Ukraine's advantage over Russia

 

Gordon L. Weil

What’s the link between a Maine Civil War general and the surprising Ukraine survival in its war with Russia?

In 1864, the Union’s Army of the Tennessee, previously led by Generals U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman, needed a new leader. Sherman, who had become commander of the entire Union Army in the West, controversially jumped over the expected choice and named General Oliver Otis Howard, originally from Leeds, Maine.

Howard, a graduate of Bowdoin College and West Point, understood military strategy and tactics. But equally important, he knew how to supply an army of tens of thousands moving constantly with everything from rations to gunpowder. He became Sherman’s chief deputy in probably the longest march of any major Civil War command.

Though the word did not yet exist, Howard was a master of what came to be called “logistics.” Sherman understood logistics, revealed by his destruction in Atlanta of the railroads supplying Confederate troops.

His emphasis on logistics was evident in the Grand Review Parade in Washington at the end of the war. At the head of the line, riding a step behind Sherman came Howard. Trailing Sherman’s troops of the West past the reviewing stand was a herd of cattle, a sort of mobile supply chain.

Few supply wizards are rated as war heroes. The work may seem boring, but it is vital and armies are mostly composed of support troops. It has been estimated that as little as one solder in ten actually faces the enemy in combat.

A Defense Department official decades later would state: “Logistics isn’t rocket science...it’s much harder.” Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky got it.

According to the New York Times: “In the first days of the war Mr. Zelensky set three priorities for his government’s ministries ...: weapons procurement, shipments of food and other goods, and maintaining supplies of gasoline and diesel. The ministries were told to rewrite regulations to ensure swift delivery on all three tracks.”

For weapons procurement, Zelensky got strong help from the U.S. and other NATO countries. Weapons were transported by them right to the border of a nation at war. The initial defensive armaments could be transported from the Poland-Ukraine border on trains.

Zelensky seemed intuitively to know that Ukraine could benefit from its situation. He did not need to deploy his soldiers over long supply lines. Russia’s vast size might be a cause of weakness, because of long supply lines and poor logistics.

President Vladimir Putin, having no military experience, thought his troops would win in days and obviously gave little thought to logistics. His forces stalled on the road to Kyiv, making his tanks and armored vehicles easy targets for the hand-held rockets supplied to Ukrainian soldiers who could focus on combat not logistics.

Good supply beat poor supply. Putin failed to take Kyiv, because Ukraine’s resistance halted Russia’s advance and could pick off Russia’s mechanized convoy, strung out over 40 miles. Even when Putin later shifted his troops to the East, they had to wait days for supplies before they could attack.

Much has been said about how the Russian Army greatly outnumbers Ukraine’s forces. On the strength of those numbers, the conventional wisdom was that Russia could easily crush Ukraine. But it’s likely that gross numbers have been misleading when logistics was taken into account.

Although we cannot know for sure, here’s some possible math in round numbers. If Russia had 200,000 troops poised for invasion, possibly only one-in-five or 40,000 could be committed to combat. On the Ukraine side, perhaps one soldier in three, as many as 60,000, could serve on the front lines. And Ukraine’s troops have proved to be far better trained.

The difference is in weapons, which might explain Zelensky’s repeated requests for more and better arms. Also, Russia freely attacks Ukraine, which can do little to destroy the Russian supply lines across the border.

While Ukraine did not seek war, it is providing an immense service in revealing Russia’s weakness, showing that its great power status relies on its nuclear arsenal. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III has said that the American objective is “to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

Zelensky knew what Sherman, who also fought almost surrounded by hostile territory, knew. Perhaps we will never know the names of Ukrainian logistics generals, just as few remember Howard.

The man who Sherman passed over was John A. Logan, who ran for vice president with Maine’s James G. Blaine in his losing run for president in 1884.

Recognition for Howard came from a university in Washington, D.C. named for him, recognizing his historic fight for racial equality. Vice President Kamala Harris is a graduate of Howard University.

West’s new-found unity should extend to immigration, trade

Gordon L. Weil

What do Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have in common?

They both have come up with extreme solutions to deal with illegal immigrants coming across their borders. And they both have met with strong opposition even from their friends.

Abbott tried to seize control of immigration policy by having Texas inspect every truck coming from Mexico until that country would slow the cascade of immigrants.  Business and trade groups strongly opposed his policy as supply chain problems multiplied while trucks backed up for miles.

Eventually, he retreated after receiving assurances from neighboring Mexican states that they would slow the flow.  His success may turn out to be more political than real. He faces reelection this year, so at least he may benefit.

Johnson’s government reached an agreement with Rwanda, a distant African country, to send there by charter flights the illegal immigrants picked up on British beaches.  His own officials were stunned by the cost and the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the top of the Church of England, flatly condemned the move.

The British arrivals come across the English Channel after passing through France.  Brexit took the U.K. out of the EU, so it lacks any special influence with the French.

Unlike the U.K., the U.S. has a special relationship with Mexico through the three-way trade pact linking the two countries and Canada.  But it provides little more cooperation than Johnson gets from France.  About 1.7 million immigrants have been turned away under anti-Covid rules.

Economic hardship and political repression have caused waves of immigration into both Europe and America.  Britain and the U.S. are among countries seen as providing a free society and economic opportunity, and they have become the goal of migrant populations.

The advocates of low barriers to immigration believe that a nation benefits from the addition of new cultures, and immigrants can expand the economy.  Those defending borders worry about threats to their national culture and traditional politics and possibly heavy new demands for public assistance.

The result has been political paralysis.  Faced with a crisis demanding resolution, governments have been unable to resolve immigration issues, allowing the situation to deteriorate.

Trade has seemed to provide the kind of openness that is disputed when it comes to migration.  The World Trade Organization lowers barriers and allows a relatively free flow of goods.  In theory, trade brings prosperity and wealthier nations are likely to prefer commerce to conflict. Prosperity should remove a major cause of migration.

This faith in the political power of trade has not worked.  The close trade relationship between Britain and Europe brought benefit to both sides, but not enough to overcome British objections to unlimited immigration from fellow EU members.  Those objections were a major reason for Brexit.

Beyond that, the WTO was meant to be open only to free market countries who could not game the system.  China and Russia were admitted to encourage them to move toward open markets more rapidly.  The resulting prosperity was expected to make them less of a threat to peace.

But both have stifled markets. China under Xi Jinping has returned the Communist Party to economic control.  And Russia is letting its lust for Ukraine destroy its trade ties with much of the world.

In short, failing world trade cooperation and the unregulated flow of millions of people are linked and are growing more troublesome.  They make the world less stable, less safe.  Together, they may be the most pressing international issues.

Politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere accept inaction, apparently believing that the current chaos is politically more appealing than compromise.  Yet China’s expansionism, Russia’s attack on Ukraine, America’s and Britain’s problems at their southern borders are all evidence that matters are growing worse.

In recent months, Western countries have drawn closer in the face of increasing challenges from China and Russia.  A stronger and larger alliance has emerged. Each nation has its own policies, but Ukraine now shows that each has a better chance of success through common action.

The West should deny Russia and China favorable trade arrangements and, if possible, expel them from the WTO.  Right now, free trade yields those countries the cash to finance their expansion. They can no longer make the case that they deserve continued trade preferences to promote their development.

Countries are learning that immigration cannot be controlled at the border but must be slowed at the source.  Having failed to deal successfully with refugees on their own, the countries of the newly revived Western alliance might now try to develop a common and, if possible, coordinated immigration policy. 

The new shared sense of purpose of an alliance extending from Estonia to Australia could increasingly counter Chinese and Russian ambitions.  It could start with immigration and trade.  

Ukraine a battleground in war on democracy

Gordon L. Weil

The Empire returns.

It’s not another Star Wars sequel.  It’s the dream of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  And it’s much more likely than Hollywood’s film fiction.

Once upon a time, there were empires.  Over the past few centuries, the British, French, Dutch, Germans, Austrians, Ottomans, Russians, Chinese and Japanese had them.

Empires are large territories containing many nationalities ruled by a single person who heads a country that either conquered or colonized other nations.  The government is authoritarian if not downright dictatorial.

The alternative turned out to be democracies in which the people rule and there are no kings or emperors.  The first big crack in an empire came when an aspiring place called America tossed off British rule. 

Two world wars led to the end of any surviving empires, dividing them into smaller pieces and, in many places, installing democracy in place of authoritarian rule. After 1918, the map of the world began to change and the process continued for decades. 

The Soviet Union was a special case.  When the Communists replaced the empire in 1918, they created 15 “republics” that together formed the new country.  All were dominated by the largest and most populous – Russia.

In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the republics became separate countries.  The Russian government then faced a choice.  It could try to keep the countries connected in an alliance under its control or it could move toward joining the countries of Europe and North America in a new economic community.

Russia decided to attempt both.  It created an organization to link the countries that emerged out of the Soviet ruins.  Most republics went along with Russia, but not Ukraine.  The group failed to restore Soviet-style ties.

At about the same time, Russia joined the club of major industrial powers. The Group of Seven became the Group of Eight.  Historically fearful of invasion from Western Europe, Russia could link its economy so closely to others that war between them would become impossible.  France and Germany had done just that.

Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia in 1999. He deeply regretted the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of his country’s power in the world.  He set out to restore it.

He could not bring back the Soviet Union, because most Russians rejected Communism.  Instead, he would bring back the Russian Empire, a conservative regime. In 2000, he replaced the hammer and sickle with the imperial eagle as the new symbol for his country.

Putin would attempt to draw most of the republics back into a Russian sphere of influence.  His prime target remains Ukraine, which he sees as sharing Russian culture.  He disdained its desire for independence.

In his pursuit of the Russian Empire, he chose to forego a closer relationship with the West and to reject democracy.  In the new century, Russia became a flag-bearer for the right-wing authoritarian rule that challenges democratic government.  It appealed to leaders from America’s Donald Trump to China’s Xi Jinping.

Putin’s decision came at a price.  In the West, the EU economy grew between 1991 and 2021 by more than nine times.  At the same time, despite having gained improved access to world markets, Russia’s economy grew less than three times. 

Russia was revealed as a medium-size economy with a medium-sized population that is only a great power thanks to its huge land mass and nuclear arsenal.

As Ukraine came under increasing pressure to align closely with Russia, it compared the performance of the EU on its western border and Russia on the eastern side. Responding to popular demonstrations, it adopted home-grown democracy.  Russia suddenly lost influence there.

Putin reacted. In 2014, he seized Crimea, a part of Ukraine heavily populated by Russians.  He also moved on the eastern Ukraine.  This push for empire cost Russia a closer relationship with the West. G-8 again became G-7.   

Ukraine’s economy developed and it openly considered seeking EU membership. Its example was a threat to the new Russian Empire.  Now, the empire strikes back.  This time the price is sanctions that may devastate Russia’s economy.

After adopting broad social policies to spread prosperity and defeating Nazi aggression, the victors of World War II thought they had closed the book on land wars that would exploit discontent, overrun nations, extinguish democracies and subject countries to authoritarian rule.

But Vladimir Putin stuck his finger in the pages of history and flipped the book open again to the bad old days.  That’s obviously not good news for Ukraine.

If he succeeds, it would be a win in the war between right-wing authoritarian rule and democracy.  He could open the way for a return to aggression and armed conflict. This time, it would take place in a nuclear-armed world. 

Are you conservative, liberal or moderate? Political labels may be too simple, misleading

 

Gordon L. Weil

Conservative, liberal, moderate.  That’s how politics divide.

Which are you?  If you classify yourself in one of these groups, it should tell me a lot about your party affiliation and your views on major issues.

Maybe not.  Americans are continually reminded about this split in political orientation and the resulting deep partisanship.  But some new reports find that this three-way split is too simple.  And it looks only at your politics, not the effect of your personality and values on your choice. 

Recently, the Pew Research Center, a respected neutral organization, studied American voters and identified nine separate political groups, not just three.  Four reveal varying degrees of conservatism, four are on the liberal scale and one is in the middle.

The Pew report concluded, “...the gulf that separates Republicans and Democrats sometimes obscures the divisions within both partisan coalitions – and the fact that many Americans do not fit easily into either one.”

Using Pew’s classifications, the middle of the spectrum is occupied by Stressed Sideliners (15%) plus the Ambivalent Right (12%) and the Outsider Left (10%).  All three groups, amounting to more than a third of the people, share some disdain for politics and habitually vote less than do other more faithful groups.

If the political battles seem to be about how to win over this political center, the effort may be a waste of time.  These groups are already voting – with their feet – by not voting as much as others.  And they agree on little among themselves.  That provides little hope for their being the core of a new party.

The three groups on the right, beginning with the most conservative, are Faith and Flag Conservatives (10%), Committed Conservatives (7%) and the Populist Right (11%). That’s a total of 28% of all possible voters.

On the left, the three groups from most liberal toward the center are the Progressive Left (6%), Establishment Liberals (13%) and Democratic Mainstays (16%), yielding a total of 35%.

For anybody who thinks most people agree with them on policy, the clear answer is that they don’t.

Still, as expected, the Republicans are conservative and the Dems are liberals and now seem not to mind that label.

Among conservatives, Faith and Flag and Populists adherents are more pro-Trump than are the Committed Conservatives.  Among liberals, there’s a gap between Progressives, who want a much larger government, and others.

Within the two parties, conflicts have come into the open. Who are the RINOs – Republicans in Name Only?  Are they the Trump Faith and Flaggers or the Committed Conservatives?  If either side fails to choose the GOP’s candidate, will it still turn out to vote?

The Democrats have long been the more diverse party.  You don’t hear anything about DINOs.  Still, will the Progressive Left fall in line with the party as Joe Biden moves it more to the center, or will they stay home?

There is one stark partisan difference.  All four Democratic leaning groups believe more work is needed to deal with racial bias.  The GOP groups believe little more needs to be done.

Beyond the Pew analysis, there are some other examinations, attempting to explain why some women are Republicans and some men are Democrats, both against the stereotype. They find your personality may dictate your political views.

The dividing line seems to exist between authoritarian and communitarian people, a traditional distinction between masculine and feminine values.  That distinction has blurred, especially as wealthier people have become more liberal.  And, in the GOP, women are less authoritarian than men.

The Democrats attract more communitarian people, including a majority of white women voters and a greatly increased share of the upper middle class. Meanwhile, the GOP takes lower income white workers from the Dems and retains most men.  African Americans are almost solidly Democratic.

Of course, these factors filter through to elections as well as to daily life. For example, when it comes to Covid-19, the most liberal people are also the most worried about its risks.  Conservatives are far less concerned.

That translates into public policy.  Among the very liberal, some 62% support long-term mask mandates.  Only about one-quarter of conservatives agree, though more favor vaccinations.  Moderates tilt in the direction of the conservatives, which may explain why mandates are being dropped.  They are not politically popular. 

Each person’s vote is influenced by both their personality and their political values.  But emerging hot issues of the day also matter.  Inflation, Russia-Ukraine developments, a possible Covid flare-up and a Supreme Court abortion decision are still ahead of this year’s elections.

In-depth studies reveal that understanding voters is more difficult than the daily, snap judgments in the media.

That should be a warning about paying too much attention to pundits telling you in April who will win in November.

Senate rules give each senator presidential power

 

Gordon L. Weil

Big news! The U.S. Senate voted unanimously to make Daylight Savings Time permanent.

It’s amazing when 100 senators can agree on something as important as that.

Not exactly.  It turns out that the “unanimous” vote was slipped by the Senate by just two senators. One was presiding and the other proposed the decision.  The senator who was supposed to be there to object had no excuse.

The decision was made by using “unanimous consent,” which allows the Senate to act unless just one senator objects.  Silence or absence equals agreement.

This bizarre vote, reversible only if the House disagrees, illustrates a major flaw in this country’s system of democratic government.  The U.S. can often be controlled by a single person and that’s not the president.  It can be any single U.S. senator.

Under the Constitution, the Senate sets its own rules. It has set up a system that defies the very democracy that created it.  The rules are so complicated that few senators understand all of them. If they know enough to play by the rules, they can control single-handedly.

Much attention is justifiably focused Rule 22, which allows the filibuster.   A single senator has the power to prevent a vote by holding the floor.  The Senate has institutionalized that personal power to the point that merely accepting the possibility of a real filibuster has made doing it unnecessary.   

The power of any single senator goes far beyond the ability to stage a filibuster. Today, even a Wyoming senator, representing less than one-fifth of one percent of the American population, can control the federal government.

One used his personal power to seriously undermine the ability of President Joe Biden to run foreign policy.

A senator may place a “hold” on a vote to study its details before a final decision.  That “hold” delays a vote for an unspecified time.  Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz put a “hold” on the nomination of most of Biden’s top diplomatic appointments for about a year.  That had a direct effect on U.S. foreign policy.

He demanded that Biden take action to block the Russian natural gas pipeline to Western Europe.  Even if his objective turned out to be correct, his attempt to run foreign policy by taking political hostages was not correct.  But other senators let him get away with his phony “hold,’ because they wanted to keep it in reserve for their own use.

Another way in which senators run the place for their own interests came up recently.  Previously, Congress used “earmarks” to allow each member some federal funds for what were truly local projects.  That way, each incumbent could tell their voters they had brought back home some federal cash.  In 2011, Congress banned earmarks, saving taxpayers billions of dollars.

This year, earmarks came back.  They are again available to reward a senator for voting the party line on a key issue.  They were touted as a rare sign of bipartisan cooperation, a rebuttal of attacks on the usual divisiveness. 

This kind of personal power should not be confused with the role of the maverick or independent-minded senator.  Coalitions once formed across the aisle based on issues, but party loyalty now dominates.  Bipartisanship consists of the rare times when senators like West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin or Maine Republican Susan Collins cast a swing vote.

Above all, the extraordinary power of a single senator is evident in the role of the two Senate party leaders.  Their parties have given them absolute authority over what the Senate may consider and when.  All senators may be equal, but some senators are more equal than others, as the saying goes.

For almost 30 years, the Republicans have followed congressional party discipline that is more characteristic of European parliaments than Congress.  That gives Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader, the ability to keep his troops in line and forces the normally unruly Democrats to try to do the same. In today’s Senate, divided 50-50, that’s a recipe for deadlock.

The only advantage for the Democrats is that one other single person, Vice President Kamala Harris, can break a tie.  Close Senate races this year place on a knife-edge the possibilities for Biden to accomplish much during the second half of his term.  If he returns as Majority Leader, McConnell could turn out to have more political power than Biden.

The Senate has called itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”  But it’s hard to recall any time when one senator convinced another through floor debate.  Speeches are usually political messages used by senators for their own or their party’s purposes.  Full of self-appointed stars, the Senate has become more theater than legislature.