ALSO SEE: Phillips P. Obrien | Phillips’s Newsletter

Also: Is an Aid Vote in the House Getting Closer?

Hello All,

Last night proved a great deal about how, under the guise of de-escalation, the US is basically making the case to all states that they should try as hard as they can to develop nuclear weapons. It represents the failure of the de-escalation policy on a meta-level and is basically setting the world up for a significant spread of nuclear weapons. Also, though I’m skeptical, I’m actually hearing more positive things about a vote for Ukraine reaching the floor of the House this coming week (or at the latest early next week). Will just report what I’m hearing—and hope that its right.

A Tale of Two Raids: Ukraine Has No Nuclear Weapons So Must Suffer

Last night Israel was attacked by a weapons mix not entirely dissimilar to that which Ukraine is presented with on a regular basis. A range of Iranian UAVs (shaheds) cruise missiles and Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) were used by Iran to attack Israel from a number of different directions. It seems that we are talking about a very large raid by Ukrainian standards—but not out all proportions. According to the excellent data being collected by John Ridge last night’s Iranian raid was the equivalent to two of the largest Russian raids on Ukraine. However, it also would be less than Ukraine could be attacked with over a week.

At the same time, this week we have seen the Russians keep up a regular attack with the same weapons mix on Ukraine—with a much lower intercept rate. Indeed, the Ukrainian intercept rate seems to be going down, a worrying sign that Ukrainian anti-air defenses ammunition stocks are getting depleted. Certainly more Russian missiles seem to be hitting their targets, and in particular the Ukrainian power grid is being damaged significantly.

The results of this Iranian attack on Israel when compared to the Russian attacks on Ukraine are very useful to help us understand a few things. First is the severe handicaps under which the Ukrainians are having to fight, second that we are still over-estimating Russia’s capabilities as a great power (its not) and third that the US is reinforcing a policy that will lead to the world-wide spread of nuclear weapons.

Overall, it shows that Ukraine is being made to suffer because its not a nuclear power.

First. The intercept rates of Iranian systems were very high—but actually not unexpected under the conditions. It seems that 99% of the Iranian UAVs (300 or so fired) and Cruise missiles (30+ fired) were intercepted—for almost total protection from these systems. Even the ballistic missiles seem to have been intercepted at a rate well over 90%. 110+ were launched and about 7 may have hit their targets (or at least hit something in Israel).

Why is this—well because in this case Israel (with strong US aid) could start the intercept process, including with fixed wing aircraft, hundreds of miles before the Iranian systems reached Israel. They were able to proactively go and get the attacking systems with F-35s for instance (each of which might have the capability to shoot down 16 Shaheds). This meant that only a small percentage of the attacking systems, mostly the ballistic missiles, would have gotten anywhere close to the Israeli border.

Ukraine, in comparison, has to sit back and can only defend itself from much closer range and without all the options that Israel and the US have. Its a completely different and much more disadvantageous war that Ukraine has to fight (and the US wants it to be even more disadvantageous as it gets all bent out of shape if the Ukrainians even consider attacks over Russian soil). It also shows that great intellectual poverty of the US trying to delay the delivery of F-16s for so long. They could at least play a role strengthening Ukrainian defensive capabilities—even though they are far less sophisticated than what the Israelis and US used last night.

Second. The Iranian attack against a power that can actually defend itself efficiently should help put into perspective Russian power. Lately we have been hearing again about how powerful and adaptive Russia is—in a way that still over-rates what we are seeing. The issue determining the outcome of the Russian raids on Ukraine is more Ukrainian limitations than anything else. Ukraine has old and insufficient systems and is running out of ammunition. And Russia can launch attacks against Ukraine with almost no fear of disruption. It reinforces the message that Russia can be defeated if Ukraine is armed properly.

Third. One of the biggest differences last night is that Israel, which has far more capable air defenses than Ukraine, was supported by the USA, UK, and France in its efforts to shoot down Iranian systems. This is extraordinary and worthy of note. Why are they doing this? The US has been far more critical of Israel than Ukraine. The Ukrainians need the help more than Israel—and yet the US helps Israel more than Ukraine.

The answer seems to be that the US is desperate to in its minds limit the chance of Israeli escalation and is not really that bothered about Ukraine having the ability to escalate. Well, the big difference in escalation concerns is that Israel is a nuclear power and Ukraine is not.

Conclusion

So what the US is seeming to say is that if you are a nuclear power—we will help you to try and make sure you are safe. However, if you are not a nuclear power—tough luck and go deal with it. Its the flip side of the coin about how the US is dealing with Russia. In this case—if our friends (Ukraine) want to fight a nuclear power, the US will restrain them as much as possible by limiting what they get and what they can do.

It might sound clever—but in a meta-sense its about as extreme a pro-escalation policy as the US could devise. The US is saying that if you are a nuclear power, you will be either protected actively (Israel) or by restraint (Russia) but if you are a non-nuclear power you will be expected to fight with one hand tied behind your back.

What should every country in the world take from this? Well, the logical answer is that the only way to really protect yourself is with nuclear weapons. When you add this to the clear unreliability of the US as a friend and ally these days, what the US is doing is setting the stage for a spread of nuclear weapons development. There seem to be no drawbacks and only benefits to having nuclear weapons—so why not develop them if you can?

Btw, Europe really needs to think about this and start acting soon. Europe is actually very poorly defended by nuclear weapons if the USA goes home—reliant on the very small UK and French deterrents. As a first order, Europe will have to have a serious discussion about how its nuclear capabilities are going to be strengthened. The alternative will be dictation by larger nuclear powers. More about this in the coming week.

Is an Aid Vote in the House Getting Closer?

I really am going to hate writing this section—because its more hopeful than I would like to be by nature. What I am going to say in it comes from a number of sources in the US who have decent connections either in the House or in the Republican Party. I cant say who are what they are, and I cant know for sure what they are telling me is right (except to say that they have often been right in the past). So take what I am telling you with a big grain of salt—but at least the news is better now than earlier.

It seems the odds of a floor vote in the House of Representatives on aid for Ukraine have risen significantly over the last week. Indeed, a number of people are saying that the vote could happen this week (or early the week after). There are still some real unknowns (will the vote be on the Senate bill, or a House bill that makes aid come in the form of loans?) but it seems that there might actually be a vote.

There are a few reasons for the increased chance of a vote. First, once again the only way the House can function, as the FISA surveillance bill shows, is with large numbers of members of both parties acting together. In this case, it was withe 126 Republicans and 147 Democrats. Speaker Johnson knows that no Republican-only bill can ever pass the House.

Also, the political calculus is turning in favor of helping Ukraine in its hour of great need. The picture of the present, which sees the US cutting off aid to Ukraine while the Russians pummel Ukrainian infrastructure—is actually not good, even for many Republicans. The arguments that they are being Putin’s lackeys is one the Republicans are worried about. And they are suffering in a few other areas politically—such as on abortion rights. It was a really bad week for the Republicans politically on abortion (see the Arizona Supreme Court Ruling). With their narrative suffering, they seem to be loosening up on Ukraine.

Also, the need to unblock aid for Israel, which is a major priority for parts of the Republican Party, seems to be leading to an acceptance of a vote on aid which takes in Ukraine as well. The Senate has combined aid for both in one bill, and as such the best way to get aid for Israel might also be to approve aid for Ukraine.

Finally, Trump seems to understand that the political mood music wont be helped by Ukraine being publicly martyred. However in Trump’s case, the key thing seems to be to make him believe he is in charge of things. Thus during Johnson’s visit to Mar a Lago this week, Trump made the public statement that he could consider loans for Ukraine. From Republican sources who know, this really is a good sign. Trump doesnt want aid for Ukraine, but if it can be made to look like he is the one in charge, he might not publicly oppose it.

This however, also reveals a problem. If Ukraine aid is to be classified as a loan, then that will require changes to the Senate Bill—and a return vote in the Senate. That is not an impossible hurdle, but it will require more work. The good news is that the loan requirement is basically a fig leaf. The loans can be forgiven later, or even paid with with the interest from seized Russian assets.

So, the mood music has changed. Crucially, it looks like for political reasons, Trump might not stop the aid any more (he has been the real problem for now).

All I can say, is I really hope these people are right. Ukraine has been made to suffer not only because it is not a nuclear power, but because Trump has been actively sabotaging aid to it. This has allowed Russia months to attack a decreasing Ukrainian defense—with some pretty disastrous results for Ukraine. It needs to end now.

Have a good rest of the weekend.