conflict
‘Many People Died, And What For?’: Ukrainians Increasingly Willing To Make Peace With Russia As War Rages On
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Ukrainians are increasingly open to negotiating an end to the war with Russia, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
The growing frustration with the war is leading more Ukrainians to consider the possibility of a negotiated peace. In July, a Kyiv International Institute of Sociology(KIIS) survey found that about 44% of Ukrainians are open to territorial concessions to achieve peace and preserve independence, according to The New York Times.
Nadia Ivashchenko, 28, a railway signal operator from central Kirovohrad, admitted she couldn’t outline what a favorable peace settlement would look like. Her husband has been serving in the army since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, and their five-year-old son has not seen his father for years. “So many people died, and what for?” Ivashchenko said. “But I want everything to be finished, at least somehow, because I have a son, and I don’t want him to grow up in such a wartime as now,” according to The New York Times.
The KIIS poll reveals that between May 2022 and May 2023, roughly 8% to 10% of respondents were open to territorial concessions, while a significant majority, 82% to 87%, consistently opposed them. However, since May 2023, more people have become willing to consider concessions. By the end of 2023, 19% were ready to make concessions; this figure grew to 26% by February, and increased to 32% in May.
Kateryna Predchenko, Olha’s 85-year-old mother, criticized her daughter for being open to a deal and believed that Ukrainian soldiers should continue fighting, according to The New York Times. “It’s not just Ukraine, they protect the whole world,” she said. ” Why doesn’t the world want to understand this? We need everyone to rise up against this Russian idiot.”
In the southern region heavily impacted by the war, the shift in attitude over the past year has been notable, according to the poll. More than half of those surveyed either supported ceding some territory or were uncertain, while 46% opposed any concessions. This marks a significant change from a year ago when 86% in the area covering Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Kherson and Odesa said they were against giving any territory to Russia, according to The New York Times.
Signing a peace agreement with Russia to end the war with Ukraine would amount to signing “a deal with the devil”, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, as pressure increases on the country to resolve the ongoing conflict that has lasted for over two years, The New York Times reported.
Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in June he would agree to a cease-fire and engage in talks with Ukraine only if Zelenskyy withdrew from the region claimed by Moscow. Ukraine rejected this offer, viewing it as a call for surrender, according to The New York Times.
Despite receiving over $70 billion from the Biden administration, Ukraine’s military capabilities are still inferior to those of Russia. The country faces a growing shortage of personnel and lacks the advanced military equipment and weapons that Russia has.
The Pentagon unveiled a new aid package on Monday consisting of $200 million worth of weapons and supplies to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and allies met to negotiate this aid deal amid growing challenges in Washington regarding continued military and financial aid to Ukraine, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Featured image credit: (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jack Sanders)
armed forces
The Case for Peter Hegseth — Time To Try Something Different
By S.L. Nelson
Success in today’s world favors smart, creative leaders who can quickly adapt and make decisions that benefit their organizations. President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense marks a significant shift from his first administration.
Hegseth, with fewer ties to the traditional defense establishment, is expected to transform the department in two vital areas: First, he will expose generals and admirals who act out of self-interest; second, he will refocus the military on its core function of lethality — the use or threat of deadly force to win wars and deter enemies.
Hegseth’s appointment threatens senior military officers who are more concerned with their legacy than with mission accomplishment. These officers feel susceptible to changes that will threaten their carefully curated norms. Many current leaders have avidly promoted DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and CRT (Critical Race Theory), and Hegseth’s threat to remove these programs stokes their fears. These leaders have promoted subordinates who share their views, creating a cycle of making leaders in their own image. To break this cycle, Hegseth will also need to ensure that general officers are held accountable for the officers they promote. These actions will ensure that his and President Trump’s ‘Warrior Boards’ achieve their desired effect and weed out the right leaders.
Civilian leaders and politicians should also scrutinize the retired officers who placed these generals in their positions in the first place. If multiple legacies are at risk, flag officers will develop and implement more objective metrics for recommending general officer positions.
Hegseth’s leadership will refocus the Department of Defense on its core purpose. By removing ineffective leaders who prioritize social theories over military effectiveness, he will eliminate a major obstacle. These changes will encourage accountability and forward-thinking approaches. A clear message will echo from the top down that adapting to change means manning, training, and equipping the military to win wars, rather than allowing military officers to succumb to the self-loathing which places individual egos above selfless service to the country.
Adapting to change is also the responsibility of military commanders. Officers command Army organizations. It is significant that in some branches of the United States Army, up to half the officers do not desire to compete for Battalion Command. Many reasons include burnout and the threat of investigations that are launched ad nauseam in a zero-defect environment. The Army cannot be effective if officers do not want to command. Commanders hesitate to enforce standards in this environment because an unhappy subordinate can ruin their career with a retaliatory allegation. If an investigation is launched, commanders worry that general officers will dispose of these allegations negatively rather than appear lenient. Secretary Hegseth will support his commanders because his commander in chief supports him.
Not supporting your subordinate commanders has vital consequences for national security. A glaring example of a lack of support for the Department of Defense is demonstrated by the contempt of the Chinese in answering Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s phone calls and his apparent indifference to it. “I think we’ll continue … to stress how important it is, and hopefully Minister Wei will schedule that call,” Austin told CNN.
One can hardly imagine Hegseth having the same attitude as Secretary Austin. Trump proved during his first term, with sanctions and recently renewed threats of another trade war with China, that his government will support its Defense Department by imposing harsh sanctions and other measures. This whole-of-government approach will allow Hegseth to focus on the military and make its interactions with foreign militaries more effective.
In fact, the Trump transition team is already laying the groundwork for forward-leaning tariff plans through legislation. Because legislation will make it harder to have subsequent administrations revoke these actions, the Defense Department will benefit from a more permanent government position when it comes to the exercise of economic power. Hegseth will, thus, occupy an even stronger position to engage with military threats to the United States with supporting economic policies that are not just unilateral executive actions by the Trump administration.
President-elect Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth frees the Department of Defense from being anchored in the change dynamics of the past. Current and future change undercurrents cannot be managed with legacy processes. Leaders must adapt and be free to act outside of institutional norms, especially those tied to a selfish cycle of self-promotion and government social experiments rather than the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.
conflict
Russia Hammers Ukrainian Energy Grid In Retaliation For Long-Range Missile Use
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jaryn Crouson
Russia launched a massive drone attack targeting Ukrainian energy sources early Thursday morning in retaliation for the use of American-made long range missiles, according to NBC.
The attack left over 700,000 homes without power in Ukraine as winter sets in, according to NBC. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the attack was a response to Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, which President Joe Biden authorized Nov. 17. The decision to allow the use of the missiles by Biden puzzled national security experts who cited enormous risks with little reward.
“Suffice it to say, this is a clear attempt to box in the incoming Trump administration into backing Ukraine without conditions or limits, and it’s a total affront to the democratic transition of power,” former CIA official Michael DiMino previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation in response to the move by Biden.
The strikes started late Wednesday night and lasted for nine hours, according to NBC. Officials told NBC this was the 11th attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak accused Russia of using “terror” tactics in targeting the energy grid, according to CBS Thursday.
The Russia-Ukraine war has raged on for more than two years, with casualty counts nearing a million total as of October, according to the New York Times. Both sides have recently been scrambling for ground as President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office in January, promising a swift end to the conflict.
Trump recently tapped retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg to head the peace efforts in the region. He previously served as the National Security Council’s chief of staff and as national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence.
On Nov. 7, Trump warned Putin not to escalate the conflict with Ukraine, reportedly reminding him of the sizable U.S. military presence in Europe, according to The Washington Post.
The Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministries did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
-
Opinion20 hours ago
CBC on Trial: CBC CEO Catherine Tait Faces Brutal Takedown in Canadian Heritage Committee Hearing
-
COVID-1918 hours ago
Study showing ‘high likelihood’ of link between COVID vaccines and death republished in peer-reviewed journal
-
COVID-1915 hours ago
New book edited by Naomi Wolf exposes Pfizer’s ‘crimes against humanity’
-
Alberta1 day ago
All Aboard! Alberta has big plans for passenger rail
-
Alberta14 hours ago
The Alberta energy transition you haven’t heard about
-
Dr John Campbell19 hours ago
Cancer cure experiences
-
Business1 day ago
The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View
-
Energy1 day ago
Is Canada the next nuclear superpower?