Tangle - An update in Ukraine.

Episode Date: March 24, 2022

It has now been one month since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine began. It has been 10 days since our last coverage of the war. Plus, a reader question about TV cameras in congressional hearings. Want to hear from us over the weekend? Become a paid subscriber hereYou can read today's podcast here.Want to show us some love? Drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be giving an update on the situation in Ukraine. Before we jump into the quick hit section, I want to just do a quick correction from earlier this week. In our numbers section, I listed the price of gasoline at $5.79 in London, England, and $6.48 in Amsterdam, Netherlands. I apparently accidentally cited a source with data from 2005.

For some odd reason, when someone Googles the price of gasoline in England, the first top result is a 12-year-old CNN article. So the only person to catch this error was actually my cousin Tom, who stabbed me in the back by reporting it publicly. Thanks, Tom. In fact, the price of gasoline in England is actually $8.30 per gallon and $9.78 per gallon in the Netherlands. This is obviously a very big difference and apparently what I get for trying to add some fun international numbers at the last second into the newsletter. This is the 58th Tangle correction in its 140-week history and the first correction since March 15th. I track these corrections and place them at the top

of the podcast in an effort to maximize my transparency with readers. Number one, Madeleine Albright, the first female U.S. Secretary of State, died on Wednesday at the age of 84. Number two, Katonji Brown Jackson said that if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she would recuse herself from a case examining Harvard's admissions policies. Jackson's term on Harvard's Board of Overseers expires this spring. Number three, North Korea test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time since 2017, according to reports from Japan and South Korea. Number four, Idaho Governor Brad Little, a Republican, signed a new abortion law modeled after the Texas statute that bans abortions after six weeks and can be

enforced through lawsuits against doctors. Number five, the number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits fell to 187,000 last week, the lowest level in 52 years. All right, so we're going to jump into today's main topic, which is Ukraine. It has now been one month since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine began. It has been 10 days since our last coverage of the war. Our last issue is on the debate over whether or not the U.S. should coordinate a delivery of 29 Polish fighter jets. On Wednesday, the Biden administration formally determined that Russia has been committing war crimes in Ukraine, something that has been evident through video and photographic evidence on the ground for weeks. The New York Times reported that a, quote, tiger team of Biden officials is now meeting regularly in the event Putin unleashes his stockpile of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Senate Armed

Services Chair Jack Reed, the Democrat from Rhode Island, said a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons attack could trigger a NATO response if it impacted neighboring countries. President Biden has also warned that Russian cyber attacks on the U.S. private sector are, quote, coming. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, President Biden met with NATO officials in Brussels to address concerns of a biological, nuclear, or chemical weapons attack, and to continue to rally aid for Ukraine. The meeting came as Ukraine announced it had struck a Russian-occupied port facility in the Azov Sea, destroying a Russian ship and starting a large fire. As the war enters its second month, the human toll has already been high. 10 million Ukrainians have had to flee their homes, including 3.5 million who have fled to other countries, according to the United Nations.

U.S. officials announced today they were planning to welcome as many as 100,000 Ukrainian refugees. A NATO official estimated that as many as 40,000 Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or taken prisoner or are missing in Ukraine, according to the Wall Street Journal. The number of Ukrainian soldiers killed has largely remained a secret, almost certainly in an effort to preserve morale, but Ukraine has acknowledged the deaths of at least 1,300 Ukrainian soldiers. In the Ukrainian city of Mariupol alone, officials said 2,300 civilians had been killed, though that number is likely much higher. In a moment, we'll hear some commentary from the right and the left, and then my take. Before we do, though, I'd like to just share a

few points of agreement. There is widespread agreement on the left and the right that Ukraine is outperforming expectations and may even be winning the war. Both sides are calling for continued military and financial support of Ukraine. Both sides are also calling on Biden to admit Ukrainian refugees who have had to flee the country. All right, so that is it for the agreed section. So let's jump into what the right is saying. Many on the right are still critical of the Biden administration and want them to do more. Some criticize Americans for dehumanizing Russia and not looking at our own mistakes that led to the war. Others insist Ukraine really may have a chance to win, but only if we continue to support them. In the New York Post, Harry Kazianis said Biden's NATO summit is not going to do anything to help

Ukraine. He has already told us what he has in mind when it comes to Ukraine. Absolutely nothing that will help Kyiv win its war of survival against the Kremlin, Kazianis wrote. Indeed, the White House has already announced what will happen at the summit, and none of it will help one bit in the here and now. There will be, quote, new sanctions and a, quote, crackdown on evasion of the existing sanctions, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said. While more sanctions will surely hurt Putin in the long term, in the short term, Ukrainians need assistance that will boost them on the battlefield now. Biden just keeps telling us what he won't do, and that only bolsters Russia's hope that it can force a settlement on the battlefield.

In the days and weeks ahead, Biden should not only keep sending anti-tank, anti-air, and small arms to Ukraine in even larger numbers, but increase intelligence sharing with Kyiv in real time if possible to make sure Russia can't destroy supply lines. Biden needs a long-term strategy to ensure Ukraine has the arms to deter the Kremlin from trying to attack again once Russia's economy recovers or is greased enough from Chinese assistance. But Biden also needs to be firm with his NATO allies, just as Trump was, that Europe's defense must be funded at a level that ensures this will be Russia's last aggressive act. Biden must be clear that America cannot be Europe's 911 force when a crisis breaks out.

Why should America care about Europe's security if Berlin, Paris, or Brussels won't spend the euros themselves? The Wall Street Journal editorial board said it's becoming clear Ukraine can win with enough help. The stunning fact of this war is that the Ukrainians have rescued Europe and the U.S. as much as NATO is assisting Ukraine, the board wrote. in the U.S. as much as NATO is assisting Ukraine, the board wrote. Kiev's stalwart resistance at great human cost has given the West a chance to stop the advance of Russian imperialism before it imperils NATO. The war has exposed the Russian military as weaker than our intelligence services and the Pentagon thought. Against all expectations, Ukraine may be winning, yet Western leaders still seem worried of what would happen if Ukraine won. That's especially true in the Biden administration, which has taken many good steps, but typically under pressure from Congress or Europe and typically late.

President Biden is rightly outraged by Mr. Putin's brutality, and he calls him a war criminal, but he still seems afraid of doing what it takes to defeat him. This cautious commitment extends to the slow pace of weapons delivery, the board wrote. The U.S. should be emptying and restocking its weapons stockpiles on an emergency basis. The same goes for assisting Western Europe as it copes with 3.5 million refugees and tries to wean itself from Russian oil and gas. The U.S. can accept many more Ukrainians for temporary protected status. In American Greatness, James Jeffrey called out the lack of appreciation for the quandary of the ordinary Russian soldiers, calling it lamentable. These are young men in their late

teens and early 20s who appear entirely expendable to their officers and leaders as they face astonishing fatigue and fear in a war that many may well not believe in. The Russian top brass are not the only ones being callous toward their soldiers, judging by the content of Western media and public debate, Jeffrey wrote. In theory, society's reluctance to pay in blood should only permit what is necessary and thereby end conflict as soon as possible. But that didn't happen in Vietnam for nearly a decade or in Afghanistan and Iraq across 20 years. A major factor in those three wars rumbling on, the latter two especially, was that the vast majority of society could physically avoid while some even profited from the course of those wars. The sudden preponderance of desk-bound military pundits and cheerleaders would do well to remember

the advice offered across the ages, from the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu to the U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara post-Vietnam, know and empathize with your enemy. We failed to do that in Afghanistan and Iraq. That contributed to strategic defeat and enormous losses in blood and treasure for everyone involved. Ukraine has done what it has to to defend itself and its people. It is far less clear whether the West did what it should have done before the conflict broke out, or if it is doing what it should do now to help end the bloodshed. Alright, so that is it for what the right is saying. Here's what the left is saying. Some on the left argue that Ukraine is actually winning the war.

Many are focused on the need for the U.S. to address the refugee crisis. Others have examined why Putin is so fixated on the besieged city of Mariupol. In The Atlantic, Elliot Cohen said the most likely truth is Ukraine is winning the war. The evidence that Ukraine is winning this war is abundant if one only looks closely at the available data, Cohen wrote. The absence of Russian progress on the front lines is just half the picture, obscured though it is by maps showing big red blobs which reflect not what Russians control, but the areas through which they have driven. The failure of almost all of Russia's airborne assaults, its inability to destroy the Ukrainian air force and air defense system,

and the weeks-long paralysis of the 40-mile supply column north of Kiev are suggestive. Russian losses are staggering, between 7,000 and 14,000 soldiers dead, depending on your source, which implies, using a low-end rule of thumb about the ratios of such things, a minimum of nearly 30,000 taken off the battlefield by wounds, capture, or disappearance. Such a total would represent at least 15% of the entire invading force, enough to render most units combat ineffective. Add to this the repeated tactical blundering visible on videos even to amateurs. Vehicles bunched up on roads, no infantry covering the flanks, no closely coordinated artillery fire, no overhead support from helicopters,

and panicky reactions to ambushes. The one-to-one ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight. Russia's inability to concentrate its forces on one or two axes of attack or to take a major city is striking. So too are its massive problems in logistics and maintenance, carefully analyzed by technically qualified observers. In the New York Times, Sarah Chodush, Zach Leavitt, and Gus Wesserek wrote that this unprecedented refugee crisis requires an unprecedented response. The rate of the Ukrainian exodus is unprecedented in recent history, they wrote. Europe's response to the crisis has been similarly remarkable, both in its immediate generosity as well as in contrast to how poorly many European countries have treated refugees from Africa and the Middle East. But the coming months are likely to be the real test of the West's commitment to Ukraine. As Russian attacks increase in western Ukraine, experts estimate that the

number of refugees could double. Leaders in Europe and the United States will need to start thinking about long-term resettlement efforts for the war's victims. Early refugees from Ukraine often had relatives outside the country and the means to reach them. That's less likely to be true for people who decide to leave in the coming weeks. Work should now begin on a plan to equitably resettle refugees across EU member states. Poland has already absorbed an incredible number of people. Countries like Germany, France, and Spain should be prepared to help millions find more homes, schools, and healthcare. Every country must open its arms to Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians who are living in the country, some of whom have faced discrimination at the border.

If the Biden administration is willing to arm Ukrainian fighters, whose victories benefit the United States by diminishing Russia's real and perceived power, then it must also share responsibility for the Ukrainians whose homes are being shelled. In New York Magazine, Eric Levitz asked why Putin has brought hell to Mariupol, a Russian-speaking city in Ukraine. These developments may puzzle a lay observer. Why would Russia concentrate its wrath on what was once a bastion of pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine? Conquering Mariupol is central to Putin's plan B, Levitz wrote. More than three weeks into the war, Russia has yet to secure control of a single major Ukrainian city, even as it has lost upwards of 7,000 troops.

As the Wall Street Journal illustrates, Mariupol sits directly between Russian-internet-ex-Crimea and the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. If Russia can secure control of the city and its surrounding area, it can construct a quote-unquote land bridge between its two major strongholds in Ukraine. between its two major strongholds in Ukraine. This would aid subsequent military efforts to press deeper into Ukrainian territory and immediately establish a continuous line of Russian-dominated land in Ukraine, which could form the outline of a hefty consolation prize for Putin. Mariupol is home to the largest port in the Azov Sea region and the only major port that serves the Donetsk and Luhansk region. If Russia secures Mariupol, it will control 80% of Ukraine's Black Sea coastline,

enabling it to choke off much of Ukraine's maritime trade and access to the wider world. Beyond its geographic and economic importance, Mariupol has symbolic weight in the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Russian separatists briefly took the city during Putin's first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. When Ukrainian forces managed to wrest back control of the port, it became a testament to the nation's military resolve. All right, so that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So I'm hesitant to enlist a sports metaphor during wartime. This is not a game, and wins and losses mean very different things here, but there's a relevance that's kind of hard to ignore. and wins and losses mean very different things here, but there's a relevance that's kind of hard to ignore. As Elliot Cohen put in his Atlantic piece, the more you succeed, the more likely you are to succeed. The more you fail, the more likely you are to continue to fail. The reality of this

in both sports and wartime has a serious implication, which is that the time is now. When a winning team seizes momentum in a game, you'll often hear people say things like keep your foot on the gas or pour it on. It's hard to escape the feeling that this is where we are now in Ukraine. In scouring all the publicly available information over the last few weeks, I'm becoming convinced and am astonished that it truly does appear that Ukraine is winning this war, which makes the continuation of our assistance all the more important. of our assistance all the more important. Far left and far right critics of the U.S. involvement in this war have said that our true purpose is simply to use Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn on the global power chessboard. The basic idea is that if we fund Ukraine enough to help it survive,

and not enough to win or force concessions, we'll bleed Putin financially, emotionally, and militarily, and suck Russia into their own version of our time in Iraq or Afghanistan. As Caitlin Johnstone put it, the U.S. has a history of working to draw Moscow into grueling, costly military quagmires which monopolize its military firepower while leeching it of blood and treasure. So this isn't something new or out of the blue, and what it means is that all the self-righteous posturing by the Western political media class about the need to pour weapons into Ukraine is not really about saving Ukrainian lives, only negotiating a ceasefire can do that, but about seizing this golden opportunity to hurt Russia's geostrategic interests as much as

possible. The counter to this narrative is that our support is actually keeping many thousands of Ukrainians alive, and more to the point, free. Without our support, Zelensky might be imprisoned or dead by now. Without that support, Zelensky might be imprisoned or dead by now. Without that support, all of Ukraine would look like the towns and cities that Russia has seized, soldiers shooting at protesters who want the invaders to leave their neighborhoods. Or it would look like Russia itself, where thousands of people are being imprisoned for protesting the war being cut off entirely from the outside world. Even skeptics of Ukraine's ability to hold the line are conceding we may be

headed for a stalemate, but the reality, again astonishing, is that the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Ukraine will actually prevail. There is little behind the forces Putin has already conscripted and sent to this battle. Behind Ukraine are the most powerful militaries and weapons in the world, thousands of volunteer fighters, and a superior morale. And even if Johnstone is right, even if the U.S. sees a dual upside here, getting to take a quote-unquote moral high ground and bleed Putin, it's still the right thing to do. I don't mean to paint too rosy a picture of this moment, though. In fact, the horrific reality is Ukraine winning this war may actually cost them

more in blood than losing. Putin being on the defensive means Putin acting desperately, them more in blood than losing. Putin being on the defensive means Putin acting desperately as if he wasn't already. And we know what he does in these situations. He wages campaigns of terror. That means more shelling of civilians, more shelling of hospitals, more shelling of escape routes, more shelling of apartment buildings and historic buildings and office buildings. It means, in short, that many more Ukrainian civilians could die. This unspeakable reality of war and the images that come with it can belie the reality of the military battle though. In that regard, there is hope and more reason now than ever that the U.S. support should continue. Sanctions, javelins, anti-tank

and anti-missile weaponry, every single thing we can throw behind Ukraine without setting off a nuclear war or a wider conflict should be done, and it should be done now, to force concessions, to force negotiations, to force peace, and to make it clear this is a war Putin won't win, but that he can cut his losses and end it any time, to give Ukrainians a chance to negotiate from a position of strength. It is time to pour it on. Alright, that is it for my take in today's newsletter. And next up is your questions answered. All right, this question comes from SKZ in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.

They said, it feels like congressional hearings, especially Supreme Court confirmations, are just becoming platforms for senators to generate theatrical video clips, which fire up their base on social media or get them more airtime and TV news coverage. I think most people agree that transparency is generally valuable in Congress, but is there such a thing as too much transparency? So this is a question a lot of people have been asking during the hearings this week and anytime these hearings take place, really. Over the last few weeks, quite a few folks have written in to me to ask if I thought we should remove cameras from these settings so members of Congress would, quote, behave themselves. Ben Sasse, the Republican from Nebraska, even suggested that his colleague's

Jack Assery was a product of cameras being in the room. Honestly, I find those arguments pretty persuasive. When Ted Cruz is checking his mentions two minutes after he's done questioning a Supreme Court justice, and he was really just interrupting, delivering monologues, and applying she had a soft spot for pedophiles, it's clear what the game is. And to be clear, this is not just Cruz. Many senators on both sides are playing this game, whether it's corny speeches from Cory Booker or theatrical outrage from Lindsey Graham. In my view, though, there are two ways to look at this. One, we can remove the cameras and thus the allure of making a splashy TV hit. This is a solution that may produce more substantive hearings, albeit less entertaining ones. It would also be like giving

the senators training wheels. Or, two, we could do what we're doing here. We could judge the senators negatively and positively based on how they act in these hearings with the cameras on. I prefer that and the transparency. Let them show us who they really are. This week, John Kennedy and Mike Lee both asked substantive, informative, respectful, and relevant questions about the candidates. They were combative but decent, something we haven't seen from either side in a hearing like this in some time. They managed to criticize Jackson fervently without insinuating she wasn't offended by terrorism or child pornography. And so they earned my respect, and they should earn yours, and we should all view them as separate from the Cruz-Halley-Cotton crew that did exactly the opposite.

I think that is informative. And so it makes me pro-camera. All right, next up is our story that matters. The latest U.S. census data is now giving us one of our first looks at how COVID-19 changed the United States. There were 535,000 more deaths in 2020 than in 2019, according to the data. It also showed that Americans fled cities for cheaper and less populous areas in droves. The Ozarks, Catskills, and Poconos were among the destinations with seasonal housing that saw significant growth in people moving in or deciding to stay

between mid-2020 and mid-2021. Counties on the outskirts of metro areas, including Columbus and Indianapolis, also saw bumps, Axios reports. Meanwhile, pricey mega population areas like New York, Newark, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, Long Beach experienced stark net domestic migration decrease. All right, that's it for the story that matters, which brings us to the numbers section. The percentage of Americans who say Katonji Brown Jackson should be confirmed to the Supreme Court is 58%, the highest support for a nominee since John Roberts in 2005. That's according to Gallup. The percentage of Russians who say they support the invasion of Ukraine is 58%, according to an independent telephone survey conducted between February 28th and March 1st.

The percentage of Russians who said they opposed the invasion was 23%. The number of Ukrainian refugees that have fled to Poland is now 2.1 million, according to the UN. The number of Ukrainian refugees that have fled to Romania is 500,000. Alright, last but not least, a have a nice day story. I love this one. An Italian fisherman has come up with a novel way to keep illegal trawlers off his coastline with underwater sculptures. Paolo Fancielli has been fishing off the coast of Tuscany for 40 years but started noticing the unmistakable signs of illegal trawlers coming across the coast. Illegal trawlers use weighted nets to scour the sea floor but often take other important sea life and vegetation with

them. So in 2013 he started the House of Fish, a sculpture park and underwater park full of mammoth stone sculptures along the sea floor. Giant sculptures hook and trap a trawler's net which keeps them out. Now he says he's planning to expand the park up and down the coast. Euronews has the story. All right everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, go check out that episode description and be sure to subscribe if you want to hear from us tomorrow. If you're not a subscriber, you don't get Friday editions of the newsletter and there's never a podcast on Friday. So go subscribe. ReadTangled.com slash membership. If not, either way, we'll be right back here on Monday.

See ya. Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokova who also helped create our logo the podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn and music for the podcast was produced by Diet75 for more from Tangle subscribe to our newsletter

or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com.