Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Bombshell all right and gee all of a sudden. NC under pressure I should say constant pressure by certain Democrats ended up not allowing RFK on the ballot in NC. Now this story hmmmm…. Oh well that is politics ain’t it.
Yes I have read most all those refuting it which means it really is true. Just my two cents on the special links you all live to post. Written by folks with bias or an A.I. dumb bot. Not true or true that went out the window quite a few Presidents ago. All subject to opinion just how you all deal with Trumpy’s story times.
Not to worry though seems from news reports today he is lucid from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. just so our enemies are aware here. Good to know. World is in a tizzy a Biden is sleeping yeah now that’s what I call Presidential. You do know Jill used to babysit for Biden and his first wife. Now there is a creepy thought. Wonder how those days went back then? A true bond must have formed when Jill was a teenie bopper.
So I see you have an issue with everybody except your senile old man. OK then!!!!!
Sorry to disappoint you snd others here my vote will currently go to the only viable candidate running RFK Jr. thanks for playing though or of course if there is a Libertarian on the ballot then that person whoever it is. Just the main parties you all riot for do not allow my Party on ballots, funny how that works. But if neither of these two are there there then I will sit it out.
Liberals are pretty funny dummies. Trump will destroy America and punish his opponents. Oh my the sky is falling. Well if you had a brain you would have selected another candidate instead of empty suit and brains Joe. If it was that much of a REAL concern to you all you would have run another younger smarter candidate, but once again elitists do not see the forest through the trees. Or the nose on their own faces. Your candidate your loss.
All leaders of our Country prior have gotten us in these quagmires. I am not immune to these events or how they came about. It only strengthens my Libertarian position. I do not like all the rabbit holes your teams take us into here and stir the pot. I am easily open to calling out political and foreign stupidities and errors in judgement of same. I do pay taxes although opposed to the current unfair system for taxes in use that play favorites.
Fools abound among us.
The World saw Biden's deterioration but Democrats failed to acknowledge it. Now DOD warns on good notice of an attack to occur in Europe sometime soon. Iran claims if Israel attacks Lebanon of a obliterating attack. All good stuff under this Presidency. Weakness is bad, Strength is good. But you love this person in office so we all have to deal with this old bag of bones being led around by his lead enabler his wife, whom stated the other day to her husband We are going to continue with this election so that tells you all you need to know who is in charge here. Great America going downhill fast with this pair in charge, what a laughing stock they are to all here. Should be on Comedy Hour or Comedy Club circuit.
You honestly need some website or link to show you what your own eyes and ears see and hear in real time??? Hey I have a leash you can have too and you can be led around town on!!!
How foolish are you folks. Humanly speaking this Biden Presidency and how he is being handled is embarrassing and a tragedy.
Last time I checked I am not running for President are you implying something about Biden here? I was not only he is not in real charge of things and it is so obvious is why Democrats do not get it.
Must be your M.O. to miss the entire point. Oh well!
The enablers of Joe Biden's elderly abuse need to be brought up on charges. What was witnessed by millions last night has seen that there i s absolutely no way Mr. Biden is in charge of anything here and must leave office immediately. Sad as this may be Jill Biden and any of his supposed handlers are to blame for the embarrassment of this man. Humanly speaking not some political hack talking point here, it is sad to witness the constant abuse of this man, it is unworthy of an American to take part in such a travesty against another human being. This man needs to be resting on a beach somewhere warm with real care givers helping him through his day. I hope that Father God will see to it that his current handlers are brought to justice and removed and replaced with those that really care about him humanly going forward. I have sorrow for this man. He need care and he is not getting proper care from those around him. Very sad day and now it appears the Democrats are just finding this out how his condition is, that is also a ploy they knew all along but played the games being orchestrated by the Soros's gang and others here. Sad day for American's having this be the choice they need to make come election time. This is the best we can do. We should all feel responsible for this being the way it is in our Country. It does not get any worse than this folks. God Save Our Country.
Sorry, Do-Gooders. The UN resolution for Emergency powers which is supposedly taking place this September. Might want to check that out for yourself. But is you have zero concern don’t then. Up to you. Thanks for the comments here.
My concern is these folks are totally unelected self proclaimed do-holders who know what’s best for all of us. Elected officials in my mind should have no such powers either to be clear. Ill intentions or not to come the world needs to not listen to those who think they know best for all of us. That’s all. Thanks.
Very true given Beck’s past history where a lot of folks tuned him out even myself years ago gave up on him and his antics. He has found that to gain ground back he entertains guests who speak as he believes gets the word out on such topics. It becomes more relatable to the masses if he is not the deliverer of the overall message. Do I did like his guest on this subject who quoted an Obama writer of the same type of subjects that will affect our world in the future.
So I found it interesting and of course those behind it are not in your face everyday touting their plans for humanity. It is nice to know that others are at least putting this information out the for some to better understand these things could be coming down the pike.
They are correct in that all these things will not all happen at once but rather slice by slice where perhaps noticeable but not cohesive to think it’s really all the same thing. Eases the mindset done in smaller bits that happen no one would ever think it’s some overall plan.
But with the UN involved and those do holders who just simply know what is best for all the citizens of the World versus leaving humans alone to live their own lives, they just cannot have it that way. So they have to tinker with us.
Not sure what this dumb rant is all about. I do not compare these old geezers to each other. Both are worthless in my world.
It’s not about Beck but rather his guest…., but when one shuts off information they become knowledgeable in only things they can comprehend. To limit oneself to knowledge is not a good thing. Be it as it may. Stay how you are in Aussieland.
Some interesting comments in the link below for some non believers out there in the WWW. Maybe overlook politics and hate for a second in your lives. Reality sucks.
https://www.glennbeck.com/glenn-beck-podcast/is-global-cabal-conspiracy-theory
Another disbeliever to reality. Ok fine!!!!
Those links are for those link masters here who require it from posting here. Thanks for playing.
From what I understand is that some of the illegal Chinese Communists crossing our Southern Border were here to move the mice from this lab or should I say these labs as I am sure there are more here, and deliver those mice to large U.S. cities to infect their population centers. Glad this one got shut down. More???
https://apnews.com/article/california-biolab-covid19-test-kits-china-arrest-3ee30af1548356e017276860ebb21f53
https://www.kvpr.org/local-news/2023-11-15/congressional-committee-completes-report-into-illegal-reedley-medical-lab
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/31/illegal-lab-california-infectious-mice/70502532007/
https://www.americainsider.org/2023/07/30/illegal-chinese-biolab-uncovered-in-california-what-they-found-is-deeply-disturbing/
Second Amendment issues folks only in NY I must say. Judge needs to be ban from public spaces.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/jury-convicts-nyc-man-over-gunsmithing-hobby-after-judge-says-the-second-amendment-doesn-t-exist-here/ss-AA1nzwZn
https://wnynewsnow.com/2024/05/20/gunsmith-sentenced-to-prison-for-legal-firearm-told-the-second-amendment-doesnt-exist-in-my-courtroom-by-new-york-judge/
Good Bye Rubio’s, sad to see you go but hourly wage is killing their business oh well too bad lets open up new illegal taco stands we have the illegal folks to do it now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/rubios-closing-48-locations-because-of-rising-cost-of-doing-business-in-california/
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-06-03/rubios-coastal-grill-citing-rising-business-costs-abruptly-shuts-down-48-restaurants-in-california
https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/06/03/rubios-closing-dozens-california-stores
A.I. rearing its ugly head again and now Apple is into it now too go get them boy’s teach us all what A.I. can be used for good and bad and the masses will follow you off the cliff.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-founder-jack-dorsey-warns-141244705.html
Elitist’s seem to always be shocked at reality of the American people and what they actually think these days. Yes we do not think as you do with your pee little brains.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-founder-jack-dorsey-warns-141244705.html
Also I understand Justice Alito and his wife were caught red handed speaking with candor to an undercover so called journalist that is debatable, oh the sins of man and woman abound here close your doors and windows folks. Too funny. Opinions anyone? I think as individual human American's we all have our own non group think ideas and opinions which make our Country greater than it is.
Elderly abuse continues to occur to Joe Biden. And I thought Jill was a doctor, right of enforcing more abuse on Joe with the help of their handlers. It’s called money and power to pull Joes strings daily here. Saddest form of elder abuse I have ever seen out in the open for all to view. Sad….
Manhattan is far from real America. The Democratic blinded by simple hate party has just re-elected the orange man. Save this post all you haters out there. Both Republicans and Democrats should be most afraid of what has occurred here today. It is not American to have done this. Elitism kills debate. Sad but true.
So how is your good friend Anthony Fauci and his advisor doing these days? Seems him and his buddies were keeping secrets amongst themselves while the American Taxpayers who pay their salaries loved ones were dying left and right from viruses they themselves had a hand in creating in the lab. Then they made money coming and going they were making money either way off our backs and deaths. Private emails they learned from the best Hillary Clintoris.
Yes, these are great folks we paid our tax dollars for them to kill/cull us. Not a good look folks. Bring back firing squads now. Try them as the full traitors that they are. Hiding behind private emails doing Government work. These are a great example of what modern day traitors look like in our Country and the World for that matter.
Sick is what this is, sickening. I am sorry for all the deaths caused by these foolish people who have ulterior motives to do what they do. Fauci could do not wrong and a lot of good people died due to his directions. Sick. Now this information has come out let’s see how their punishment goes? Nothing probably no one ever gets punished in our Government no matter what they do. I guess Rand Paul was right all along. The other story always comes out folks and you are now witnessing the other story basically the truth now comes out.
Trump has nothing on this group folks who need to cull the herd for others.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?535836-1/top-adviser-dr-anthony-fauci-testifies-covid-19-origins&live=
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/3012505/house-republicans-consider-criminal-charges-fauci-aide/?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=msn_feed
In my basic estimation it is way past the time frame for implementing said protections. Parties who use open AI now are free to do as they wish from their garages or basements worldwide without controls in place. Everyone is an island here in this mess. Nice to think good thoughts but that time is way past due.
These links may work better here AI safety. Thanks for being patient with my stupidity here on my links prior.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158478/openai-departures-sam-altman-employees-chatgpt-release
https://www.wired.com/story/openais-chief-ai-wizard-ilya-sutskever-is-leaving-the-company/
This board and some of its regulars had told me not to worry only good people work in AI industry don’t be such a conspiracy theorist. So I quit with my diatribe about the Safety of AI being the total destruction of humanity as we know it. Now the below just occurred a few days ago. I am not saying I was right keep that in mind I am just telling you there is ZERO Safety with the horse leaving the barn over five years ago with this technology, this is by the way OPEN AI platform not controlled by anyone other than the USER only.
Why the OpenAI superalignment team in charge of AI safety imploded - Vox
OpenAI dissolves Superalignment AI safety team (cnbc.com)
OpenAI leader quits, says AI safety has ‘taken a backseat’ (independenttribune.com)
I respect this board too much to comment my diatribe to the below news links being provided for Mr. Linarkoni here on this prestigious board. I provide them so you can see the news you do not read or don’t want to know.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/socal-district-pay-360k-teacher-231550793.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/serial-rapist-illegal-migrant-rape-173900572.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-missing-how-china-could-seize-taiwan-without-invading-experts-2024-5
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/05/14/2-people-in-ice-custody-after-attempting-to-breach-virginia-marine-base/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/anderson-cooper-says-trump-juror-231917425.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blm-greater-ny-founder-hawk-082600627.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/148-house-democrats-vote-against-000735705.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-teacher-charged-allegedly-grooming-103200678.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyc-mayor-ripped-immigration-activists-214959987.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-mayors-duel-social-media-050111982.html
Not sure any link will convince anyone here of real news and on top of that it is all common knowledge among those who read all the news not just parts you like.
How’s Jen Psaki doing after spewing her liberal lies against Gold Star families calling them liars that Joey Dumb Azz Bidenski was not checking his watch while dead soldiers bodies were going by in front of him and their families. The Gold Star families who witnessed it said he looked four times to check the time on his watch. Sad to know he was the one fully responsible for their deaths. They knew of the sniper but were not allowed to take them out. What a sickening administration this is. She should be Elon’s next trip to Mars. Let’s hope they have to abort and not the baby here, unless she is with child that is for my liberal buddies here.
Now Biden wants a New Tax on Undeclared Gains. Well here's an idea, make all taxations equal for all wage earners high, low, medium, wavy does not matter we all pay the same tax not refunds, no payments, no IRS, no paperwork, only comes straight from you paychecks to the US Treasury every pay period and monthly from business's and from monthly brokers accounts on gains each month same exact percentage, easy peezy no more crazy ideas to get more money from some of us, rather all of us give the exact same percentage every period during the year. No more April 15th, no more loopholes, no more rich folks getting away with zero taxes paid in. Goes away. We all pay exactly the same value each and every day for common household items and groceries and gas and everything in the free market so why do we make our tax system unfair for all. Does not make sense. The money collected would be more than enough to pay our bills and maintain a budget and pay down the debt. But the catch is no one in power wants this change because they gain by the unfair favoritism in the market today where they win and you lose. I say lets change it all now easy as pie. Unfair now all fair after.
You folks are going to get this fool elected again. So funny. RFK the only way here. Two old and older men getting it on in the next election is not very appealing to most Americans. RFK's wino family has abandoned him, thank God, I am sure the feeling is mutual and tells me all I need to know about him. Gives me a newfound respect for this person. That is where my vote will go here in 2024.
As did Kamala Harris during the Summer of Love. Bailed out criminals who actually attacked the local authorities. But our memories are short it’s called the McDonalds complex.
Food for thought.
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/the-strategy-of-the-mind-maoism-and-culture-war-in-the-west/
Culture War in the West
David Martin Jones, M.L.R. Smith
Photo 32858264 / Mao © Imran Ahmed | Dreamstime.com
To cite this article: Martin Jones, David, and Smith, M.L.R., “The Strategy of the Mind: Maoism and Culture War in the West,” Military Strategy Magazine, Volume 8, Issue 1, summer 2022, pages 4-10.
David Martin Jones is Visiting Professor at the University of Buckingham, UK. M.L.R. Smith is Professor of Strategic Theory at King’s College, London, UK. They are authors of The Strategy of Maoism in the West: Rage and Radical Left (Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar, 2002).
The political condition within Western societies has, in recent years, increasingly been cast in terms of a ‘culture war’ between radically opposed value systems: between those that want to preserve a pluralistic society where the right to freedom of expression is upheld against those who believe that society should be protected from offensive behaviors and ‘hate-speech’, which are embedded within systems of structural discrimination and oppression.
What has this condition got to do with the ghost of the Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung? More than one might think. The legacy of Mao’s struggle for power in China, and his strategic formulations for winning power, casts a long – and little understood – shadow over contemporary political conduct in the nations that constitute the liberal-democratic West. Of all the strands of modern political theorizing that may be said to influence current Western political conduct, it was Mao, above all, who articulated and put into practice ideas of so-called cultural warfare. Key to the idea of culture war is the understanding that the space to be conquered to gain and retain power is not necessarily the physical battlefield but the intangible sphere of the mind. The Maoist conception of the strategic utility of the mind, and its capacity to be molded towards the waging of cultural warfare, presents some interesting challenges to traditional Western notions of strategic formulation, as this essay will endeavor to show.
Discerning the Strategic Dynamics
Although the notion of culture war is not new, its salience has heightened since 2016, and turned into actual violence in the United States and the UK in May/June 2020. The death of George Floyd at the hands of police in the US city of Minneapolis was the immediate cause of the violence. Arguably, however, it was the long-term consequence and logical escalation of forces that had been brewing in US and UK polities for the better part of six decades.
The manifestation of the culture war took the form of riots and civil disturbances across US cities, as well assaults upon public statues, heritage sites and icons. In non-violent form culture war continues in the felt need to ‘decolonize’ the alleged structures of oppression, from the secondary and tertiary curriculums of schools and universities to libraries, health services, the police, the armed forces, and to just about everything.
The motive towards cultural iconoclasm and the impetus to destroy an inconvenient past is something that should concern strategic theorists. After all, the role of strategic theory is to render explicit what is implicit in our social surroundings by identifying the purpose and the means that impel political actors towards actions that seek to fulfil ideological goals. Yet few analysts, have sought to uncover the strategic dynamics at work in the culture war currently convulsing Anglophone institutions.
Looking at the philosophical creed that seeks confrontation with the Anglo-American liberal democratic project, we see the work of the radical Left, a broad movement dedicated to advancing notions of social egalitarianism that ultimately has no interest in the preservation of the existing structures of society. Unlike the constitutional or social democrat Left, the radical Left does not accept the legitimacy of the current capitalist democratic order. It is prepared to engage with the structures of that order to exploit its fault lines and expose its weaknesses with a view to overthrowing it.
How to advance towards the new social order has seen radical Left theorists develop a profound interest in matters of strategy, often attending carefully to the methods necessary to bring about the conditions for revolution. The strategy of cultural warfare on the part of the contemporary radical Left comprises an amalgam of many different strains of thought, from Vladimir Lenin to Antonio Gramsci, to Herbert Marcuse. However, this essay focuses on the underappreciated influence of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking on the strategy of cultural warfare in the West.
Maoist ideas of revolutionary war have filtered into Western political discourse ever since the late 1930s when Chinese communist forces, holed up in the caves of Yenan in the remote Shensi province after the Long March, attracted the attention of sympathetic American journalists, like Edgar Snow and Anne Louise Strong, eager to broadcast Mao’s struggles to the wider world. During this period Mao and his acolytes scrutinized the failures of former Communist strategy, extending back to the 1920s, which had initially sought to stimulate revolution through urban uprisings, before being forced out of its Kiangsi Soviet and onto the Long March in 1934/35. It was in Yenan that Mao and his comrades cultivated their vision of the revolutionary persona necessary to withstand the rigors of long-term political struggle.
The victory of the communists in 1949, but especially the impact of the Cultural Revolution after 1966, drew further Western adherents, who were attracted to Maoist ideas of revolutionary purification. Mao’s thinking had a particular impact upon a generation of French intellectuals that, in part, constitute what is often termed the New Left – Alain Badiou, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, among others. The New Left looked to sources of inspiration like Mao to reinvigorate communist thinking from its moribund condition following the revelations of Stalinist excesses in the Soviet Union. Largely via their reflections, Maoist ideas of cultural struggle arrived upon the shores of American campuses in the late 1960s. And never left.
Dissecting the direct and indirect intellectual influences of Maoist thought on Western radicalism reveals, as this essay discloses, a very different construction of the strategic realm than that which has traditionally constituted the basis of Western political conduct.
Maoist Thought Confronts Western Strategic Formulation
The principal difference in strategic approach resides in the Maoist conception of the self and its manipulation as a latent source of power. As Philip Short wrote: ‘Stalin cared about what his subjects did (or might do); Hitler, about who they were; Mao cared about what they thought’.[ii] How the mind could be molded towards revolutionary ends was to become highly influential upon the theorists of the New Left.
In contrast to liberal-democratic notions of the individual self and its autonomy, Maoist thought devotes considerable attention to addressing how to break down the barriers between the interior and external worlds in a manner that undermines established Western understandings of politics to a degree often overlooked in appreciations of strategic formulation. In that regard, Maoist ideas open up possibilities little understood either among scholars of strategy or mainstream political practitioners.
Strategy can be understood as the endeavor to relate means to ends: the use of available resources to gain defined objectives,[iii] encompassing the attempt to maximize interests with available resources.[iv] Actions are thus consciously intended to have utility. They are intended to achieve goals and therefore are constructed with a purpose. Strategy is, then, an inherently practical subject, concerned with translating aspirations into realizable objectives. Strategy, as Colin Gray explained, functions as the ‘bridge’ between tactics, that is, actions on the ground, and the broader political effects that they are intended to produce.[v] From this perspective, we can analyze the challenges and possibilities that Maoism poses for strategic conduct in a Western liberal democratic setting.
Strategy as objectively observable
The conception of strategy as a goal-orientated enterprise thus delineates a pragmatic concern with realizing tangible objectives with available means. In its intellectual and operational manifestations, therefore, strategy concentrates on practices as physically observable phenomenon. Strategy is revealed and evaluated in relation to material facts, acts and outcomes: political mobilization, armed clashes, organized violence, plans, battles, campaigns, victories and defeats. Simply put, a successful strategy can usually be gauged by real world effects that are clear and demonstrable: objectives achieved, battles won, victories secured.
Strategy as a method of completion
Focusing on achieving empirically observable outcomes, strategy, as traditionally conceived, has little to say about the mind: the sphere of the self of private thoughts, reflections and beliefs. Strategy, conventionally understood, is about transforming an idea – a desire to achieve an objective – into reality. Strategy, in this sense, is a movement from inception to completion. The desire for completion, winning in war or attaining any other goal, reflects the wish to make something final, that is, to reach a definitive end that will be hard to question or undo. Moreover, a physically observable aftermath demonstrating the achievement of aims validates that final completion. Where the aim might arise in the individual or collective consciousness is something in which the study of strategy has evinced little interest.
The political distinction between war and peace
This conception of strategy as something that is focused on achieving tangible outcomes also reflects the clear distinction often drawn in Western political thought between the state of war and peace. Although, of course, professional thinkers on strategy, military planners and policy makers, do not see strategy as simply a wartime activity, the point is that the liberal conception of war is regarded as a largely negative consequence of the public breakdown of civil or inter-state relations, requiring a decision to be reached through force of arms.[vi] By contrast, ‘peace’ is war’s antithesis – the absence of fighting – and an altogether more preferable state of affairs.
Indifference to the private sphere
Yet where ‘fighting thoughts’ come from in the first place is rarely, if ever, examined in Western strategic discourse. This dichotomy itself reflects understandings in Western philosophy concerning the self. Modern philosophy begins with René Descartes’ mind-body dualism and the method of doubt. [vii] Seventeenth century liberal thought gradually came to treat the mind as an internal sphere free from the legal and confessional controls imposed on external behavior (the Catholic Church was very happy to examine men’s souls as was the Puritan version of election). This was for seventeenth century materialists a function of the body, whether it was the arm that threw the stone or the mouth that uttered an insult.
This mind-body dualism in Western thought over time came to delineate, at least in England, the separation of the private from the public realm, which in turn established the grounds of social contract theory and the ‘cultural inheritance’ of Western liberalism. Through a series of unintended consequences, it enabled a more liberal and rationally enlightened polity to develop. In essence, so long as subjects acknowledged their temporal allegiance to the constitutional monarch or the republic, the state would not seek to look into men’s souls.
Over time, the quid pro quo of outward conformity in return for the state’s indifference to the private beliefs of its subjects enabled a political language and practice of individualism. Inexorably, the idea of the liberal democratic state as a container of individual legal rights, including the right to free speech and dissent became normalized.
Although the concept of the private self was to be challenged by the growth of the administrative state and totalitarian ideologies during the twentieth century, the notion of the self-regarding autonomous individual – endowed with the vote and a right to political participation – remained the foundational condition of the Western liberal polity.
The Concept of Universal Struggle
In contrast, Mao sought control of the mind collectively and individually for the purposes of creating revolution. His strategic novelty in this respect resides in the challenge posed to notions of finality and completion in Western strategic discourse. For Mao, there was no endpoint, no single decisive victory, only endless struggle; a condition embodied in the phrase often ascribed to Mao (and Leon Trotsky) of ‘permanent revolution’.
Mao elaborated his thinking about the ceaseless nature of struggle in On Contradiction (1937). He asserted that the ‘interdependence of the contradictory aspects present in all things and the struggle between these aspects determine the life of all things and push their development forward’. For Mao, ‘contradiction exists universally and in all processes, whether in the simple or in the complex forms of motion, whether in objective phenomena or ideological phenomena’.[viii]
The implication of Mao’s ideas were that the interior realm of thought and belief was a site of contestation, and constituted the key to revolutionary progress because ‘Contradiction is universal and absolute, it is present in the process of development of all things, and permeates every process from beginning to end’. ‘The old unity with its constituent opposites’, Mao continued, ‘yields to a new unity with its constituent opposites, whereupon a new process emerges to replace the old. The old process ends and the new one begins. The new process contains new contradictions and begins its own history of the development of contradictions’.[ix]
Mao’s thinking about the universal struggle of contradictions confronts Western strategic understandings about the separation of the physically observable from the intangible. Mao was not, however, the first to make the connection between the material and the intangible elements of strategy.
Did Clausewitz Get There First?
Carl von Clausewitz is perhaps the one figure in the Western strategic tradition to challenge the notion of strategic completion. Clausewitz’s notion of the trinitarian theory is often associated far more with the ‘passions’ than the mind.[x] However, there are intimations, albeit somewhat inchoate, that he intuitively grasped the inherent power of the interior realm. In a short and under-analyzed passage in On War, he observed: ‘The result in war is never final’. He continued: ‘even the outcome of a war is not always to be regarded as final. The defeated state often considers the outcome merely a transitory evil, for which a remedy may still be found in political conditions at some later date’.[xi]
What Clausewitz may or may not have meant by this passage is rendered opaque by the lack of much in the way of further elucidation. Consequently, we are, like quite a lot of Clausewitz’s incomplete thoughts, left to infer what he might have been hinting at or ‘read in’ what we – that is, Clausewitz’s modern interpreters – wish to see. Clearly, he was writing about his own experiences in the Napoleonic wars where the defeat of his beloved Prussia in 1806, did not turn out to be final. Likewise, the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 following the Battle of Paris did not turn out to be conclusive but arguably was in 1815 after the Battle of Waterloo. Nevertheless, Clausewitz’s theoretical point is that the seeds of resistance are always present that might one day disturb or overturn the status quo. This holds true even in instances where no further attempt is made to violently contest the political conclusion in war. For example, the defeat and dismemberment of Germany after 1945 may have been categorical, but it did not stop Germany from re-uniting in 1990. In politics, all is change: and the political conditions wrought even by resounding victories or defeats are always, and can only be, provisional.
Thus, although Clausewitz did not enlarge upon his observation, it intimated that he, like Mao, considered that the conduct of war was not reducible to physical phenomena, but entailed an interior dimension that is obscured by the strategic focus upon the construction of visible means to reach a terminating point where fighting stopped, and peace began. Clausewitz’s other famous aphorism, that ‘war is a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means’,[xii] also implied that war is simply the overt expression of different interests generated by the internal clash of popular passions. Politics, in this rendition, is the sublimation of a continuous struggle made manifest.
In stating that the result in war is never final, Clausewitz contests conventional expectations that war and strategy is only about clinical endings and beginnings. War begins in the mind and does not necessarily cease with declarations of victory or defeat. Clausewitz infers that decisive outcomes in war are, in fact, inherently uncertain, unstable, and indeed may contain unresolved contradictions that could see war recur as a consequence of continued mindful resistance to the status quo. Internal resistance may at some point break out into open physical violence once more. For that reason, the results in war remain impermanent because they create, to paraphrase Mao, new conditions and therefore new contradictions in which conflict can arise.
Political Power Grows Out of the Mind, Not the Gun
Clausewitz’s reflections on the philosophical origins and purposes of war present intriguing parallels with Mao’s writings on the unity of opposites and the perpetual struggle between contradictions. It may be of some interest that there remains a continuing historical debate as to whether Mao might have read and been influenced by Clausewitz.[xiii] Pondering Clausewitz’s potential influence on Mao it is possible to contradict his oft-cited maxim that ‘political power grows out of the barrel of a gun’.[xiv]
Mao undoubtedly approved of revolutionary violence ‘whereby one class overthrows another’.[xv] ‘Only with guns can the world be transformed’, he wrote.[xvi] His injunction about power growing out of the barrel of a gun was, though, issued principally in order to reiterate the necessity of retaining political control over the means of violence as the following sentence reminded his audience at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Communist Party’s Sixth Central Committee in November 1938: ‘Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party’.[xvii]
In fact, if we accept that there is an overlap between Clausewitz’s thinking about the result in war never being final and war as a continuation of politics with Mao’s contentions regarding the continuous struggle between contradictions, then it suggests, logically, that political power does not only grow out of the barrel of a gun, as a Mao’s phrase might suggest, but rather that it grows out of the passions, fears, and moral beliefs held within the minds of individuals. This reading, moreover, would seem to fit more accurately with Mao’s understanding of the cognitive sources of revolutionary struggle, as stated in his 1937 tract, On Practice, where he maintained: ‘Cognition starts with practice and through practice it reaches the theoretical plane, and then it has to go back to practice’.[xviii]
Mind Control
Given Mao’s interest in unlocking the revolutionary potential of collective action, it followed that controlling the mind was the key to unleashing the power of mass resistance. Maoist ideas opened the strategic possibility of exerting control over the private sphere as a tool of struggle and revolt. Mao’s ruminations on how the interior world could be instrumentalized towards revolutionary emancipation offer a systematic philosophy of the human mind as both perfectible and perfectly malleable. The Maoist conception proceeds methodically from the assumption that under capitalism and imperialism the mind is polluted by cultural accretions requiring permanent rectification and purification if the collective will of the masses is to be made strategically useful.
Maoism seeks purification for a purpose, to make control of the interior realm strategically instrumental. Mao emphasized that the final stage of cognition was ‘the leap from rational knowledge to revolutionary practice’. Having ‘grasped the laws of the world’, Mao stated, ‘we must redirect this knowledge to the practice of revolutionary class struggle and national struggle’.[xix] The imperative for revolutionaries in this respect was, first and foremost, not to wage violent struggle, but to ‘reconstruct their own subjective world, that is, to remold their faculty of knowing; and to change the relations between the subjective and external worlds’. Finally, he added: ‘When the whole of mankind of its own accord remolds itself and changes the world, that will be the age of world communism’.[xx]
What Mao Should Be Remembered For
When analysts consider Mao’s contribution to strategic thought they tend to focus on his three-stage theory of people’s war to win power. Arguably, though, his most original and influential contribution lies in his understanding of the latent power that can be instrumentalized through mind control. As Apter and Saich state, Mao’s goal ‘was nothing less than the generating of new modes of power: the power of discourse’.[xxi]
Tracing the evolution of Maoism in the West, it is possible to perceive how 1960s radicals began to redirect their thinking towards Mao’s ideas on cognition and the generation of ‘alternative’ modes of power. As disillusion with the armed struggle set in during the early 1970s, radicals moved to embrace other methods. As Collier and Horowitz noted of the Maoist inspired Black Panthers: ‘The Party no longer seemed to believe now that power grew out of the barrel of a gun but from community organizing’.[xxii] By adopting such means, the Panthers were not abandoning Mao’s tenets but rather moving towards his position on cognition as a means to elevate the revolutionary spirit by reshaping the external environment.
As the era of violent ‘direct action’ subsided in the course of the 1980s, Maoist ideas of social control and thought reform gained currency in activist circles. Bill Tupman, a Marxist scholar explained in 1991: ‘The young revolutionary has only the one place to run to. Maoism gives people something to do: Trotskyism was about waiting around and selling newspapers. I see it coming back in a big way’.[xxiii] Channeling the Maoist appeal to ‘do’, finds its expression across the modern campus Left with academics asserting that universities should act ‘as missionaries, teaching new ideas’ that ‘enable active citizenship and even inspire some to take up activist roles’.[xxiv]
The instrumentalization of the socially re-constructed mind toward activist roles, and committed towards waging cultural warfare, is pure Maoism in action. In its applied ‘critical theory’ guise, it focuses on ‘controlling discourses, especially by problematizing language and imagery it deems theoretically harmful’, in a manner that leads to the scrutiny, rectification and policing of thought.[xxv] This social activist mindset percolates from the universities to the wider professional and business world beyond. From schools to media services, to multinational corporations, ‘Organizations and activist groups of all kinds announce that they are inclusive, but only of people who agree with them’.[xxvi] In his 1937 tract, ‘On the correct handling of contradictions’, Mao explained how to address incorrect, ‘non-Marxist’, ideas. ‘As far as unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned, the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech’.[xxvii]
Conclusion: Harnessing the Power of the Private Sphere
Obviously, the notion of culture wars and the impact of Mao’s thinking on contemporary political practices in the West is a vast subject, and at best one can only draw attention to its general contours in a brief essay such as this. This short article has therefore sought to illustrate how the all-pervasive thought and language policing within public and private institutions in evidence across the Anglosphere attests to the little understood influence of Maoist strategic ideas. His proto-constructivist writings on how perceptions of the exterior world can be re-ordered by changing one’s subjective cognition may be found in any number of contemporary social science texts in Western academic literature, and which in many other respects provides the fuel for culture war. Whether or not one regards these developments as a progressive good, the ideas regarding the harnessing of the power of the internal sphere as a latent realm of power represents Mao’s most innovative contribution to strategic thought, more so than his writings on guerrilla warfare. Certainly, it represents his most enduring influence on the post-modern West.
Whatever else Maoism may be in a Western setting, it repudiates the liberal understanding of politics, which draws a separation between the personal and the political. Maoist understandings of the private sphere reject this view and hold that the un-curated mind is a barrier to social transformation and needs to be sanitized of all impurities. Politicizing the private realm is precisely what Maoist strategic conduct aspires to. Mao made no secret of his aversion to liberalism. He despised its civility, its willingness to hear ‘incorrect views without rebutting them’, and its latitude for permitting ‘irresponsible criticism in private’.[xxviii] Whatever one’s viewpoint on contemporary political and cultural developments, there should be few illusions, Western Maoism seeks to eliminate the liberal-democratic conception of the West.
References
See Matthew Clapperton, David Martin Jones and M.L.R. Smith, ‘Iconoclasm and Strategic Thought: Islamic State and Cultural Heritage in Iraq and Syria’, International Affairs, Vol. 93, No. 5 (2017), pp. 1205-1231.
[ii] Quoted in Timothy S. Chung, ‘In search of Mao Zedong – two views of history’. Taipei Times, 25 May 2000, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2000/05/25/0000037415, (accessed 29 April 2021).
[iii] Michael Howard, The Causes of Wars (London: Counterpoint, 1983), p. 36.
[iv] F. Lopez-Alves, ‘Political crises, strategic choices, and terrorism: the rise and fall of the Uruguayan Tuparmaros’, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1989), p. 204.
[v] Colin Gray, The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 15-53.
[vi] See Michael Howard, War and the Liberal Conscience (London: Hurst, 2008), pp. 5-22.
[vii] Renati Des-Cartes [René Descartes], Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animæ immortalitas demonstratur (Paris: 1641).
[viii] “Mao Tse-tung, On Contradiction,” (August 1937), pp. 2-3, Maoist Documentation Project, available at https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm (accessed 3 May 2021).
[ix] Mao Tse-tung, On Contradiction (August 1937), pp. 2-3, Maoist Documentation Project, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm (accessed 3 May 2021).
[x] M.L.R. Smith, ‘Politics and Passion: The Neglected Mainspring of War’, Infinity Journal, Vo1. 4, No. 2 (2014), pp. 32-36.
[xi] Carl von Clausewitz, On War (trans. and ed. Michael Howard and Peter Paret) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 80.
[xii] Ibid., p. 87.
[xiii] See for example, Edward Katzenbach and Gene Hanrahan, ‘The revolutionary strategy of Mao Tse-tung’, Political Science Quarterly, 70/3 (1955), pp. 321-340; Francis Miyata and John Nicholsen, ‘Clausewitzian principles of Maoist insurgency’, Small Wars Journal, 24 October 2020, https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/clausewitzian-principles-maoist-insurgency (accessed 3 May 2021).
[xiv] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II, pp. 224-225, Maoist Documentation Project (2004),
[xv] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/ (accessed 3 May 2021).
[xvi] Mao Tse-tung, ‘Report on the peasant movement in Hunan’, February 1927, Mao’s Road to Power: Revolutionary Writings, 1912-1949, Vol. 2 (New York: Armonk, 1992), p. 434.
[xvii] Mao Tse-tung, ‘Problems of war and strategy’, in Mao’s Road to Power, p. 553.
[xviii] Mao, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, pp. 224-225.
[xix] Mao Tse-tung, On Practice (New York: International Publishers, 1937), p. 11.
[xx] Ibid., p. 11.
[xxi] Ibid., p. 15.
[xxii] David Apter and Tony Saich, Revolutionary Discourse in Mao’s Republic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), Revolutionary Discourse in Mao’s Republic, p. 35.
[xxiii] Quoted in Peter Collier and David Horrowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties (New York: Encounter, 1989), p. 166.
[xxiv] Quoted in Simon Strong, Shining Path: The World’s Deadliest Revolutionary Force (London: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 253.
[xxv] Sandra J. Grey, ‘Activist academics: What future?’ Policy Futures in Education, 11/6 (2013), p. 708.
[xxvi] Helen Pluckrose and James Lyndsay, Cynical Theories (London: Swift, 2020), pp. 61-62.
[xxvii] Ibid., p. 65.
[xxviii] Mao Tse-tung, ‘On the correct handling of contradictions among the people’, People’s Daily, 19 June 1957.
[xxix] Mao Tse-tung, Combat Liberalism, 7 September 1937, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm (accessed 12 May 2021).
https://rumble.com/v4ioguf-the-rise-of-woke-marxist-islamism-and-gaza-floyd-w-james-lindsay-winston-ma.html
https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/p/james-lindsay-the-rise-of-woke-islamism
I hear it’s being replaced by “Tranny CSI” so you can keep watching.
Another opinion Ukraine War. War is not a good thing in the end whatever the end brings. What does winning look like, billions and politicians just like in America take all the money and the rest of the population is fighting the war for them to become richer and greedier with our tax dollars. That is what winning looks like in Ukraine. Not the people but for the rich wealthy people getting enriched further with our money. Nice hey, you're tax dollars at hard work for others. Thanks for giving.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/frontline-ukrainians-fear-new-aid-from-us-will-be-a-disaster
Frontline Ukrainians Fear New Aid From U.S. Will Be a Disaster
MAKE IT STOP
Much of the world is celebrating fresh U.S. aid, but some of the people in the areas where it matters most think the war will be prolonged and the wrong people will benefit.
Anna Conkling
Published Apr. 25, 2024 4:38AM EDT
Anatolii Stepanov/AFP via Getty Images
KHARKIV, Ukraine—After months of infighting on Capitol Hill, President Joe Biden has finally been able to sign off on a huge new $61 billion military aid bill for Ukraine. Delays to the bill, which got bogged down in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, were widely blamed for impacting Kyiv’s ability to defend itself from Russian advances.
After its passage last week, some members of the House waved Ukrainian flags while others cheered in celebration that Ukraine will soon receive new weapons ahead of Russia’s expected counteroffensive. Signing it into law at a White House ceremony on Wednesday, Biden promised the arms shipments would begin immediately and hailed what he called “a good day for world peace.”
The reaction here, near the front lines of the war, felt very different.
Oleg sighed when The Daily Beast told him about the events 5,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. “Are you serious?” he said. “Now this war will just continue.”
Oleg is from Saltivka, a part of Kharkiv city that has repeatedly been attacked by Russian missiles. A large majority of residential buildings, businesses, and critically needed infrastructure have been damaged. Oleg said that he is not pro-Russian, and does not want to live under occupation. He has seen some of the worst effects of the war. He has countless friends fighting on the front lines, some of whom have been severely injured or killed, and he’s had to move out of his home. For the most part, Oleg said he just wants the war to be over, but he knows that if Russians soldiers occupy Kharkiv, and discover the large number of friends he has who are fighting for Ukraine, he could be killed. Still, he does not think that the $61 billion in aid will help Ukraine win the war.
“In my mind, and all of my friends, this money doesn’t help Ukraine,” he said. “Our country has too much corruption.”
A military expert surveys a bomb crater at the site of a Russian aerial bombing of the city's Saltivskyi district.
Ivan Samoilov/Gwara Media/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
“The new money will just prolong the war, and civilians and the military are tired. People want peace and negotiations. Not the continuation of the conflict,” he added.
Kharkiv has gotten increasingly dangerous over the last few months, with air raid sirens ringing consistently and new attacks most days. On Monday, Russia partially destroyed Kharkiv’s TV tower, causing interruptions in broadcasting signals, and later that day, the city was attacked again. The Kyiv Independent recently reported that Russia’s new counteroffensive could aim for Kharkiv, and The Guardian predicted that the city could become the next Aleppo, drawing reference to the Syrian city that was destroyed by the Syrian and Russian government a decade ago.
The new aid, which will include cash as well as direct military contributions, will undoubtedly help fend off Russian advances in the country, as the Kremlin’s troops focus their attention on Chasiv Yar. Soldiers told The Daily Beast Russia hopes to take control of the city in the Donbas region by May 9, the World War II Remembrance Day for Russia and other post-Soviet countries.
Throughout much of Ukraine, a collective sigh of relief has been felt, and many far away from the fighting feel that finally, they are receiving the aid they so desperately have needed. But in Kharkiv, 19 miles away from the Russian border, some residents are angry that the U.S. is resuming its aid.
Olena, a local cafe restaurant worker in Kharkiv told The Daily Beast that she is considering leaving her home city and meeting her son in Germany if fighting returns in the expected next Russian offensive. She said that she loves Ukraine, and hopes that they will win the war, but believes Russia may soon have control over the entire country. “Will we win the war if we’re given these weapons?” she scoffed. “I doubt it, very much.”
She is resigned to the scale of the battle Ukraine now faces despite the new injection of support.
“It would be a disaster without weapons,” she said. “But mostly, it's a drop in the bucket.”
One man The Daily Beast spoke to, Vladimir 45, a construction worker in Kharkiv, said that the $61 billion will end up benefiting the wrong people. “Only for politicians, their pockets. They buy houses, apartments, and we have friends who are at war,” he said.
Vladimir and his wife, Julia, 39, live with their two children in a small suburban village on the outskirts of Kharkiv. The family hear explosions nearly every day, and their 12-year-old son is constantly scared of the war, and often has panic attacks when Russian rockets zoom past his home. Last week, shrapnel from a shot-down missile pierced Vladimir’s metal fence, and there are crater-sized holes in his backyard from where a rocket landed two years ago. Vladimir and his family have seen some of the worst aspects of the war in Kharkiv, and he said that they are tired of constantly living under the stress of never knowing if they will survive or not.
At the beginning of the war, Vladimir said that he was hired to help in the reconstruction of a large boiler plant in Kharkiv that had been bombed by Russian attacks. He claimed that the workers had received money from Germany to help cover the costs of the repairs, but that a large majority of that money “got lost on the way from Kyiv to Kharkiv. They [Kharkiv] didn’t pay the crane operators, some part of it was underpaid,” to staff, while other expenses were written off as costing larger than they did to repair. He added that he was not paid for the work.
Vladimir believes that money was used by Ukraine’s government to buy luxurious items, and not given to the people who need it, like soldiers with missing limbs, elderly people, or those who have lost everything. Right now, Vladimir said, he does not think that Ukraine will win the war.
“We might have won this war if we hadn’t stolen money, but since we don’t have money, of course we’re losing,” said Vladirmir. In regards to the new aid to Ukraine, he said “It doesn’t mean that Ukraine will win the war, it will go to the government. There will be more destruction, more people will die. We have to sit down and negotiate before the whole infrastructure [of Ukraine] is smashed.”
Another Kharkiv woman named Anya said that she supports Russia and believes that it can take all of Ukraine in the next six months, adding that she will stay at her home regardless of who is in control of it.
Anya said that Ukraine's government has been “A bunch of fools. They've been stealing, and they're gonna keep stealing” from the aid given by other countries. She added that soldiers no longer want to fight, and everyone is tired.
Anya's son was a Ukrainian soldier who died in combat last December near Bakhmut. Before his passing, Anya often bought him supplies he needed, like clothes, ammunition, and even a rifle, because he did not get enough support from the government.
Ukrainian President Voldoymyr Zelensky recently signed a bill the army draft from age 27 to 25 in the hopes of gathering new recruits as the number of voluntary enlistments diminishes. Many of Ukraine’s soldiers fighting on the frontlines end up dead or wounded, and if the latter, they might have to spend weeks to months in hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and psychiatric wards to recover from their injuries. Once healed, they are often sent back to the frontlines without much of a break or time to be healed.
A soldier named Artem who The Daily Beast spoke with said that he believes he has had up to 30 concussions since the war began, and is only just now on a 21 day treatment at a psychiatric ward in Kharkiv. Artem said that for months his injuries were treated on the frontlines by military medics, who told him to keep fighting. Recently while on the frontlines in the Donetsk region, he said had a psychotic break and was brought to the psychiatric ward in Kharkiv.
“I’ve had post traumatic stress disorder for a long time now. I’m used to it,” Artem said, adding that right now his brigade does not have enough weapons to ward off Russian advances. He said that he hopes that the U.S. aid will help Ukraine, and give soldiers like him and his brigade enough weapons to win the war, but that he does not think it will amount to much. Artem has to go back to the frontlines soon, and said that he is trying to find some way to not go, he does not believe he can mentally handle the fighting any longer. He just wants the war to be over.
As he spoke, he began to cry, and said that the only thing keeping him motivated on the frontlines is his fellow soldiers. When asked how he feels about having to return to combat, Artem said “Look in my eyes,” as they filled with tears, adding that the new U.S. aid “won’t help.”
“I think Russia can win the war. I don’t want to go back,” he added.
And that gets narrower when the outcome seems to many to be a forgone conclusion. I hope that is not true but I had heard before Vance’s speech that Ukraine would run out of soldiers in the long term. Which is not great news. And no I am not in favor of protecting others borders first before our own. Snd if the European Countries have reduced militaries due to us saying don’t worry we have your backs that needs to change as we cannot support the globe and protect everyone. Some news when war occurs is not usually good news. Throwing money at it and then washing our hands staring at least we did something here is not the answer. The only answer while they wait for arms is full on diplomacy with strong minded folks from the European Union and us at the table with all participants and hammer it out. The way it used to be done but prior intense pounding from our military occurred before the enemy would sit at a table with us and others. Today not sure that could happen. Time will tell.
I am sure none of those companies you have listed use any foreign required materials. Those who vote in favor do not want to be the bad folks in DC in not attempting to help, no one likes to hear the bad news that it is a no win situation. Reality is hard, something no one likes to live with in today's over sensitive world.
Be that as it may we all of course have our own opinions on these things. Mr. Vance served in Iraq as a U.S. Marine now in Washington trying to continue that service to America.
Found this article from last November. Also during his speech there is one specific armament that Ukraine needs I believe it was short range missiles which will not be available until the end of 2025 for them. Consequently what do the fighters in the field do until that time. Seems like a bad situation is about to get worse. But hey what do I know everyone has their own opinion and then there is reality again.
This was from last November 2023
US is running low on some weapons and ammunition to transfer to Ukraine | CNN Politics
US is running low on some weapons and ammunition to transfer to Ukraine
By Jim Sciutto, Jeremy Herb, Katie Bo Lillis and Oren Liebermann, CNN
7 minute read
Published 9:03 AM EST, Thu November 17, 2022
CNN —
As the first full winter of Russia’s war with Ukraine sets in, the US is running low on some high-end weapons systems and ammunition available to transfer to Kyiv, three US officials with direct knowledge tell CNN.
The strain on weapons stockpiles – and the ability of the US industrial base to keep up with demand – is one of the key challenges facing the Biden administration as the US continues to send billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine to support its fight against Russia. One of the officials said the stockpiles of certain systems are “dwindling” after nearly nine months of sending supplies to Kyiv during the high-intensity war, as there’s “finite amount” of excess stocks which the US has available to send.
Among the weapons systems where there’s particular concern about US stockpiles meeting Ukrainian demands are 155mm artillery ammunition and Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles, the sources said.
Some sources also raised concerns about US production of additional weapons systems, including HARMs anti-radiation missiles, GMLRS surface-to-surface missiles and the portable Javelin anti-tank missiles – although the US has moved to ramp up production for those and other systems.
For the first time in two decades, the US is not directly involved in a conflict after withdrawing from Afghanistan and transitioning to an advisory role in Iraq.
Without the need to produce weapons and ammunition for a war, the US has not manufactured the quantities of materiel needed to sustain an enduring, high-intensity conflict.
Defense officials say the crunch is not affecting US readiness, as the weapons sent to Ukraine don’t come out of what the US keeps for its own contingencies.
But the seriousness of the problem is a source of debate within the Defense Department, officials say. While the US will not be able to provide high-end munitions to Ukraine indefinitely, assessing whether the US is “running low” on stockpiles is subjective, one senior defense official said, as it depends on how much risk the Pentagon is willing to take on.
Multiple officials underscored that the US would never put at risk its own readiness, and every shipment is measured against its impact on US strategic reserves and war plans. Both Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley monitor levels of US stockpiles closely, officials said.
A major manufacturing challenge
One reason for the concern about low stockpiles is that the US industrial base is having difficulty keeping up with demand quickly enough, the sources said. In addition, European allies cannot sufficiently backfill Ukrainian military requests due to their need to maintain to their own forces’ supplies.
“It’s getting harder and harder,” Rep. Mike Quigley, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN. “This is a war we thought would be over in days but now could be years. At a time when global supply chains are melting down, the West is going to have a very difficult time to meet demands at this very high level.”
Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder told CNN that the US will continue to support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” while adding that no weapons transfers to Ukraine have diminished US military readiness.
close dialog
“DoD takes into consideration the impacts on our own readiness when drawing down equipment from US stocks” Ryder said. “We have been able to transfer equipment from US stocks without degrading our own military readiness and continue to work with industry to replenish US inventories and backfill depleted stocks of allies and partners.”
At a press conference Wednesday following a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Austin touted the commitments of a half-dozen countries providing additional weapons to Ukraine, including Greece pledging more 155mm ammunition.
“All Ukraine is asking for is the means to fight, and we are determined to provide that means. Ukrainians will do this on their timeline, and until then, we will continue to support all the way for as long as it takes,” Milley said at the press conference. “It is evident to me and the contact group today that that is not only a US position, but it is a position of all the nations that were there today. We will be there for as long as it takes to keep Ukraine free.”
The degree to which weapons stockpiles are running low varies system by system, as the US defense industrial base is better equipped to ramp up production of some weapons, while others are more difficult – or the production line has been shut down altogether and can’t be easily resumed.
“In most instances, the amounts given to Ukraine are relatively small compared to US inventories and production capabilities. However, some US inventories are reaching the minimum levels needed for war plans and training,” Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a September article. “The key judgment for both munitions and weapons is how much risk the United States is willing to accept.”
The Pentagon said in a September fact sheet it had committed more than 806,000 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine, for instance. Cancian wrote that ammunition for the 155mm howitzers was “probably close to the limit that the United States is willing to give without risk to its own warfighting capabilities.” At the same time, he wrote that a dozen other countries could supply the same ammunition, and Ukraine was unlikely to be constrained in what it needed thanks to the global market.
“Someone saying uncomfortably low - that’s a judgment,” Doug Bush, Assistant Army Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, told reporters. “You know, that’s a judgment about risk between sending munitions to an ally to use them in combat versus a hypothetical other contingency that we need to stockpile for. You know, that’s a judgment call.”
‘No question’ there is pressure on stockpiles
Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy, told reporters in a recent roundtable, “there’s no question” the weapons pipeline to Ukraine has put pressure on the stockpiles and industrial base of the US as well as its allies.
“Look, we’re seeing the first example in many decades of a real high intensity conventional conflict and the strain that that produces on not just the countries involved but the defense industrial bases of those supporting, in this case supporting Ukraine,” Kahl said. “I will say Secretary (Lloyd) Austin has been laser-focused since the beginning in making sure that we were not taking undue risk. That is that we weren’t drawing down our stockpiles so much that it would undermine our readiness and our ability to respond to another major contingency elsewhere in the world.”
Kahl added that the support the US has provided to Ukraine has not put the US military “in a dangerous position as it relates to another major contingency somewhere in the world,” but he said it has revealed there’s more work to do to make sure the US defense industrial base is more nimble and responsive.
The questions about weapons stockpiles comes as Congress is finalizing the Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year through the annual National Defense Authorization Act as well as the government spending package Congress is expected to try to pass before government funding expires on December 16.
The US military often turns to Congress for a funding boost – lawmakers have routinely added billions to the Pentagon’s budget requests in annual spending bills.
The Biden administration on Tuesday sent a letter to Congress seeking an additional $37.7 billion in funding for Ukraine. The funding includes $21.7 for the Pentagon to be spent in part to address weapons shortages, according to a White House fact sheet that says the money the Defense Department spending is for “equipment for Ukraine, replenishment of Department of Defense stocks, and for continued military, intelligence and other defense support.”
The $37.7 billion request comes as Republicans are projected to reclaim the House majority in the next Congress, which could make it more difficult for the Biden administration to authorize funding to Ukraine next year. House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy has said Republicans won’t give Ukraine “a blank check” – though he also clarified to his conference’s foreign policy hawks that he supports continuing to fund Ukraine’s war – and there are numerous Republicans pushing for a significant curtailing of US aid to Ukraine.
This was from last November 2023
US is running low on some weapons and ammunition to transfer to Ukraine | CNN Politics
US is running low on some weapons and ammunition to transfer to Ukraine
By Jim Sciutto, Jeremy Herb, Katie Bo Lillis and Oren Liebermann, CNN
7 minute read
Published 9:03 AM EST, Thu November 17, 2022
CNN —
As the first full winter of Russia’s war with Ukraine sets in, the US is running low on some high-end weapons systems and ammunition available to transfer to Kyiv, three US officials with direct knowledge tell CNN.
The strain on weapons stockpiles – and the ability of the US industrial base to keep up with demand – is one of the key challenges facing the Biden administration as the US continues to send billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine to support its fight against Russia. One of the officials said the stockpiles of certain systems are “dwindling” after nearly nine months of sending supplies to Kyiv during the high-intensity war, as there’s “finite amount” of excess stocks which the US has available to send.
Among the weapons systems where there’s particular concern about US stockpiles meeting Ukrainian demands are 155mm artillery ammunition and Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles, the sources said.
Some sources also raised concerns about US production of additional weapons systems, including HARMs anti-radiation missiles, GMLRS surface-to-surface missiles and the portable Javelin anti-tank missiles – although the US has moved to ramp up production for those and other systems.
For the first time in two decades, the US is not directly involved in a conflict after withdrawing from Afghanistan and transitioning to an advisory role in Iraq.
Without the need to produce weapons and ammunition for a war, the US has not manufactured the quantities of materiel needed to sustain an enduring, high-intensity conflict.
Defense officials say the crunch is not affecting US readiness, as the weapons sent to Ukraine don’t come out of what the US keeps for its own contingencies.
But the seriousness of the problem is a source of debate within the Defense Department, officials say. While the US will not be able to provide high-end munitions to Ukraine indefinitely, assessing whether the US is “running low” on stockpiles is subjective, one senior defense official said, as it depends on how much risk the Pentagon is willing to take on.
Multiple officials underscored that the US would never put at risk its own readiness, and every shipment is measured against its impact on US strategic reserves and war plans. Both Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley monitor levels of US stockpiles closely, officials said A major manufacturing challenge
One reason for the concern about low stockpiles is that the US industrial base is having difficulty keeping up with demand quickly enough, the sources said. In addition, European allies cannot sufficiently backfill Ukrainian military requests due to their need to maintain to their own forces’ supplies.
“It’s getting harder and harder,” Rep. Mike Quigley, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN. “This is a war we thought would be over in days but now could be years. At a time when global supply chains are melting down, the West is going to have a very difficult time to meet demands at this very high level.”
Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder told CNN that the US will continue to support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” while adding that no weapons transfers to Ukraine have diminished US military readiness.
“DoD takes into consideration the impacts on our own readiness when drawing down equipment from US stocks” Ryder said. “We have been able to transfer equipment from US stocks without degrading our own military readiness and continue to work with industry to replenish US inventories and backfill depleted stocks of allies and partners.”
At a press conference Wednesday following a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Austin touted the commitments of a half-dozen countries providing additional weapons to Ukraine, including Greece pledging more 155mm ammunition.
“All Ukraine is asking for is the means to fight, and we are determined to provide that means. Ukrainians will do this on their timeline, and until then, we will continue to support all the way for as long as it takes,” Milley said at the press conference. “It is evident to me and the contact group today that that is not only a US position, but it is a position of all the nations that were there today. We will be there for as long as it takes to keep Ukraine free.”
The degree to which weapons stockpiles are running low varies system by system, as the US defense industrial base is better equipped to ramp up production of some weapons, while others are more difficult – or the production line has been shut down altogether and can’t be easily resumed.
“In most instances, the amounts given to Ukraine are relatively small compared to US inventories and production capabilities. However, some US inventories are reaching the minimum levels needed for war plans and training,” Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a September article. “The key judgment for both munitions and weapons is how much risk the United States is willing to accept.”
The Pentagon said in a September fact sheet it had committed more than 806,000 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine, for instance. Cancian wrote that ammunition for the 155mm howitzers was “probably close to the limit that the United States is willing to give without risk to its own warfighting capabilities.” At the same time, he wrote that a dozen other countries could supply the same ammunition, and Ukraine was unlikely to be constrained in what it needed thanks to the global market.
“Someone saying uncomfortably low - that’s a judgment,” Doug Bush, Assistant Army Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, told reporters. “You know, that’s a judgment about risk between sending munitions to an ally to use them in combat versus a hypothetical other contingency that we need to stockpile for. You know, that’s a judgment call.”
‘No question’ there is pressure on stockpiles
Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy, told reporters in a recent roundtable, “there’s no question” the weapons pipeline to Ukraine has put pressure on the stockpiles and industrial base of the US as well as its allies.
“Look, we’re seeing the first example in many decades of a real high intensity conventional conflict and the strain that that produces on not just the countries involved but the defense industrial bases of those supporting, in this case supporting Ukraine,” Kahl said. “I will say Secretary (Lloyd) Austin has been laser-focused since the beginning in making sure that we were not taking undue risk. That is that we weren’t drawing down our stockpiles so much that it would undermine our readiness and our ability to respond to another major contingency elsewhere in the world.”
Kahl added that the support the US has provided to Ukraine has not put the US military “in a dangerous position as it relates to another major contingency somewhere in the world,” but he said it has revealed there’s more work to do to make sure the US defense industrial base is more nimble and responsive.
The questions about weapons stockpiles comes as Congress is finalizing the Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year through the annual National Defense Authorization Act as well as the government spending package Congress is expected to try to pass before government funding expires on December 16.
The US military often turns to Congress for a funding boost – lawmakers have routinely added billions to the Pentagon’s budget requests in annual spending bills.
The Biden administration on Tuesday sent a letter to Congress seeking an additional $37.7 billion in funding for Ukraine. The funding includes $21.7 for the Pentagon to be spent in part to address weapons shortages, according to a White House fact sheet that says the money the Defense Department spending is for “equipment for Ukraine, replenishment of Department of Defense stocks, and for continued military, intelligence and other defense support.”
The $37.7 billion request comes as Republicans are projected to reclaim the House majority in the next Congress, which could make it more difficult for the Biden administration to authorize funding to Ukraine next year. House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy has said Republicans won’t give Ukraine “a blank check” – though he also clarified to his conference’s foreign policy hawks that he supports continuing to fund Ukraine’s war – and there are numerous Republicans pushing for a significant curtailing of US aid to Ukraine.
Now here is a person who wants the people of America to understand the facts related to the aid going to Ukraine and the military industrial complex. It is not enough to pass money for this cause there are a lot of other related elements which common sense tells us from history will not work here. Not enough of the type of weaponry they need until the end of 2025 and not enough humans to fight up against the Russian invaders. Mr. Vance does not understand why the representatives in Congress and the Senate who have good intentions here do not realize that in the end it will be diplomacy and negotiations that this war will end, not by arms and money being thrown at it. Mr. Vance is basically telling us this now wondering why over all these years we have not learned one thing about war in other countries and how there are consequences beyond the battles in the aftermath of all of them. I agree with his position here based on the facts as he presented them yesterday before the Senate. Most folks do not listen some do and let it go like hey we are giving them money now we can slap ourselves on the backs and go have a drink and celebrate what we have done. All the while knowing deep down what they have done is prolong what will end up happening. The old days of Mr. Henry Kissinger and many other great diplomatic minds an agreement of the minds would be had but today no one wishes to give the President of Ukraine bad news here. They have fought bravely against this invasion but without other troops coming into their Country they will run out of personnel to fight against their invaders. Remember we do not make most of our own weapons any longer and we outsource them to other Countries. But we have told the European Countries we can defend you if you get into trouble, we cannot that is a lie. Germany about the 4th of 5th largest industrial nation has but one full battalion of an army to ward off an invasion from Russia because they were told by the U.S. do not worry we have your backs. This is why Europeans enjoy great health care is because they do not have to support any great military efforts. We own what we have sown here in Europe and the rest of the world for that matter.
Ukraine God Bless You, but you will not defeat this enemy and the enemy is twofold here and someone with some guts needs to tell you these things in person and then negotiate the best deal you can to end this tragedy. You should view Mr. Vance’s speech folks seriously even knowing you do not like to hear facts.
https://www.vance.senate.gov/press-releases/senator-vance-the-math-on-ukraine-doesnt-add-up/
“This is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.”
An Op-Ed Published In The New York Times
By Senator JD Vance | April 12, 2024
President Biden wants the world to believe that the biggest obstacle facing Ukraine is Republicans and our lack of commitment to the global community. This is wrong.
Ukraine’s challenge is not the G.O.P.; it’s math. Ukraine needs more soldiersthan it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.
The Biden administration has applied increasing pressure on Republicans to pass a supplemental aid package of more than $60 billion to Ukraine. I voted against this package in the Senate and remain opposed to virtually any proposal for the United States to continue funding this war. Mr. Biden has failed to articulate even basic facts about what Ukraine needs and how this aid will change the reality on the ground.
The most fundamental question: How much does Ukraine need and how much can we actually provide? Mr. Biden suggests that a $60 billion supplemental means the difference between victory and defeat in a major war between Russia and Ukraine. That is also wrong. $60 billion is a fraction of what it would take to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor. But this is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.
Consider our ability to produce 155-millimeter artillery shells. Last year, Ukraine’s then defense minister assessed that their base line requirement for these shells is over four million per year, but said they could fire up to seven million if that many were available. Since the start of the conflict, the United States has gone to great lengths to ramp up production of 155-millimeter shells. We’ve roughly doubled our capacity and can now produce 360,000 per year — less than a tenth of what Ukraine says it needs. The administration’s goal is to get this to 1.2 million — 30 percent of what’s needed — by the end of 2025. This would cost the American taxpayers dearly while yielding an unpleasantly familiar result: failure abroad.
Just this week, the top American military commander in Europe argued that absent further security assistance, Russia could soon have a 10-to-1 artillery advantage over Ukraine. What didn’t gather as many headlines is that Russia’s current advantage is at least 5 to 1, even after all the money we have poured into the conflict. Neither of these ratios plausibly lead to Ukrainian victory.
Proponents of American aid to Ukraine have argued that our approach has been a boon to our own economy, creating jobs here in the factories that manufacture weapons. But our national security interests can be — and often are — separate from our economic interests. The notion that we should prolong a bloody and gruesome war because it’s been good for American business is grotesque. We can and should rebuild our industrial base without shipping its products to a foreign conflict.
The story is the same when we look at other munitions. Take the Patriot missile system — our premier air defense weapon. It’s of such importance in this war that Ukraine’s foreign minister has specifically demanded them. That’s because in March alone, Russia reportedly launched over 3,000 guided aerial bombs, 600 drones and 400 missiles at Ukraine. To fend off these attacks, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and others have indicated they need thousands of Patriot interceptors per year. The problem is this: The United States only manufactures 550 every year. If we pass the supplemental aid package currently being considered in Congress, we could potentially increase annual production to 650, but that’s still less than a third of what Ukraine requires.
These weapons are not only needed by Ukraine. If China were to set its sights on Taiwan, the Patriot missile system would be critical to its defense. In fact, the United States has promised to send Taiwan nearly $900 million worth of Patriot missiles, but delivery of those weapons and other essential resources has been severely delayed, partly because of shortages caused by the war.
If that sounds bad, Ukraine’s manpower situation is even worse. Here are the basics: Russia has nearly four times the population of Ukraine. Ukraine needs upward of half a million new recruits, but hundreds of thousands of fighting-age men have already fled the country. The average Ukrainian soldier is roughly 43 years old, and many soldiers have already served two years at the front with few, if any, opportunities to stop fighting. After two years of conflict, there are some villages with almost no men left. The Ukrainian military has resorted to coercing men into service, and women have staged protests to demand the return of their husbands and fathers after long years of service at the front. This newspaper reported one instance in which the Ukrainian military attempted to conscript a man with diagnosed mental disability.
Many in Washington seem to think that hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians have gone to war with a song in their heart and are happy to label any thought to the contrary Russian propaganda. But major newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic are reporting that the situation on the ground in Ukraine is grim.
These basic mathematical realities were true, but contestable, at the outset of the war. They were obvious and incontestable a year ago, when American leadership worked closely with Mr. Zelensky to undertake a disastrous counteroffensive. The bad news is that accepting brute reality would have been most useful last spring, before the Ukrainians launched that extremely costly and unsuccessful military campaign. The good news is that even now, a defensive strategy can work. Digging in with old-fashioned ditches, cement and land mines are what enabled Russia to weather Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. Our allies in Europe could better support such a strategy, as well. While some European countries have provided considerable resources, the burden of military support has thus far fallen heaviest on the United States.
By committing to a defensive strategy, Ukraine can preserve its precious military manpower, stop the bleeding and provide time for negotiations to commence. But this would require both American and Ukrainian leadership to accept that Mr. Zelensky’s stated goals for the war — a return to 1991 boundaries — are fantastical.
The White House has said time and again that they can’t negotiate with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. This is absurd. The Biden administration has no viable plan for the Ukrainians to win this war. The sooner Americans confront this truth, the sooner we can fix this mess and broker for peace.