Posted on 11/03/2022 9:14:42 PM PDT by Cathi
When Napoleon Bonaparte began his 1812 campaign to conquer Russia, he led the largest “coalition of the willing” in history. In addition to its French core, Bonaparte’s army of more than 400,000 consisted of Italian, Dutch, German, and Polish soldiers. They were at best unenthusiastic. Frankly, other than the French, only Napoleon’s Polish allies were truly eager to march on Moscow.
By the time Bonaparte’s multinational force reached Moscow, paralyzing cold, ruinous battles, exhaustion, disease, and poor logistical planning reduced the original invasion force to less than half of its original strength. It was not long before Prussia and its North German allies defected to the Russians while the remainder (minus the Poles) deserted or died on the march home.
Today, the Biden White House appears to be considering the use of a multinational force aimed at Russia. The NATO alliance is unable to reach a unanimous decision to intervene militarily in support of Ukraine in its war with Russia. But as signaled recently by David Petraeus, the president and his generals are evaluating their own “coalition of the willing.” The coalition would allegedly consist of primarily, but not exclusively, Polish and Romanian forces, with the U.S. Army at its core, for employment in Ukraine.
All military campaigns succeed or fail based on strategic assumptions that underpin operational planning and execution. Without knowing the details of the ongoing discussions, it is still possible to raise questions about the coalition’s proposed operational “purpose, method, and end state.”
First, what is the aim of the coalition? Is the aim to expel Russian forces from Ukrainian territory? Is the aim to reinforce Ukrainian defense lines and achieve a ceasefire for negotiations? Or is the coalition merely a device to drag the rest of the NATO alliance into a war with Russia that very few Europeans will support?
Second, what will U.S. air and ground forces do if they are decisively engaged from the moment they cross the Polish and Romanian Borders into western Ukraine? The Russian High Command will no doubt identify the U.S. military component as the coalition’s center of gravity. It follows that Russian military power will focus first and foremost on the destruction of the U.S. warfighting structure together with its space-based command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
Third, is Washington building a “coalition of the willing” for political reasons or because it anticipates a resource-intensive commitment and needs regional allies to share the burden? Since it is unlikely that conventional U.S. military power would defeat conventional Russian military power on its own, can the U.S.-led coalition assemble the diverse military capabilities required to dominate Russian forces with enough striking power to compel a change in Russian behavior? Equally important, can U.S. and allied forces protect Europe’s numerous transportation networks, as well as air and naval bases, from Russian air and missile attack?
Fourth, will the coalition’s conduct of operations be subject to limitations deemed essential to allied partners? Differences of opinion always exist on questions of how to fight the opponent, how far to move, and just how much to risk. Lack of clarity about specific objectives can have serious consequences. In other words, how much unity of command can U.S. military commanders really expect from their allies in war and will the demand for unity of command outweigh purely national interests? It is useful to remember that Moscow enjoys complete authority over all its forces including those of its partners and allies. Russian unity of command is absolute. Moscow is not compelled to cope with diverging preferences and opinions from coalition members.
Finally, Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO insists that Ukraine’s failure to prevail in its war with Russia would be interpreted as a defeat for NATO. Would heavy losses inflicted on U.S. ground forces in a confrontation with Russian military power not also signal Washington’s defeat? How rapidly could U.S. and allied forces replace their losses? Would severe U.S. losses raise the specter of a U.S. nuclear response? When does support for Ukraine put NATO’s security and survival at risk?
Washington’s recently announced reiteration of strategic ambiguity regarding the “first use of nuclear weapons” raises additional questions. Spokesmen for the Biden administration indicate that the president will not follow through on his 2020 pledge and declare that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies.
Instead, President Biden approved a version of the policy from the Obama administration that permits the use of nuclear weapons not only in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but also to respond to non-nuclear threats. President Biden’s decision is at least as dangerous and destructive to American and Allied goals as was the Morgenthau Plan: a plan to deindustrialize Germany that, while rejected, probably lengthened the war against Nazi Germany by at least half a year. Does anyone in Washington, D.C., really believe that this new policy makes a nuclear war with Russia less likely?
Military strategy is about the relationship of means to ends. National political and military leaders are preoccupied with means and think too little about ends. It is not enough to be a good technician, today’s political and military leaders must be serious strategists, acutely sensitive to the limits which America’s strengths and weaknesses impose on strategic choices.
The cost to Americans and Europeans of escalating the conflict should not be underestimated. The president and his generals must appreciate how injurious military failure would be to an American society already weakened by 20 years of self-defeating deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. American military morale is at a low point. Recruiting for the U.S. Armed Forces, especially the ground forces, is harder than at any time since the 1970s. American economic performance is fragile. Europe’s economic outlook is bleaker still.
In his fight with Russia, Bonaparte not only badly misjudged his opponent, but he also grossly misjudged his allies. President Biden and his generals should not make the same mistakes in Ukraine.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Douglas Macgregor Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.
Let's hope someone comes to their senses and takes the air out of this "plan being considered" balloon.
As long as he gets 10%.
About ten years ago, Poland began planning and preparing for a possible intervention in Ukraine to secure and stabilize the western portion of the country should Russia invade and collapse the country’s government. That was seen as likely to create a massive refugee flow and a humanitarian and political catastrophe in an ungoverned western half of Ukraine. That is the most likely scenario that NATO and the US are considering as a reason for military intervention.
“… own “coalition of the willing.” The coalition would allegedly consist of primarily, but not exclusively, Polish and Romanian forces, with the U.S. Army at its core, for employment in Ukraine….”
******************************************************************
MADNESS! This would be nothing more than Wag the Dog operations to distract from the DAMAGES that the DemocRATS and their neocon allies have been doing to Western Civilization —- AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMED ADVERSARIES.
USA should only send:
- electrical generating equipment
- medical supplies
- temporary shelter supplies
NO USA MILITARY PERSONNEL
“USA should only send:
- electrical generating equipment”
LOL, we need to send that to California, Texas, and New England.
Who would that be Cathi?
Everyone in DC is senseless and on the war train with cornpop.
Eveything that town is doing is a disaster, for everybody
Eff that soyboy.
Petraeus’s inadequacies aside, the Biden administration really is considering this plan. When MacGregor saw Petraeus’s speech advocating this he contacted his Pentagon sources and they told him this is real...they really are considering this.
Personally, I attribute this to desperation. Ukraine is losing the war. Our Deep State government has done everything they could to prevent that. We have troops in Ukraine already working on special assignments. Together with Mi-6 we plan their military operations. We’ve depleted our arsenal sending them more and more powerful weapons...even taking HIMAR launchers right out of our own Marine’s hands to send them to Ukraine.
So the next step is “sending in our Army.” And if that doesn’t do the trick, well then based on Biden’s new nuclear use policy...there is always that.
"Today, the Biden White House appears to be considering the use of a multinational force aimed at Russia. The NATO alliance is unable to reach a unanimous decision to intervene militarily in support of Ukraine in its war with Russia. But as signaled recently by David Petraeus, the president and his generals are evaluating their own “coalition of the willing.” The coalition would allegedly consist of primarily, but not exclusively, Polish and Romanian forces, with the U.S. Army at its core, for employment in Ukraine. "MacGregor is misrepresenting Petraeus's words and using that to set up the rest of this false argument. Petraeus was talking about what were possible US responses if Russia used nuclear weapons first. He stated that the redline was NATO Article 5, Russia would have to attack a NATO country first or take some really extreme action before the US and NATO would send in the military. He said nothing about sending a NATO force in unless there was extreme provocation first.
Macgregor is taking his word out of context, and making it sound like Petraeus is supporting preemptive action when he nothing of the kind. The current plan of sending Ukraine the weapons and supplies and let them fight Russia is working as far as NATO is concerned. Operations are slowing because it is winter, and weather affects both sides. Especially the poorly equipped Russian conscripts.
This article is written from the perspective that Jao Beiden is a sentient being.
He is not.
He is nothing more than a meat puppet.
We should let the Russians win.
So they have to pay for rebuilding the country not US.
Let’s hope someone comes to their senses and takes the air out of this “plan being considered” balloon.
I hope so. We can’t take casualties like the current combatants are taking.
The Hill:
“Further pieces of this puzzle are filled in via a recent article by Douglas MacGregor, “Playing at War in Ukraine,” which examines the unusual but much discussed proposal of former Gen. and CIA Director David Petraeus that the U.S. should consider direct military intervention in Ukraine — not under the auspices of NATO but as a U.S.-led “coalition of the willing.” From this MacGregor deduces two things: This trial balloon did not originate with Petraeus but more likely the U.S. government, and secondly, that Ukraine has suffered high casualties in its recent offensives as it awaits a winter offensive from Russia, a country with 10 times the GDP of Ukraine.”
Shoigu (Russia Defense Minister)
Ukraine’s casualties have tripled in the last few weeks. The “killed” are running 2.5 thousand per week. He did not give a “wounded” number.
BidenIdiot playing with fire, serious fire.
If such was to take place, the propaganda ridden media will only be able to stifle and hide the flow of American body bags coming back home but for so long before all this shat hits the fan like a tsunami of Biblical proportions....
The United States cannot win a conventional war with Russia.
Before Operation Desert Storm, an enormous logistical effort was required for MANY months to stage the equipment and troops necessary to prevail in that war.
Both Napoleon and Hitler learned the consequences of a land war against Russia.
Ukraine would be nothing but a smoking ruin before such an massive effort could be launched to fight Russia in Ukraine.
How many thousands of Americans would then have to die in this insane and futile war in one of the world’s most corrupt countries which has NO STRATEGIC VALUE TO THE USA?
Russia has not attacked the USA or NATO.
It is the USA, not Russia, needing a “regime change.”
Don’t worry. Free Republic’s resident Comrades will always misrepresent any ideas about how true freedom fighters will react to blatant acts like invasions or mass bombing of civilians. I don’t think there is much danger that the US with NAtO would damage itself by conduction a land war deep into Russia. They might help mop up things in Crimea which does not get sustained visits from Gen. Winter.
If Russia would win then they wouldn’t rebuild anything. They would have 40 million slaves plus all the resources of Ukraine, that they would put to work for enabling their next invasion.
We have already seen this play out when Czechoslovakia was given to Hitler. Czechs and Slovaks were made slaves and their industry was added to the Nazi war machine, which only grew stronger.
Some people thought this meant “Peace for our time”, but history showed they were wrong.
The Soviet Empire was 450 million people. Current Russia is 150 and wants the Empire back.
Why would US troops be needed if the Ukes were doing as well as the Daily Fail and other Western corporate media claim they are doing?
Biden is proposing getting into active combat with a nuclear armed country over land/territory that is not vital to American national interest and in a country with whom we have no treaty obligation.
This is complete insanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.