US Experts Grapple with Ukraine End Game: Admit War of Attrition is Unwinnable

"US Experts Grapple with Ukraine End Game:
Admit War of Attrition is Unwinnable"
The New Atlas (March 30, 2023)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJPuxk46lDg

- Desperation and fantastical thinking take hold of “top US foreign policy experts” as they contemplate an end game in Ukraine…

- CSIS admits crucial weapons and munitions face critical shortages including HIMARS launchers, 155mm artillery rounds, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles;

- CSIS suggests the US could deplete all of its inventories along with Europe into Ukraine to make up for critical shortages or shift to “substitutes” despite being inadequate for Ukraine’s requirements;

- A recent confab of US foreign policy experts attempted to come to grips with the coming end game in Ukraine in which they see a Russian victory owed to its ability to supply more weapons, munitions, and trained manpower;

- Suggestions to turn the tide include sending 1,000 M1 Abrams tanks, creating (another) foreign legion, and transferring weapons to Ukraine to strike deep within Russia;

- However these “solutions” range from unrealistic to entirely counterproductive;

- Ukraine doesn’t have the manpower or time to assemble crews for 1,000 M1 Abrams tanks, a foreign legion was already created and already failed, and striking deep inside Russia will likely only help Moscow justify further mobilizations;

- Sanctioning China is also considered, with no self-reflection on the flawed reasoning that led to ineffective sanctions already placed on Russia;

- Only a fundamental change in Washington’s premise can a sensible foreign policy be proposed, one that sees the US cooperating constructively with all other nations rather than attempting to subjugate all other nations;

0:44 Brian Berletic: “All of this is owed to logistics and military industrial output. And this is something many analysts have been talking about for months, almost a year now. As a matter of fact, I would say it became obvious when the US and NATO nations announced they were going to send NATO standard artillery pieces to Ukraine. 155 millimeter Howitzers, self-propelled howitzers and M-777. At the time I pointed out how these are new weapons systems. It takes months just to train an entry level operator. It takes years for experienced leadership within an artillery team, to manage the individual weapon, to coordinate it together as a battery, and then operate that battery within the context of modern combined arms warfare.”

. . .

18:31 “This foreign legion. We already tried doing that. We probably all have seen the New York Times article” [shows screen shot]

Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste, and Bicker – NY Times People who would not be allowed anywhere near the battlefield in a U.S.-led war are active on the Ukrainian front, with ready access to American weapons.

19:37 They should cut their losses and quit while they're only this far behind:

. . .

21:18 "This was a challenge U.S. policymakers were not up to, and they failed miserably."

. . .

22:00 "This 100,000 to 200,000 Russian casualty figure is simply made up. There is no logical explanation for it. There is no breakdown, no supporting evidence of this. It is also contradicted by British state media. The BBC has an ongoing project counting Russian losses and they provide the number of 16,000. And even if you double that or triple that, it comes nowhere near this 150,000 to 200,000 casualty figure that is cited by the U.S. government, also the Ukrainian government and much of the Western media."

. . .

26:33 ". . . by attacking deep within Russia; by transferring weapons to Ukraine to use inside of Russia and to significantly stir up the Russian population, you will be giving Moscow everything it needs to do another mobilization, to mobilize up to 1.7 million reservists. That's what you would be doing. It will only compound the quandry that Ukraine and its Western sponsors find themselves in. Because, otherwise, it would be very difficult for Moscow politically to do another mobilization, let alone one on this scale."

. . .

28:45 "The whole reason these top U.S. foreign policy experts are in this room panicking over what is going on in Ukraine is because they horrifically miscalculated going into this proxy war. And now they want to double down by not just continuing this proxy war with Russia, but now sanctioning China and beginning a process of confrontation with China as well, in addition to what they're already doing with China regarding the island province of Taiwan."

. . .

"The only way the U.S. can get out of this situation it has created is if it readjusts its entire premise: It's initial premise, that it should hold hegemony over the entire planet; that it cannot allow nations like China to surpass it. This is entirely flawed, why any policy they try to place on top of that premise is inevitably going to fail. The only way the United States can continue functioning as a modern nation-state, prosperous with high living standards for its population is if it accepts this reality that it is not going to stop China from surpassing it; that it is not going to impose itself upon all other nations and instead cooperate with all other nations; creae a foreign policy predicated on multi-polarism rather than being obsessed with unipolarism."

31:02 "And we've been seeing in the western media stories about how China is refusing to have high-level talks with the U.S. president or the U.S. state department. And the reason why is because China knows this is what the U.S. is doing: They've adopted this All-or-Nothing policy. They have refused to let China surpass them. They will do virtually anything to stop China from surpassing the U.S. They understand the nature of the conflict in Ukraine. It is a proxy war against Russia. The U.S. wants to eliminate Russia so they can isolate China. Why would China want to talk with the United States when the United States is not actually interested in talking with China. Their desire is to talk AT China, to subordinate China and its national sovereignty under the U.S. 'Rules-Based Order'. So why would they talk with them? There's no sense in doing that. It's a waste time that China could use to talk with – and more importantly, work with – in a very constructive manner nations all over the rest of the world."

32:09 "So that is the End Game. Again, not in terms of any specific time frame but in terms of factors that inevitably lead to Ukraine's defeat. At least according to this room full of top U.S. foreign policy experts. I just thought it was interesting how this more recent discussion reported on by Asia Times interlocks with this CSIS article from earlier this year. It's very interesting and it's something that we have to keep an eye on."