This is the kind of empty analysis that gets us into trouble.
TLDR: There's always more to the story. Mike Johnson may believe he is doing something patriotic (see the last few thoughts).
Let's do some thinking. Let's assume Mike Johnson is that deeply faithful evangelical Christian we thought he was when we backed him for Speaker. Let's assume he's a patriot, and that he meant all of those America First promises he made. Let's assume his life story wasn't an act, it was real.
Let's acknowledge that Mike Johnson flipped really, really suddenly and really, really recently. Perhaps one event changed his view, because his political position changed so fast. And let's assume that event had to do with the "intelligence community" because he has never offered a formal and open explanation, which he would have if he could given his past record of character.
Let's assume we're never going to get the full story because this involves the "intelligence community" who lie and blackmail for a living, but let's also assume that whatever story they concocted has some element of truth, which enables it to be believable. For example, the Iraq WMD was believable because Saddam Hussein had had a nuclear program and had spent 10 years refusing to let the IAEA inspect his facilities to ensure he was in fact not building weapons.
Are Russia, China, and Iran allied?
That's not a secret. Russia and China are openly allied and have spent time publicly increasing economic ties for the last 2 years. China has been buying oil from Iran clandestinely for years in defiance of western sanctions. It continues to do so because it's energy needs are so great. Russia would seem to be a natural competitor here with it's own fossil fuel exports, but China's demand is large enough for both. In addition, Russia has openly invested in helping Iran build a nuclear fission power plant sending experts and parts for such projects. Russia and Iran have been trading in weapons for many years, and have prominently done so recently in defiance of the West. They've sold missiles and air defense systems to Iran, and they bought large quantities of the Shahed suicide drone which they've converted to the Geran series and have used extensively and to great effect in Ukraine. The evidence indicates there is an economic and military alliance here.
Is Putin a military threat to Eastern and Central Europe?
Yes and no. Just looking at numbers, Russia has ~1.3 million active duty military personnel. In Oct 2023, they mobilized ~340K for duty in Ukraine to join the ~200K who were already there fighting the SMO. (source). Turkey has the 2nd largest military in NATO after the US at ~335K active duty personnel. Poland is next at ~200K. Right now, even with limited mobilization, Russia has a large advantage, and they're not even close to fully spun up to a wartime posture. Yes, they could indeed threaten Eastern Europe if they wanted to.
It's a bit more complex than that though. Russia would need to hold the ground. That means it would need significantly more men. The Russian people aren't interested in such a thing. They support the SMO because it is perceived as a necessity. There is not large scale support for a full invasion and conquest of Ukraine west of the Dneiper, let alone the Baltic states, Poland, or the Balkans. Putin, for his part, has expressed no such interest either. He's been clear about his interests in Ukraine: demilitarize to remove the threat on his border, regime change of the "Neo-Nazi" government, neutrality and friendship for a post-puppet-state Ukraine.
Russia's military is indeed a threat, but it seems clear Putin intends to proceed in a Cold War 2.0 stance, that is, he's keeping that military there specifically to project power against EU and NATO expansionism. He is not planning to actually invade those countries which would be a logistical nightmare, only to be perceived as being capable of it if the handlers in DC, London, and Brussels get frisky.
Will more weapons in Ukraine accomplish the stated goal?
Absolutely not. It is clear that Russia has extremely good intelligence networks both human and signals in Ukraine. Russian media has reported that Ukrainian citizens are tipping the Russians when new shipments come through and to where foreign mercenaries are quartering on their way to the front. Russia has opportunistically struck these targets regularly with missile barrages. Any new weapons shipments will be similarly targeted.
Advanced weapons require advanced training to deploy effectively. All of the weapons in the NATO arsenal are designed around the American strategy of combined arms: land, air, and naval assets all brought to bear on the target at the same time. You don't just send infantry without armor or without air support. You can't just put planes up without having a ground army to take and hold the ground. You can't send in armor without air cover and infantry support. Ukraine, however, has no effective air force. The Russian anti-air assets have completely neutralized whatever force Ukraine had. Even with new planes, it would be years to train the pilots and the ground commanders to effectively coordinate their use. The lack of air power has resulted in a turkey shoot on all that armor we've sent over. Sending more weapons into this scenario will just result in Russia destroying them.
No, more weapons will not achieve anything other than increasing orders from the DoD for new weapons from the defense contractors. And that's without mentioning the flagrant theft and resale of western weapons on the black market.
Where is the plan to WIN?
At no point in this entire conflict has anyone in the US gov't, its allies, or any official of NATO stated what the plan is to WIN. What are the strategic objectives? What is the clear path to achieving those objectives? Why are none of the NATO governments unwilling to commit their own assets to this fight? They want a war, but want other people to fight it. They don't have the industrial capacity to fight it.
So, we're literally doing this specifically to waste money and lives, just so long as it's someone else's lives.
Whatever Mike Johnson is being told by the "intelligence community" clowns, it's so weak that he can't go to his own caucus, let alone the American people and convince them. But, it seems clear that he believes it to be a moral thing to do.
Are we supporting some sort of massive clandestine clean-up?
This is where I start rampantly speculating. We know that Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country, the most corrupt in Europe, and it has been that way since the fall of the Soviet Union. They're poor and corrupt. George Soros moved in and set up shop in the mid-90s with his destabilization plan and his "open society." He has bought a lot of politicians and power brokers there in order to push anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism. He's a huge promoter of the "Neo Nazis" in the current government.
We know that Obama sent Shitshow Joe to Ukraine in 2012-13ish to handle the issue, whatever it was. He set up Crackhead Hunter over there at Burisma, with a no-show, ultra-high-paying job. Obviously, that was the payment of a bribe. Hunter was there doing something else. Services were being rendered for which Ukraine was paying. What exactly?
Two possibiities. The first is the clandestine DoD biological weapons program under the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). They hired contractors to build and operate 46 labs in Ukraine amidst a constellation of ~340 such labs all over Eastern Europe and Africa in countries where there's effectively no oversight. They were running a biological weapons program over there, and outbreaks of weaponizable pathogens are well documented in local media. This is a violation of a 1969 treaty banning such research, which is why we don't just do it at a proper facility like Fort Detrick.
The second is more speculative. It's clear that Ukraine's criminal underworld is off the charts. They're on an east-west crossroads into Europe for all sorts of drugs (Afghanistan and central Asia) and human traffic. Anything you want from women, kids, weapons, etc all flows freely through Ukraine. The "oligarchs" run it like the mafia. Albania gets a lot of the credit formally, but it flows through Ukraine. I suspect more than a few Americans and Europeans are prominent customers.
Mike Johnson may view continued weapons payments as hush money to keep Zelensky from spilling the beans on all this. Given how explosive it is, it is possible that this might be seen as a patriotic cover-up. That's the best I can do about giving him the benefit of the doubt.
This is the kind of empty analysis that gets us into trouble.
TLDR: There's always more to the story. Mike Johnson may believe he is doing something patriotic (see the last few thoughts).
Let's do some thinking. Let's assume Mike Johnson is that deeply faithful evangelical Christian we thought he was when we backed him for Speaker. Let's assume he's a patriot, and that he meant all of those America First promises he made. Let's assume his life story wasn't an act, it was real.
Let's acknowledge that Mike Johnson flipped really, really suddenly and really, really recently. Perhaps one event changed his view, because his political position changed so fast. And let's assume that event had to do with the "intelligence community" because he has never offered a formal and open explanation, which he would have if he could given his past record of character.
Let's assume we're never going to get the full story because this involves the "intelligence community" who lie and blackmail for a living, but let's also assume that whatever story they concocted has some element of truth, which enables it to be believable. For example, the Iraq WMD was believable because Saddam Hussein had had a nuclear program and had spent 10 years refusing to let the IAEA inspect his facilities to ensure he was in fact not building weapons.
Are Russia, China, and Iran allied?
That's not a secret. Russia and China are openly allied and have spent time publicly increasing economic ties for the last 2 years. China has been buying oil from Iran clandestinely for years in defiance of western sanctions. It continues to do so because it's energy needs are so great. Russia would seem to be a natural competitor here with it's own fossil fuel exports, but China's demand is large enough for both. In addition, Russia has openly invested in helping Iran build a nuclear fission power plant sending experts and parts for such projects. Russia and Iran have been trading in weapons for many years, and have prominently done so recently in defiance of the West. They've sold missiles and air defense systems to Iran, and they bought large quantities of the Shahed suicide drone which they've converted to the Geran series and have used extensively and to great effect in Ukraine. The evidence indicates there is an economic and military alliance here.
Is Putin a military threat to Eastern and Central Europe?
Yes and no. Just looking at numbers, Russia has ~1.3 million active duty military personnel. In Oct 2023, they mobilized ~340K for duty in Ukraine to join the ~200K who were already there fighting the SMO. (source). Turkey has the 2nd largest military in NATO after the US at ~335K active duty personnel. Poland is next at ~200K. Right now, even with limited mobilization, Russia has a large advantage, and they're not even close to fully spun up to a wartime posture. Yes, they could indeed threaten Eastern Europe if they wanted to.
It's a bit more complex than that though. Russia would need to hold the ground. That means it would need significantly more men. The Russian people aren't interested in such a thing. They support the SMO because it is perceived as a necessity. There is not large scale support for a full invasion and conquest of Ukraine west of the Dneiper, let alone the Baltic states, Poland, or the Balkans. Putin, for his part, has expressed no such interest either. He's been clear about his interests in Ukraine: demilitarize to remove the threat on his border, regime change of the "Neo-Nazi" government, neutrality and friendship for a post-puppet-state Ukraine.
Russia's military is indeed a threat, but it seems clear Putin intends to proceed in a Cold War 2.0 stance, that is, he's keeping that military there specifically to project power against EU and NATO expansionism. He is not planning to actually invade those countries which would be a logistical nightmare, only to be perceived as being capable of it if the handlers in DC, London, and Brussels get frisky.
Will more weapons in Ukraine accomplish the stated goal?
Absolutely not. It is clear that Russia has extremely good intelligence networks both human and signals in Ukraine. Russian media has reported that Ukrainian citizens are tipping the Russians when new shipments come through and to where foreign mercenaries are quartering on their way to the front. Russia has opportunistically struck these targets regularly with missile barrages. Any new weapons shipments will be similarly targeted.
Advanced weapons require advanced training to deploy effectively. All of the weapons in the NATO arsenal are designed around the American strategy of combined arms: land, air, and naval assets all brought to bear on the target at the same time. You don't just send infantry without armor or without air support. You can't just put planes up without having a ground army to take and hold the ground. You can't send in armor without air cover and infantry support. Ukraine, however, has no effective air force. The Russian anti-air assets have completely neutralized whatever force Ukraine had. Even with new planes, it would be years to train the pilots and the ground commanders to effectively coordinate their use. The lack of air power has resulted in a turkey shoot on all that armor we've sent over. Sending more weapons into this scenario will just result in Russia destroying them.
No, more weapons will not achieve anything other than increasing orders from the DoD for new weapons from the defense contractors. And that's without mentioning the flagrant theft and resale of western weapons on the black market.
Where is the plan to WIN?
At no point in this entire conflict has anyone in the US gov't, its allies, or any official of NATO stated what the plan is to WIN. What are the strategic objectives? What is the clear path to achieving those objectives? Why are none of the NATO governments unwilling to commit their own assets to this fight? They want a war, but want other people to fight it. They don't have the industrial capacity to fight it.
So, we're literally doing this specifically to waste money and lives, just so long as it's someone else's lives.
Whatever Mike Johnson is being told by the "intelligence community" clowns, it's so weak that he can't go to his own caucus, let alone the American people and convince them. But, it seems clear that he believes it to be a moral thing to do.
Are we supporting some sort of massive clandestine clean-up?
This is where I start rampantly speculating. We know that Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country, the most corrupt in Europe, and it has been that way since the fall of the Soviet Union. They're poor and corrupt. George Soros moved in and set up shop in the mid-90s with his destabilization plan and his "open society." He has bought a lot of politicians and power brokers there in order to push anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism. He's a huge promoter of the "Neo Nazis" in the current government.
We know that Obama sent Shitshow Joe to Ukraine in 2012-13ish to handle the issue, whatever it was. He set up Crackhead Hunter over there at Burisma, with a no-show, ultra-high-paying job. Obviously, that was the payment of a bribe. Hunter was there doing something else. Services were being rendered for which Ukraine was paying. What exactly?
Two possibiities. The first is the clandestine DoD biological weapons program under the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). They hired contractors to build and operate 46 labs in Ukraine amidst a constellation of ~340 such labs all over Eastern Europe and Africa in countries where there's effectively no oversight. They were running a biological weapons program over there, and outbreaks of weaponizable pathogens are well documented in local media. This is a violation of a 1969 treaty banning such research, which is why we don't just do it at a proper facility like Fort Detrick.
The second is more speculative. It's clear that Ukraine's criminal underworld is off the charts. They're on an east-west crossroads into Europe for all sorts of drugs (Afghanistan and central Asia) and human traffic. Anything you want from women, kids, weapons, etc all flows freely through Ukraine. The "oligarchs" run it like the mafia. Albania gets a lot of the credit formally, but it flows through Ukraine. I suspect more than a few Americans and Europeans are prominent customers.
Mike Johnson may view continued weapons payments as hush money to keep Zelensky from spilling the beans on all this. Given how explosive it is, it is possible that this might be seen as a patriotic cover-up. That's the best I can do about giving him the benefit of the doubt.