near Kherson), and the fighting over the river islands, is a prelude to some kind of large-scale river crossing attack?

    I've noted with interest, the following variables --

    * Ukraine has devoted considerable effort to use counter-battery artillery fire to push Russian artillery positions some distance away from the Dnipro River. While one could argue this helps reduce Russian artillery attacks into Kherson, it appears to me that it's also consistent with preparing the way for a large-scale river crossing attack.

    * Ukraine has devoted a lot of resources to evict Russian positions from river islands, as well as trying to sweep Russian riverine boats from the Dnipro. If Ukraine was content to remain on the defensive on this southern sector, why would they be going to all this effort?

    * Ukraine has regularly been sending modest-sized teams (a hundred or more) to take up positions on the eastern side of the Dnipro, and remain there for weeks. Furthermore, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has noted the outsized reactions among Russian MilBloggers whenever these Ukraininan reconnaissance-in-force teams remain on the "Left Bank" of the Dnipro for any length of time. I think ISW often uses the term "neuralgia" to describe it.

    * Russia has shifted considerable forces away from the eastern side of the Dnipro (opposite of Kherson) to reinforce their positions in Zaporizhia, especially where the Ukrainians are having success. Meaning the "Left Bank" defenses appear to be pretty thinly manned, with the troops manning those positions probably among Russia's worst units.

    It would seem to me, that Ukraine is setting conditions for a major cross-river attack to try and hit the Russian positions in a weak flank and attempt to execute a pincher movement behind the defenses in Zaporizhia to create a large-scale collapse. The regular, reoccurring recon-in-force actions appear to be gathering intelligence (to me at least) on the capabilities of the Russian forces along the Dnipro River, to drive them back across. If there are no large groups of reserves capable of pushing a minor Ukrainian force back across the river, that would be a good sign that they could not push a major Ukrainian force back across the river.

    The two X factors to me, are (1) whether the Ukrainians could assemble enough boats and stage enough men and equipment on the western side ("Right Bank") of the Dnipro River without the Russians spotting it, and (2) whether the Ukrainians could logistically support any major units operating on the eastern side of the river, even if they managed to get them established there.

    I am not sure about either of those. But I can't help but think that if the Ukrainians could put even one brigade onto the eastern side of the river, and press an attack towards the bridge head at Nova Kakovka, it would be a game-changer. Once the Ukrainians can secure the other side of the Nova Kakovka bridge, they can erect pontoons or make enough repairs to begin bringing in the necessary logistics to supply that brigade and then reinforce it.

    If I was planning it, I'd probably try and land a brigade somewhere near the village of Dnipryany, which is about 10 km from Nova Kakovka. From the Google Maps I can see there's some concrete piers near the Dnipryany "Trading House." And there's a small river island right to the north of Dnipryany that some mortar, artillery, and air defense units could occupy to provide a protective bubble of fire control to allow the brigade to get across the river safely.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Njh2005

      I assume Ukrainian actions in Kherson are two fold, the first is to fix the Russian forces so they cannot reinforce the defenses in Zaporizhia (same with Bakhmut to some extent) and the other is to to conduct reconnaissance of the changes to the left bank as a result of the dam being destroyed. Whatever intelligence Ukraine had regarding crossing sites in the area was literally washed away when the area was flooded.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    That was good.

    Collapse
  8. Lmoorman

    what is the endgame? is it reasonable to think ukraine can win without full NATO support (ie troops or direct engagement)? doesn't look promising honestly.

    how do you feel about our weapons being used to strike moscow? what is the risk of escalation? how does that calculate in this equation?

    should we take out every evil person? or just those that could hurt us? seems to justify not rebuke the vivek doctrine.

    putin is evil guy. i worry about the lack of humility in these discussions. nothing like this is ever black and white.

    Collapse
    1. Nevertime

      I think the endgame is world leaders deciding what post-Putin Russia will be, which means how do we keep the gangsters underneath Putin from starting a nuclear CivilWar? When an agreement is reached, Ukraine will be given more/better weapons and will expel Russian forces. The instant that happens, Putin is dead and gone, so there needs to be a plan.

      Collapse
      1. Lmoorman

        At least you are being honest that regime change is the real goal. Yet, you have no faith it will be better.

        Collapse
        1. Nevertime

          Hard to say. I don't know what the prospects are for a Russia not ruled by a strong-man.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Njh2005

      The endgame is Russian forces leave Ukrainian territory. Whether Ukraine can accomplish that is yet to be seen. Our focus should be on equipping them to do that.

      Collapse
      1. Lmoorman

        That has been the focus. It appears likely it will require more than weapons for Ukraine to win. You up for sending troops? What line are you asking us to cross that we have not? Planes? Missiles?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Njh2005

          I am not pessimistic about Ukraine driving Russia out of its territory. TBH, much less pessimistic than I was in Feb last year about its ability to withstand the invasion.

          The line I would not cross at this point is direct combat between US and Russian forces. F-16’s, DPICM, Bradley’s, Stryker’s, and the training to use them should have been approved much earlier than they were. That ATACMS still isn’t being supplied is a travesty.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Abacaxi

            Agree entirely. The west has been hamstringing itself, playing chess against itself, tying itself up in knots -- whatever metaphor you choose -- and only encouraging more nuclear brinkmanship. If we'd just cut the months and months of dithering and only agreed earlier to provide what we're providing now ... how many lives could have been saved?

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Anne W (Raw5254)

    Thank you, Jonah. This was excellent!! It’s one time when I wish there was a written transcript. I’ve shared this with one of my brothers, but the one who really needs to hear it won’t listen to podcasts—go figure. But, I did share it in Messenger with an NR chat group that has been talking about the debates. There are a number of people who think the people backing Ukraine are “war hawks,” and want to start WWIII.

    Admittedly, I wouldn’t be nearly as well informed if it wasn’t for a lot of the terrific information I’ve gotten from TD and its podcasts.

    Collapse
  10. Akanderson5

    And on the closing, take some advice from Newhart... Just Stop it! Just Stop!

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Best skit after Sir Walter Raleigh picks up the phone to describe his tobacco shipment to the West Indies Company. Yes! You put it in a piece of paper. . . Then stick it between your lips . . . You set fire to it! “Don’t call us. We’ll call you.”

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Anne W (Raw5254)

      I’m one of those people who loves that closing. It’s become part of the show, just like listening to his Dingo howl in the opening. And, I think most of his guests have a good time putting their own “signature” on it. It’s fun!

      Collapse
Load More