Stevenson’s army, May 6
-Scotusblog has the best analysis I’ve seen about the Supreme Court leak: look at the bylines and what happened before.
– Votes on a non-binding motion to instruct have no legal force or effect, but the supermajority vote on Iran puts a new deal in jeopardy.
– NYT show what the war looks like to Russians.
– Nicaragua wants to connect with US.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 5
Court decisions on campaign laws opened a big loophole that led to an amazing development in the Ohio Republican Senate primary. As CRS noted,
Unlimited Contributions to Independent-Expenditure-Only Political Action
Committees (Super PACs)
On March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission24 that contributions to PACs that make only independent expenditures—but not contributions—could not be constitutionally limited. As a result, these entities, commonly called super PACs, may accept previously prohibited amounts and sources of funds, including large corporate, union, or individual contributions used to advocate for election or defeat of federal candidates. Existing reporting requirements for PACs apply to super PACs, meaning that contributions and expenditures must be disclosed to the FEC.
Peter Thiel formed such a super PAC, gave it $15 million, which went for campaign activities for J.D. Vance, who had few ads or activities funded by his own campaign. Since the law forbids “coordination,” the super PAC puts its key information including polls and suggested messages in an obscure place online. It even posted its oppo research findings on Vance, so he could know what attacks might be made.
In other news: NYT says US shared intelligence with Ukraine that helped them target Russian generals.
Reuters says US has offered security assurances to Sweden if it seeks to enter NATO.
Defense News says some key congressional figures are now open to F16 sales to Turkey.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 4
– Why is Russia showing restraint in Ukraine, NYT asks.
– Are US leaders thinking before they talk about Ukraine, Tom Friedman wonders.
– Did CIA director’s meeting with MBS solve anything?
– Can Congress be reformed? Retiring David Price has doubts.
– Is GOP divided over earmarks?
– Why hasn’t Biden ended the interagency fight over China tariffs?
– Is Russia losing on the electronic battlefield, as David Ignatius argues?
– What have we shipped to Ukraine? Breaking Defense answers.
– Why did we send mentally disabled men to fight in Vietnam?
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
May 9 will mark defeat, not victory
An esteemed colleague brought these (anonymous but well-versed) lectures to my attention:
The presentations are worth your while, but (spoiler alert) I’ll state the bottom lines here:
- Ukraine is outgunned and outmanned in the short and medium run, but
- If the war lasts, the economic and defense industrial depth of NATO’s support (assuming it endures) will lead to Russia’s defeat.
Will the Ukrainians endure?
The first question then is whether the Ukrainians can endure. So far, they shown ever sign of doing so. They mobilized quickly, with apparently few men trying to escape while their families fled. They fight in small units that have proven stalwart. Their battle plans appear largely successful. The Ukrainians have pushed the Russians away from their capital and their second largest (Russian-speaking) city, Kharkiv. Ukrainian forces are holding the line, more or less, in the east.
Kiev lost significant territory in the south early in the war and one major city (Kherson), but a few Ukrainians are still holding on in Mariupol. That prevents the Russians from solidifying the link between Donbas and Crimea. Others are blocking the Russians from moving west at Mykolaiv. A Ukrainian missile sunk the Russian flagship in the Black Sea and yesterday Ukrainian drones destroyed two smaller boats.
But these are still early days. Will the will to fight wither in six months, a year, two years?
Will the US and NATO endure?
Past experience suggests US and hence NATO support may wither before the Ukrainians do. That is what happened in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Washington has a lot of issues to deal with besides Ukraine. It could well decide to settle for a Russian pullback to pre-February 24 positions even if the Ukrainians want to expel the Russians entirely from Ukrainian territory. Or Russia could decide to widen the war to Moldova (not a US ally) or Poland (a US ally). The latter especially would present President Biden with a difficult situation. So far, the Ukrainians have been a NATO proxy in the war with Russia. Direct engagement would put the Baltic allies as well as Poland at risk.
The nuclear threat is not the big issue
The ultimate Russian move would be to follow through on Moscow’s threats to use a nuclear weapon. But it is hard to see how that would profit the perpetrator. The Ukrainian forces are not massed in a way that would make using a nuclear weapon militarily useful. Destroying Kiev or another Ukrainian city would be catastrophic, but counterproductive if you want to take over the country, not to mention the global reputational cost. Besides, the Americans will have made it clear that the response will be at least as destructive to Russian assets as the initial salvo is to the Ukrainians.
Small beans
By now, it should be clear to Vladimir Putin that his army’s days are numbered, so he will double down in the short run and try for something he can proudly announce on May 9 to correspond with the celebration of Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The very least will be annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk provinces by Russia.
But that precarious and still not fully realized territorial acquisition represents small beans compared to the big commitment Moscow has made. It has lost something like one-quarter of its invasion force to death or casualties, strengthened and united NATO, weakened Russia’s economy, and ruined Russia’s prospects for future growth and connectivity with the West. Sanctions have not yet had a devastating effect, but they will remain in place so long as Russia occupies part of Ukraine. To boot: war crimes and crimes against humanity are sullying any gains Russia has made.
May 9 will mark defeat, not victory.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 3
– Politico reports a draft Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and calling it egregiously decided.
– Slate shows how many different people had plausible motives for the unprecedented leak.
– NYT notes Justice Gorsuch wants to overturn the precedent of the Insular Cases.
– WaPo says US intelligence expects Russia to annex captured areas. Perhaps this is the May 9 Victory Day plan.
– Hungary and Slovakia oppose ban on importing Russian oil.
– WSJ says China is mentioned in 11% of current congressional campaign ads.
– In FP, Angela Stent notes limited support for Ukraine outside Europe.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 2
– WSJ says Ukraine has hit 2 more Russian ships.
– NATO repeatedly scrambled its fighter jets in response to Russia.
– New US budget calls for 25K cut in military personnel.
– First leaks: Esper memoir coming out next week.
– Lawfare says Russia still popular in Africa.
– Dan Drezner sees little benefit for Russia in using nukes.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
