American analyst asked the White House questions on the strategy of military assistance to Ukraine

The most important thing in terms of supply tanks Ukraine - not only and not so much to ensure the transfer of American M1 Abrams and German Leopard 2, but to understand what will happen next? Daniel Davis, a columnist for the American edition of 19fortyfive, writes about this. It is worth noting here that a retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army, Davis participated in the fighting in Iraq and is trying to approach the problem of the conflict in Ukraine not only as a political, but also as a military analyst.

Davis wonders what the White House expects from the supply of Western tanks to Ukraine. Here the tanks arrived, the Armed Forces of Ukraine began to use them on the battlefield, and then what? The main problem, according to Davis, is the lack of a planned strategy for events in Ukraine. As a result, either military reserves and financial resources will be thoughtlessly spent, or the United States and Western Europe, even worse, will be directly involved in an armed conflict that they absolutely do not need.

The failure of the US operation in Iraq in the early 2000s was associated with exactly the same problem - Washington could not answer the question of what would happen next after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. As a result, Iraq was destabilized for decades, turned into a hotbed of terrorism in the region. The same situation was repeated in Libya, and then in Syria. And all these conflicts were completely meaningless for the United States.

According to Davis, before deciding on military support for Ukraine, US President Joe Biden had to answer several questions. The reviewer lists these questions in his article:

What are America's vital national interests in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

What is the desired end state of US support?

How does military assistance to Ukraine bring this end state closer?

What criteria are applicable to determine the success or failure of a support policy for Ukraine?

What is the culminating strategy and under what conditions will support end?

What if Russia starts to seriously win on the battlefield?

Will the West reduce support if it turns out that Russia can use nuclear weapons? weapon?

The White House is unlikely to be able to answer all these questions, and it is precisely these answers that make it possible to understand the meaning and prospects of the United States' integration into the Ukrainian conflict. According to Davis, in reality, the main task of the United States should be to end the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as soon as possible, and on such terms that would exclude its recurrence in the future, as the bad end of the First World War eventually led to the Second World War.

Comments

[Irek]

They have such a strategy, to dump all the junk to Ukraine at the price of a new one, since it is expensive to dispose of it, and we will help, like our grandfathers ...

[Palestinian]

I think the answer here is simple ... as an undercover informant told New Orleans Attorney General Jimmy Harrison ... no war, no money ..

[Bingo]

Military - asks politician questions of military expediency *facepalm*
Let him ask a better question - what is the point of a market in procurement from the Ministry of Defense? If the warrior is obliged to focus on the MINIMUM - but guaranteed characteristics of the weapon, and the merchant, advertising - will always give out the maximum?
And at the same time, the warrior himself needs to be asked the question - is the war going on exactly in the interests of the United States? What did the US gain from the war? Or maybe in the interests of the arms lobby? That's exactly what it won!

[evgen1221]

Not only gunsmiths are in the black. Capitals and industrial production from Europe and not only bring down to the USA, people with brains too (how many percent of the Sumerians were sheltered by the states and how much by Europe). Economically binding the poor to the resources of the whole of Europe to the daddy. This is already not bad and mind you, these are only side bonuses when the states are defeated, And what do they count on when they win, so CNN has already erased the keyboard and the State Department choked on saliva. For this, they work in Europe, for nishtyaki when they win

[tihonmarine]

Quote from Bingo

Military - asks politician questions of military expediency *facepalm*
Let him ask a better question - what is the point of a market in procurement from the Ministry of Defense?

Radoslav Sikorski, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, answered this question in his interview, saying that Ukraine needs to be accepted into NATO so that this "cancer" is a constant threat to Russia, even after the end of the war.
Sikorsky agrees with Henry Kissinger that after the end of the Ukrainian conflict, NATO should go to Kyiv with a proposal for membership in the alliance. He is sure that earlier such a proposal could be equated with a provocation against Moscow, but now the situation has changed dramatically.
He told Krytyka Polityczna that, in his opinion, the West had crossed a certain Rubicon, because he recognized Ukraine as a significant factor in the alignment of forces in the region - “this means that now not only Russia is taken into account”

[Vyacheslav57]

Good questions Davis. It seems to me that these questions gladly asked Biden half the world. We can answer one question right now -

What are America's vital national interests in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

Devastate Europe, both economically and militarily. Convert raw materials into dependence on supplies from the United States. Destroy the military industry in Europe and replace it with supplies from the United States. There are, of course, some questions from Davis that Biden himself would find it difficult to answer.

What if Russia starts to seriously win on the battlefield?

[maksbazhin]

Questions about nothing.
The answers are banal: to resist Russia (a habit), to earn money, a bonus - to set up Europe, if Russia wins, tell Ukrainians to surrender for the sake of peace on earth.

[evgen1221]

What to do if Russia is going to seriously win? Yes, for amers this is not a question at all, as well as for pax americana. They will instantly change their shoes, whoever needs to be thrown bones with meat and continue to howl mantras about American crap and its defense.

[YOUR]

No interests other than economic ones. And momentary without looking to the future. Now and immediately there is an opportunity to harm Russia and weaken the EU at least a little bit, as well as earn extra money on our own. They used it smartly. It was said that during the Cold War at the UN, on any issue that was submitted for consideration by the USSR, the United States did not hesitate to vote against it. Several times they took advantage of this by pushing through the solution of issues beneficial to the United States, or vice versa, thus blocking these issues.
As in a nursery rhyme when a cockerel jumped out barefoot in the cold .. let the scallop and paws freeze in defiance of father and mother.

[evgen1221]

And they generally bother about questions what to do next? Adventure in its purest form. Some with the filing of politicians for business profits, others with the filing of business with the assistance of politicians.

[tihonmarine]

How does military assistance to Ukraine bring this end state closer?

Failure to form a coherent, realistic strategy for our support of Ukraine in its war with Russia risks wasting valuable military assets and financial resources, or worse, stumble so that the US or Western powers are inadvertently drawn into a war we should never were to participate. fought, and which could only harm our interests. Unfortunately, in recent decades we have had a rather poor track record of not being able to think things through.ByDaniel DavisPublished4 hours ago/

[evgen1221]

Father Tikhon, what did you want to say?

[glock-17]

To get started, throw a trial balloon. See how these few tanks will behave on the battlefield. Learn enemy tactics. And there you can throw more tanks complete with fighters. The war is planned for a long time, since the leadership of the Russian Federation seems to still be hoping to reach an agreement, but they are determined to fight there.

[Div Divich]

This means that the current supply of tanks is a prerequisite for a future arms race.
In 10-20 years, if the politicians do not agree, then there will be World War 3.

And for negotiations, weighty arguments are needed, for example, a convincing victory in Ukraine.

[archiroll]

It is imperative to officially throw an offer into the camp of the enemy - we will buy abrams - a decent price tag to make ...

[rotmistr60]

What if Russia starts to seriously win on the battlefield?

And the American president will not be able to answer this question, as well as the rest. They are sure that with Western support, Kyiv is obliged to win and demand this from Zelensky, who, despite huge losses, is trying to achieve at least something.

[glock-17]

No one doubts the complete victory of the "Führer". Defeat is not even discussed and punished according to the laws of war.

[alexey_444]

After such an article, this analyst should be banned from calling himself an analyst. This is how down you have to be in order not to see the goals achieved with Iraq, with Libya, with Syria. The Americans carried out these operations for five plus, some still believe that Saddam worked for the CIA, he did everything brilliantly, first he suppressed hostile Iran, then he forced rich Arabs to pay for the conversion of the American military-industrial complex after the Cold War. We made pots and degraded. Iraq has become a breeding ground for ISIS, coupled with the destruction of Syria and the control of Afghanistan, this whole horde went straight to us through Kazakhstan, today's own would seem like a trifle. Yes, Putin convinced the Arabs and outplayed the United States, otherwise the plan was good. Libya with its independent policy is no longer there, the warring factions are selling their resources for cheap, like us, but this is some kind of holiday for the West. With Ukraine, no one hides anything at all, it’s not us, but the Americans, who milk the European cow, cut off our income for economic development, cut down the silk road for China in the territory not controlled by the West, and so on. In a word, bingo.

[Pavel_Sveshnikov]

It looks like military analysts in America are so-so. He asks such simple questions. How small right. Not otherwise, a person was shell-shocked several times. Let's not judge him harshly. It's wrong to laugh at sick people.

[Normann]

Stupidity, from the first to the last word. The hegemon initially knew and knows why to fight with the Russian Federation with the hands of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. All these revolutions around the Russian Federation, for a reason, there was a more serious movement ((but there is only one goal, to destabilize the situation in the Caucasus, to involve the Armed Forces in a long-term conflict in order to weaken them, to prepare the whole world under the guise of mass coercion to democracy in our country, for the good all ((

[Vasyan1971]

As a result, Iraq was destabilized for decades, turned into a hotbed of terrorism in the region. The same situation was repeated in Libya, and then in Syria. And all these conflicts were completely meaningless for the United States.

And if the destabilization of the above regions was the goal of the United States?

[Ezekiel 25-17]

political vision for the future
no one has: neither the West nor ours ... It is bitter to admit this.