Weekend Update #105: Vote for Harris because She is Best for the USA, not because She is Best for Ukraine (though She is Best for Ukraine)

Hi All,

I hope you don’t mind if I editorialize a little this week. The most important election in modern American history (since 1860 or arguably 1864) is happening in two days. I have, rather amazingly, more than 46000 subscribers right now and this weekend update is read more than 40,000 times on average—which gives it the circulation of a decently sized magazine. Since its started, this substack has attracted almost 3000 subscribers from Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. Also, unlike certain newspaper owners, I’m not worried about losing federal contracts, so I feel I can speak my mind.

Before I start with my editorial about why the election of Kamala Harris is important for America and through that for Ukraine, I do want to point out that Mykola Bielieskov and I released a new podcast yesterday. We are both so sorry its taken so long to do this—its been a crazy period and we’ve both been travelling. However it will give you a full update on the state of the war, from the front-line, to the Ukrainian Victory Strategy, to the appearance of North Korean forces fighting for Russia. Here is a link.

Episode 22. The Front Line, The Ukrainian Victory Plan, North Korean Troops Arrive

Vote for Harris because She is Best for the USA, not because She is Best for Ukraine (though She is Best for Ukraine)

This weekend update has been and will continue to be about the war in Ukraine. This was strikes me as the defining war of this era, which will determine the future structure of Europe, the relationship of the USA and Europe, whether a Chinese-Russian-North Korean-Iranian grouping will continue to grow in influence, and the basic question about the future of democracy. Its also a question of justice and international law. Ukraine wants to live within its internationally recognized borders, at peace, with a government of its own choosing, and with civil liberties for its people. Ukraine does not covet a single inch of the territories, peoples or resources of any other country. It just wants to live. And I believe that Ukraine deserves that.

As part of these weekend updates, I’ve regularly written about US politics and its impact on the Russo-Ukraine War. The US has been the biggest individual supporter of Ukraine in this war. It has not done it consistently and, I would argue, its not done it intelligently to help Ukraine win—but US aid has mattered and Ukraine would be in a worse position without it. Also, this election is a stark choice between one ticket that wants to cut all aid to Ukraine, work with Putin, and force Ukraine to reject its European future—and another that has aligned itself with Ukraine, will continue aid to Ukraine, and understands that Vladimir Putin is not some secret friend, but a real threat to the future of Europe and NATO—which remains the key alliance for the USA.

If you want to read more about what Trump and Vance will do if elected, Ive written a number of pieces on that.

This is Donald Trump's Actual "Peace" Plan for Ukraine

JD Vance and Ukraine: We can say now what Trump wants--and its not good.

And this is something Ive written about Harris and Ukraine.

What Would President Kamala Harris Do for Ukraine?

So, if you support Ukraine and want Ukraine to emerge as a whole, free and western-aligned state, Kamala Harris is the only choice you can make.

However, this kind of argument is the one that Trump-backers want you to make. In their view, arguing that the US needs to work with allies for its own security, is a form of weaknesses. Allies are generally to be distrusted and described more as parasites—scrounging on American strength and neglecting their own responsibilities. Its a perverse view.

Harris deserves your support because she is the only candidate who represents decency, economic rationality, sensible internationalism and, most of all, democratic norms. If the Ukraine war was not happening, she would still be the only choice and I would be urging everyone I know to vote for her.

That being said, she is also the only candidate who has some idea of the importance of Ukraine and Ukrainian victory to the USA. Thats a kicker you can have for free.

North Korean Troops Show Up—Where is the Reaction?

Well, this week there was confirmation that not only were North Korean troops in Russia, they should be in combat very soon (if they are not fighting already). In response, the rhetoric used by Ukraine’s partners was turned up to 11. NATO Gen Secretary Mark Rutte called the move “a "significant escalation" and a "dangerous expansion" of Russia's war in Ukraine.”

President Biden said he was, naturally “concerned about it," and when asked whether Ukraine should strike back, he provided the most brilliant sleight of hand when he responded. "If they cross into Ukraine, yes.”

The “if they cross into Ukraine” kicker in the Biden response shows how Putin is actually being guided to use North Korean troops in Kursk—and is being told if he does so, then this escalation will probably get off lightly. Kursk is in Russia, as I’m sure most of you know, and once again Ukraine’s supporters are making a distinction between fighting in Ukraine itself, and in fighting in the country that is invading and committing mass war crimes against Ukraine.

Its rather remarkable—Putin is basically being advised on where and how to escalate, and get away with it. My guess is that Biden is only speaking the truth. If North Korean troops only fight in Russia, little will change.

For Russia, of course, the location is mostly irrelevant. They have to try and retake Kursk (remember Putin originally supposedly ordered that all of Kursk be retaken by October) and they have a long border to protect. Using North Korean forces to do this will simply free them to send more forces to the Donbas. So they have to do all of this and it really doesn’t matter to them where North Korean troops are deployed—and Ukraine’s partners are basically telling the Russians how to do it and have few consequences.

Overall the reaction to North Korean troops in Russia shows how everything is in stasis for Ukraine. This should have elicited a major response in a world where there is a clear national interest, where policy is based on strategies, etc. North Korea has been an area of great strategic worry for the US for years, indeed the US has been talking about a possible pivot to the Pacific area. And yet, here is a Pacific state (indeed Pacific states including China—see below ) aligning themselves with Russia in as full a way as possible, and sending whatever military force it can to defeat a US partner (Ukraine) that the US has at least publicly committed itself to helping “as long as it takes”.

And the response to this has been to try and tell Russia what it can do to get away with it.

Addendum—China has Probably Approved this North Korean Move.

One thing that is not getting nearly enough attention is the fact that the deployment of North Korean combat forces to Russia (and the mass supply of North Korea munitions to Russia) would, one assumes, only happen with the support of the Chinese state. China is far more important to the survival of the North Korean regime than Russia—it is keeping the North Korean economy functioning, and has by far the longest border with North Korea. The regime of Kim-Jong Un cannot afford to alienate China—even if it meant not helping Russia.

To give you an idea of the economic dependence that North Korea has on China, here is a Council on Foreign Relations report on the present situation.

China accounts for more than 90 percent of North Korea’s total imports and exports, despite sanctions and a setback from the COVID-19 pandemic. Bilateral trade increased tenfold between 2000 and 2015, peaking in 2014 at $6.86 billion, according to figures from the Seoul-based Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA).

Its practically inconceivable that North Korea would be supporting Russia so much without Chinese approval.

So the fact that North Korea is jumping in with both feet, hands, ears, etc, indicates that China supports this move, and is doing what it wants to help Putin. It also indicates that the Chinese understand how to play the escalation game far more effectively than Ukraine’s partners.

To see how weakly Ukraine’s partners have responded, what do you think the US response would be if a European ally sent some forces to Ukraine to do something like air defense? Almost certainly it would be panic. Yet, China sits back and helps its allies to win.

Never has the comparison been so stark.

So this is a “Swift” Advance

Well, there seems to be a concerted effort to describe what is happening in the Donbas as a collapse in the making for Ukraine. Mykola and I discuss that in detail in the podcast and tried to put things in perspective. However, this week, the New York Times posted such a deceptive graph on the subject that I thought it deserves some comment. It follows on from the military metrics piece that I sent out ten days ago.

Military Metrics and the Russian 2024 Offensive

First off—what is the article trying to argue. You can start with the headline—its about Russia’s “swift” advance in the East. Dont take my word for it—here it is.

Then there is the graph that is used.

There are so many deceptive things in this graph, both of how its constructed and what it leaves out, that it seems designed right away to make a point that the evidence doesn’t show.

First off—it starts in November 2022. Why is that interesting? Well in September and October 2022, Ukraine seized far, far more territory from Russia than Russia has seized from Ukraine in the entire two years since. Its leaving out the liberation of most of Kharkiv Oblast, and parts of Kherson Oblast on the west bank of the Dnipro.

For instance, here was the map of Ukraine on 31 August 2022.

and here it is on 1 November 2022, when the New York Times graphic starts. You will see a very large area in the North that Ukraine has reconquered (and some in the southwest.

And here is the map today.

Actually—you will see that Ukraine has liberated far more territory from Russia between 1 November 2022 and today. Ukraine liberated far more land in Kherson than the small bulge than Russia has taken in the Donbas. But here’s the thing—the graph decides to leave out everything outside of the Donbas (which also leaves out the land in Kursk oblast in Russia with Ukraine seized). In other words, its only looking at the areas where Russia has advanced since 1 November 2022, while leaving out the combined larger areas Ukraine has taken.

Its like saying, OK, I will do a graph of the US Civil War between 1 November 1861 and 1 July 1863 and only have it on the Virginia front (conveniently leaving out that in the west, the Confederacy lost far more territory than Lee had gained in the East).

So the graph is deliberately constructed to show only the areas in which Russia has advanced while leaving out the areas that Ukraine has taken. But actually, that is only one of the problems. Maybe even more is that the graph is deliberately made to make it look like Russia is taking really large chunks of Ukraine, and at a dangerously accelerated pace. I mean, cmon, in June of 2024 Russia seized 40 square miles of territory, and in October that had jumped to what looks to be a huge 160 or so square miles.

Of course that 160 square miles is in itself a miniscule part of Ukraine. Ukraine is a large country of 233,030 square miles. So this massive loss of 160 square miles in October 2024 is actually a tiny .06 of 1 (or .0006) percent of all of Ukraine. Indeed, the amount that Russia has taken in all of Donbas in 2024 looks to be around 700 square miles—that massive sum is the equivalent of .3 of 1 percent of Ukraine.

Here is that in graphic form—which the NY Times could have used but didn’t.

Of course even that figure leaves out the area that Russia has lost in Kursk—which would lower this percentage significantly. But lets leave that aside.

At the rate of advance in the Donbas that Russia has shown in 2024 (leaving out what Russia has lost), it would take Russia 333 years to seize all of Ukraine—and at a loss of more than 133 million soldiers and half a million tanks, etc.

Describing this as a swift advance makes no sense—within the confines of military history or what we are seeing today. Its a slow, bloody advance that is costing Russia a huge amount.

Have a good rest of the weekend everyone.