Streetwise Professor

Yesterday occurred another mass shooting, this one at a Catholic school in Minnesota.

Of course, leftists immediately waved the bloody shirt of gun control before the bodies–of children–were even cold. What is really needed is leftist control.

The killer–whom I shall not name or even “deadname”–was trans, a biological male “identifying” as a woman. This, sadly, is not a new phenomenon. In fact, a pattern has emerged in recent years.

1. Trans individuals are disproportionately the perpetrators in public shootings
2. This phenomenon is a relatively recent one, beginning a few years ago
3. This period corresponds with the intense politicization of the trans issue by the left, and the associated attacks on anyone who deviates from the trans-left ideology.

So, are individuals who identify as trans inherently more predisposed to such nihilistic violence? I believe so, but the chain of causation is not straightforward.

In particular, point 3 above is crucial in understanding this chain. The left has made those who claim to be trans a protected class. Indeed, it has gone beyond protecting them–it has, to coin a word, pedestalized them. Trans individuals have been idealized, praised for their bravery in the face of bigotry and oppression by normies.

The incentives inherent in this are powerful. Consider a misfit, an anti-social individual who once would have been an outcast, most likely because of some mental illness, including perhaps even paranoid schizophrenia. By declaring him or herself to be trans, this individual, who would otherwise be shunned by most (even family), suddenly gains status. Moreover, this individual’s behavioral, mental, and emotional problems are not just accepted, but valorized and sacralized, and immune from criticism or correction. It’s a narcissist’s or paranoid’s dream.

Meaning that identifying as trans is extremely attractive for a misfit with potentially severe mental problems–problems so severe as to pose a substantially higher risk of extremely violent/murderous behavior. Rather than being shunned or even institutionalized, this individual’s craziness is validated, enabled, and sheltered from criticism and treatment. The elevated status of trans leads to more people declaring themselves such, and this allure is particularly pronounced for very low status individuals marginalized because of their deeply disturbed mental health.

Thus, it’s not so much that trans=crazy per se. It’s that crazy–including murderously crazy–is powerfully incentivized to assume the identity of someone of the opposite sex. That’s the causal chain at work here. Crucially it explains the correspondence in time between the left’s sacralization of trans and the spate of violence committed by those identifying as such.

And I say “assume the identity of” quite deliberately. It is a subjective choice, and arguably a subjunctive one.

What makes it worse is that the left not just validates and enables mental illness but also justifies violence by these individuals. Case in point. The lieutenant governor of Minnesota. (Aside: if as Texas Jack Garner said the vice presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss, what’s the lieutenant governorship of Minnesota worth?)

And it’s not just her. This shirt, and others depicting–IFKUN not–AR15s are widely available:

Again, the left validates and valorizes trans violence. Should we be surprised that some disturbed individuals–dare I say it–are triggered into action by such suggestions?

The left provides the status, so it is not surprising that these trans killers exhibit a cluster of hard core leftist beliefs. The Minnesota killer wanted to kill Trump, Jews, and Christians, and celebrated Palestinians (demonstrating solidarity with another disproportionately nihilistic group). A wildly disproportionate share of violent Antifa types are trans.

And of course the left denies any responsibility. Despite the killer’s quite explicit manifesto, the Minneapolis police said they didn’t have a motive. The execrable mayor of Minneapolis’ main concern was not for those murdered and maimed, but that the atrocity might be used to demonize the trans “community.” (NB. It is not a “community”). Dim bulb Minnesota senator said “there’s no way to put an ideology on this.”

Klobuchar: The shooter was a madman. There's no way to pin an ideology on this. People should remember this as the facts come out about the manifesto. But what I learned from this once again is the guns are the problem. pic.twitter.com/3ZyN9rLR0K

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 28, 2025

Think of what Klobuchar and the other assorted leftists would be saying had the “madman” been a white supremacist with a manifesto full of hatred towards blacks, or better yet, a MAGA man?

Well, for one thing, they wouldn’t call the killer a “madman”: instead, s/he would be portrayed as a hater steeped in a violent ideology, but a coldly rational one.

But Amy better be careful here! First, she called him a “madman.” Horrors!

She evidently repeated her misgendering in an interview on NPR, causing the station to issue the following sickly hilarious “clarification”:

 And just a point of clarification, Senator Klobuchar referenced the shooter as he. Although police have identified a suspect, it’s still unclear at this time what that person’s gender is or how they identify. Transcript provided by NPR, 

Second, even overlooking the misgendering, Klobuchar implies that a trans person might be insane. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED, Amy. Check your white cis privilege.

This motivates me to push back the causal chain one step further. Why does the left valorize trans?

That’s easy. It’s baked into their ideology. The trans valorization movement is just the most recent component of the left’s long term strategy to undermine and destabilize traditional morality and social institutions. Undermining and destabilizing sexual morality in particular has proved to be the left’s most powerful social and cultural solvent.

Trans is a particularly powerful solvent because even more so than homosexuality or even pedophilia it attacks the most basic human and social distinction, that between the sexes.

So what we need is not gun control. We need leftist control. It is their ideology that is destructive. Leftists have recruited the crazy to their cause by valorizing and sacralizing mental illness–as long as it crossdresses itself.

The Rest is History podcast is enjoyable, informative, and entertaining. Of the two co-hosts, I much prefer Dominic Sandbrook to Tom Holland. More of a personal reaction to personalities than anything substantive.

My opinion of Sandbrook grew even more after watching this episode of Triggernometry featuring him:

It’s basically a broad discussion of history, or more exactly, historiography. His views align very closely with mine, views I’ve expressed many times in conversations with my daughter in particular.

The most basic stand that Sandbrook takes is on the side of the tragic view of history. It’s also a view that (one of the few conservative public historians) Victor Davis Hanson takes. As do I.

It is in many respects a Christian view. People are fallen, sinful, and flawed, and the ways that they are fallen, sinful, and flawed haven’t changed that much over time. Thus, Sandbrook is somewhat pessimistic about the future. In brief, due to human nature we are condemned to repeat history, even if we bother to study it properly. In fact, pace Spinoza, the proper study of history leads to Sandbrook’s gloomy conclusion that we are doomed to repeat it.

One thing that the discussion brought to mind, and which I was surprised neither Sandbrook nor hosts Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster mentioned, was Thucydides. He famously wrote that fear, honor, and interest drive the decisions of people and states. The tragic view states that was true in the 5th century BC, was true before, remains true to the present, and will remain true in the future. Sandbrook mentions fear, honor, and interest throughout his answers, but doesn’t tie them back to Thucydides, who very much pioneered the human nature-based practice of history. This is unfortunate, as I think it would have emphasized the deep roots of the tragic view.

Sandbrook’s basic point is that modern historical discussions ignore human nature, or have a warped view of it. When one acknowledges that essential aspects of human nature (“fear, honor, interest”) are enduring, such an oversight necessarily leads to the grotesque misunderstandings and misuses of history that pervade modern life. Such history is nothing more than just-so stories that just aren’t so.

In essence, Sandbrook trenchantly criticizes the progressive view of history, and it would have been great if he made that explicit rather than implicit in his discussion.

One of his criticisms of progressive history includes the narcissism of those who criticize historical figures for violating current progressive mores with nary a thought that future generations will judge them and find them wanting. Such arrogant critics of historical figures imagine themselves to be at the end of a historical process, standing in judgment, Christ-like, of all who came before, and that no one will come after them.

Another is his rejection of the utopianism of the great killers of the 20th century–Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. They all viewed themselves as agents in “scientific” historical processes that progressed inevitably to utopia–as long as they helped it along. Different utopias in each case, but utopias nonetheless.

These are all essentially variants on Hegelian dialectics, which is at the root of progressive theories of history.

As an aside, Obama’s frequent statement “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” also embodies the progressive view of history. And Sandbrook would say–no, it doesn’t.

And all of these utopianisms rejected the tragic view of an immutable human nature, in favor of one in which human nature is malleable and plastic; that it had been misshapen in the past by bad institutions (capitalism, mainly and most recently); and could be reshaped into new, and perfected, forms by the application of (usually lethal) force wielded by the enlightened to overthrow these institutions. If some die–hell, if tens of millions die–that is the price of progress, and one well worth paying.

Sandbrook laments the failure of historians, and in particular academic historians, to fight against the errors of progressive history. He attributes this to their failure to engage with the broader populace, and their talking mainly with one another about arcane issues that don’t penetrate the popular consciousness.

I think this is a naive view. The biggest problem, by far, is that the modern academic history profession is itself overwhelmingly progressive. And the self-reproducing nature of academic disciplines means it is unlikely to change anytime soon. An ancillary problem is that progressive history has also been obsessively focused not on broad historical narratives, but on increasingly narrow topics with a disproportionate emphasis on various sorts of social history and identity-tinged history. It is those obsessions which drive the adverse judgments of historical figures: they were racist, sexist, classist, blah blah blah.

I definitely recommend that you listen. I can’t say you’ll come away full of hope. But that’s the ultimate lesson of the tragic view, isn’t it?

A couple of stories highlight Europe’s slow-motion (but accelerating) suicide.

One is a viral video of two Scottish sisters being harassed, and possibly accosted, by migrants. One of the girls–the older but smaller–responds by brandishing a big knife and a hatchet.

??This is absolutely HORRIFIC ??

"DON'T F**KING TOUCH US"

Little girls scream at a migrant recording them before brandishing an AXE and a KNIFE to warn him off

What is happening to our country? pic.twitter.com/b7WyTtBkdM

— Basil the Great (@Basil_TGMD) August 24, 2025

So what did the police do?

Arrest the girl, of course.

Because they are obviously the real threat here, not the menacing migrants.

Riddle me this: why would a young girl feel it necessary to carry around weapons? Perhaps because she felt–legitimately–threatened by various scumbags loitering around her neighborhood? Just a guess!

But self-defense is apparently forbidden in modern Britain.

What is particularly disgusting is that at the same time British police arrest children for daring to defend themselves against predators, they justify the imposition of draconian, and indeed Orwellian, restrictions on online speech and access to content by saying it’s to protect children.

“For the children” is trotted out to justify restrictions on liberty, but is ignored and forgotten when children are victimized by sexual predators, many of whom are immigrants, including many in the UK illegally. Indeed, no doubt you are at risk of a police raid if you point this out on X or Facebook.

The other story is the re-emergence of the execrable Angela Merkel, who could accurately be characterized as Europe’s Dr. Kavorkian.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the country had achieved a lot since 2015, when Germany admitted hundreds of thousands of refugees.

She said her decision was guided by human dignity and humanity. https://t.co/PjWq3xKxCa

— DW News (@dwnews) August 25, 2025

Immigration has proved a disaster for Germany. But rather than admit a mistake–other than it fueled the rise of the AfD!–Merkel congratulates herself for her great humanitarianism.

And I riddle you yet again: why did it fuel the rise of the AfD? Because it has been a disaster, and led to decidedly non-humanitarian results for Germans. You know, the country whose people she was supposed to work for.

And as for that humanitarianism. I riddle you yet again: why are a disproportionate number of the “refugees” (not just in Germany, but throughout Europe) adult working age (but not working) males? Wouldn’t you expect those fleeing humanitarian catastrophes to be disproportionately women, children, and the elderly? So just maybe those refugees really aren’t victims.

Merkel no doubt crawled from under her rock just now because the rather pathetic new Chancellor admitted that immigration had made Germany’s welfare state unsustainable.

Who knew? Well, Milton Friedman did.

But Angela feels compelled to justify her legacy and refuses to admit her role in killing her nation.

Gato el Malo has said that “the most important graph in current politics is”:

That is, conservatives place the highest value on family and friends. Leftists place the highest value on people they don’t know, animals (including aliens!), “all living things”, and “natural things.” Conservatives value the concrete and personal, leftists the abstract and impersonal.

Angela Merkel and her ilk are perfectly representative of that twisted mindset. They are soooo morally superior to us all, dontcha know. And by acting upon it, they are killing their own countries, and throttling anyone who dares pointing out that fact.

Land acknowledgements are my candidate for the most precise signal of idiocy. Case in point was that the Democratic National Committee meeting in the Peoples’ Republic of Minnesota began with one.

It was idiotic even measured against the genre generally:

The DNC acknowledges and honors the Dakota Oyate, the Dakota people, who are the original stewards of the lands and waters of Minneapolis. The Dakota cared for the lands, lakes, and the Wakpa Tanka, the ‘Great River,’ the Mississippi River, for thousands of years before colonization.

The Dakota were in that area for “thousands of years before colonization”? Uhm, not really. General Nelson Miles’ dialogue with Sitting Bull in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is far more accurate:

The Sioux were ejected from Wisconsin by the Chippewa (as were the Fox, who were later led by Blackhawk) and then proceeded to terrorize and conquer the people of the lands to which they fled.

Pretty sure the Sioux never gave a heartfelt land acknowledgement. Nor the Chippewa. Nor did any of the myriad tribes that ejected another from its lands (sometimes to be kicked out themselves later).

I recollect someone writing that land acknowledgements merely honor the penultimate conquerer in order to condemn the ultimate one. And this is true. Inter-tribal warfare, conquest, settling and colonization–in other words, all the sins that the land acknowledgers assign solely to whites–were the norm in North America (including the southern reaches thereof–the Aztecs were colonizers who originated further north from Mexico).

I always laugh when people express admiration for Indian warriors and the warrior spirit. Uhm, how did they develop a warrior ethos before the arrival of the whites? Whom were they warring against, exactly? Martians? Or did the mere presence of whites instantaneously transform them from peaceful stewards of the land into fierce fighters?

Land acknowledgements are ahistorical acts of self-flagellation. In other words, idiotic.

Which means it’s not surprising that the DNC embraces them.

The latest freakout emanating from the Ruling Class (to use Angelo Codevilla’s term) is Trump’s curtailment of the District of Columbia’s home rule powers, and in particular the putting of the DC police force under Federal control, supplementing the police with FBI agents, and employing DC National Guard military police units. (NB: the underlying cause of all Ruling Class freakouts is that they are not ruling anymore.) This follows a similar freakout with the deployment of California National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles. This NYT oped is characteristic of the freakout genre:

By ordering 800 National Guard troops to Washington, on the pretext of an illusory crime wave, President Trump has further dragged the U.S. military into domestic law enforcement, in a move credibly perceived as an ominous “test case.” This continues what the administration started in California in June as part of the its deportation efforts.

“The pretext of an illusory crime wave.” Hmm. I doubt Messrs. Simon and Stevenson will be walking late at night in Southeast or Anacostia anytime soon.

This is of a piece with the stock Ruling Class response to Trump’s action: “But DC crime is going down!!!!” Which matters squat. What matters is whether it is unacceptably high: it’s an issue of levels, not change. Yes, the murder rate is lower now than it was in, say, 2023. (Remind me who was president in 2023, I forget. Actually I don’t, though the guy who was president then might). But it is still at extremely elevated levels, and it has been documented that it exceeds that of other capitals in hellhole countries, e.g., Venezuela, Mexico.

“Better than Detroit!” is hardly anything to brag about. Further, given that virtually all the murder victims in DC are black, the resistance to trying to get it under control pretty much gives the lie to “black lives matter,” doesn’t it?

As for other crimes, the data are so manipulated and corrupted as to be utterly unreliable.

As for federalization of law enforcement, it is “the federal city” (as it was commonly referred to in the 19th century in particular, and still is, per the Constitution). Moreover, home rule is a product of the Watergate era, not some longstanding tradition. And most to the point, the squalor and crime that marks the city demonstrates that those elected under home rule are not fit to rule. Not that this makes them much different than the governments of most US cities–just that it means the federal government has levers to pull that are lacking elsewhere.

Insofar as LA is concerned, Trump deployed troops there to deal with civil unrest–rioting, in fact–that was interfering with the enforcement of federal law, namely federal immigration laws which revulses the Ruling Class. The National Guard in particular has long been used to respond to rioting, including in LA (during the Rodney King riots). Just as the Ruling Class cavils that crime in DC is lower (but still at levels no one should accept), they cavil that 1992 was different, and that the rioting in LA was highly localized in 2025. Well, the deployment of the National Guard and Marines was similarly localized and proportionate to the threat. Which disappeared. Go figure.

Simon and Stevenson, made men of the Ruling Class (“Mr. Simon held senior positions in the State Department and at the National Security Council. Mr. Stevenson served on the National Security Council staff during the Obama administration”) assert forcefully that the appropriate, and indeed necessary, response to Trump’s actions is mutiny.

No, really:

Unfortunately, though we (and others) had hoped that the military would only respond to calls to action in American cities and states kicking and screaming, we no longer expect resistance from that institution. Once, perhaps, traditionalist officers might have leaned on protocol and refused to heed a lawless order, taking inspiration from the generals — Mark Milley and James Mattis — who resisted the uprooting of established military standards in the first Trump term.

Note the assertion of an exceptional claim here: namely, that Trump’s order is “lawless,” i.e., illegal. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Simon and Stevenson provide none.

I could quote more, but suffice it to say that the article is full of calls for officers to disobey orders, and chalks up their failure to do so to careerist capitulation to politicians who control their prospects for promotion.

Question: did this careerism just suddenly appear? Is it perhaps possible that careerism affected the conduct of the officer corps under Biden and Obama? Did satisfying political overlords influence decisions under those administrations, like, say, the catastrophe that was the withdrawal from Afghanistan–a far more damaging episode than anything Trump has done that displeases the Ruling Class?

S-S state: “But Mr. Trump and his allies have incentivized loyalty over legality and professional competence in administering military promotions.” Er, isn’t it possible that the officers who were in command positions under Biden and Obama had them precisely because they had played the political game and were deemed politically loyal?

Of course it’s possible. Indeed, it’s fact. Name one senior commander under Biden or Obama that was not “loyal” to them?

So spare me this deep, deep disappointment in the instantaneous outbreak of careerism and politicization in the US officer corps.

As Charles the Second said, “tell it to my Marines.”

S-S also snark at the promotion of LTG Dan Caine to head the JCS, by saying he’s just a “National Guard General” dontcha know. Yes, Air Force National Guard, F-16 pilot, with 150 combat flight hours. But these Bozos insinuate he’s some sort of fat weekend warrior (like Tim Walz, say) or some guy out of a militia in the 1830s. Typical RC condescension.

Hey, you Ruling Class guys are so smart. Surely you must know that ANG (and Reserves) have done extremely heavy lifting (figuratively and literally) in the wars of the past 25 years. But maybe not. In which case you have no business opening your yaps.

This is a real howler: “Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the military’s top Judge Advocates General, even though Pentagon lawyers see their job as facilitating policy objectives, not impeding them.” Er, evidently the Secretary of Defense, duly appointed and confirmed, and hence the civilian head of the military under Article II, believes that these JAGs (no smart remarks–that’s my job!) are not aligned with his (and the president’s) policy objectives, and indeed credibly threaten to impede them. If so, their relief is justified and legal. By S-S’s own arguments. Hoist on their own petard, they are.

Further, these people achieved their positions under an administration that is inimical to the current, duly elected one. Did their politics not affect their promotion?

This is just an example of a hypocrisy that runs through the piece. It lauds civilian control of the military when the civilians are good Ruling Class apparatchiks, and then expresses outrage at the civilians exercising control in ways that these RC types don’t like.

Furthermore, Mr. Trump has insidiously militarized domestic law enforcement by bureaucratic means. In July, the Pentagon re-designated a change of duty status of military personnel from Title 10 to Title 32 to facilitate their “direct interaction with individuals in ICE custody.” And ICE may now utilize the National Guard in 20 states for “alien processing.”

So is it legal, or nah? If nah–prove it. The absence of even an attempt to prove illegality shows that it is not so. Again, it’s a policy they don’t like, but a legal order . . . which the military is bound to obey (a principle S-S supposedly worship ) . . .This is what we are seeing now.

The authors implicitly call for public opposition to the Commander-in-Chief from the officer corps:

Top officers have registered no public objection to the dismissals of certain officers or the elevation of others whose main qualification appears to be loyalty to the president. Nor have they appeared to meaningfully question the dispatch of the Marines to California, Florida and elsewhere or of the National Guard to Washington. when they like the orders.

Said public opposition would be a UCMJ violation. If these officers don’t want to obey these orders, their choices are: resign, or resign. And even post-resignation, their ability to criticize the president is constrained–as their hero Mark Milley may soon learn to his dismay.

This one cracks me up:

The fact that some California National Guard troops are reportedly disaffected with the ICE support mission they were given may well persuade the Trump administration to move more regular, active-duty troops into American cities.

Yeah no GI ever has been “disaffected” with his orders. Evah!

This is especially idiotic:

Huge new funding for ICE under Mr. Trump’s big tax and spending law will substantially increase the scope and pace of the agency’s efforts nationwide and is likely to prompt commensurately greater military support. 

ICE will have more people and resources, so it will need more military support. M-kay. Logic much? Trump dispatched the NG to LA because it was overmatched. Stronger ICE, less need for military support.

This is not complicated.

But these two are so intent on wetting the bed that they invent nightmares. (Another invented nightmare is deployed troops going all Rambo because after all, they are trained killers. Er, NG is also trained in crowd and riot control, and the unit deployed to DC is MP, you know, people who engage in law enforcement activities and are trained to do so). (I’m also reminded of the kerfuffle over the failure to deploy the NG on J6. This should not even be an issue if such deployments in the face of civil unrest are absolutely forbidden).

In the end, writhing on their rubber sheets (sales of which are a real business opportunity these days), Simon and Stevenson pray for a “unanimous decision” (ha!) by the Supreme Court upholding a decision against the NG deployment in LA made by a totally, totally apolitical district court judge in California. But this doesn’t solve the matter. As I’ve written before, a branch of government cannot unilaterally assert its authority over another branch.

If such a decision were to come down, unanimous or not, the administration would believe, and argue, that it is an unconstitutional trespass on the president’s Article II powers. Then we would be in a situation of “IS NOT! IS SO!” with no one to resolve the dispute.

And anyways, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–hardly friendly turf for Trump–overturned the district court’s ruling. Meaning that the legal case is hardly the lock S-S imply that it is. In essence, they want to legislate their policy preferences via the courts, and can’t make a credible argument that their policy preferences are legally supportable.

Yeah. I know. That never happens, right?

One last thing: “Jonathan Stevenson is a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the managing editor of Survival. He served on the National Security Council staff during the Obama administration and was a professor of strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College.” The latter is yet a further indication that the NWC is another institution that has lost its way, and needs to be reformed root and branch. And yes, he’s an Obamabot and swamp think tanker. Ad hominem, I know–but relevant to a Bayes-based assessment of what he writes.

Coda. Regarding what a member of the military can do. If s/he believes an order issued to someone else is illegal, the only recourse is to resign. Going public with criticism of it is not. If one is given an order that one believes is illegal, s/he can refuse to obey. The likely outcome is relief, followed by a court martial or some other disciplinary action. In such a proceeding, s/he can argue the illegality of the order as an affirmative defense. Perhaps it is possible that the refuser could be relieved and not formally disciplined, but s/he could then challenge the relief, e.g., by demanding a court martial or court of inquiry. But these are options for someone who receives an objectionable order, not some rando who doesn’t agree with orders given to somebody else.

One thing the military does not and cannot tolerate is uniformed personnel playing lawyer, and publicly spouting off about allegedly illegal orders, let alone legal orders that somehow offend them. That is what S-S are advocating, which is insane. With the possible exception of JAGs, they are not competent to opine on the legality of something like dispatching the NG to LA or DC. And even if they were, they have to go through the chain of command, not run to CNN or whatever. (As an aside, shit-house lawyers/sea lawyers are widely despised in the military).

The Russo-Ukrainian War grinds on, with Russia making extremely marginal territorial gains at exorbitant human and materiel cost. But the Russians are inflicting heavy casualties on Ukraine as well. And for the first time in, well, forever, there appears to be at least a glimmer of a possibility of some sort of negotiated settlement. I’ll first discuss the military situation, then the political/diplomatic one, as the last is contingent on the first.

As I’ve written often before, the tactical aspects of the Russian campaign are beyond grotesque. The indiscriminate waste of lives for meager gains and the brutal treatment of Russian soldiers (who now include female criminals released from prisons) transcend even the worst historical precedents, at least in Europe. The senseless slaughters, the callousness of the officers, and the material deprivation the soldiers suffer go far, far beyond the conditions that caused the French army to mutiny in 1917. But no such thing appears in prospect in the Russian army. National mindset/character does matter.

This last week I saw two articles that present an interesting contrast. A WSJ article describes Ukraine’s (very belated) efforts to fortify. Appealing to Clauswitz and the experience of the American Civil War, Naval War College professor James Holmes argues that fixed defensive lines are futile, and hence the odds of victory favor Russia.

On balance, I think the pro-fortification side has the best of the argument. This is primarily because the technological considerations overwhelm the abstract advantage of the attacker identified by Clauswitz, and the inappositeness of the ACW analogy.

“The Offensive” is one of the Clauswitzian principles of war. Indeed, it is usually given pride of place. As Holmes emphasizes, the attacker can choose where to attack and can concentrate his forces, whereas the defender does not know where the attack will come, and must spread out his forces. This imbalance of concentration is most acute when the battlefront is large, as is the case in Ukraine. Hence, Holmes concludes, the advantage lies heavily with Russia.

However, technological conditions can decisively shift the advantage to the defender, even given his ignorance of where a blow will fall. Of course, the Western Front in WWI is the primary example of this.

In that conflict, the extreme limitations on the pace of an advance, the vulnerability of the attackers to fires, and the distance that an attacker could advance dictated by the reliance on infantry (and later, the primitive armor) combined to make breakthroughs almost impossible to achieve. Firepower (artillery and machine guns) attrited an attacking infantry force heavily before it made contact. Even if it was able to take a line of trenches, or even two, exhaustion brought them to a halt. Primitive communications prevented coordination of adjacent units, and made it almost impossible to bring up reserves to the right place to continue an initially successful assault. So at best, an attacker could dent but never break an enemy’s lines.

Even operational surprises, like Verdun in 1916 or the Kaiserschlacht in Flanders and Artois in 1918 eventually petered out far short of their objectives. Only where troop and fortification density was much lower, as on the Eastern Front in say the Gorlice–Tarnów offensive in Poland in 1915, or the Brusilov Offensive in 1916, or Romania in 1916, was it possible for foot and horse-drawn forces to make sustained advances over long distances. And even the first two of those culminated short of achieving victory.

Conditions similar to the Western Front prevail in Ukraine, and indeed, many factors are even more disadvantageous to the attacker. First anti-tank missiles, and then drones and deep strike munitions, have made it impossible for armored and motorized forces to advance to contact without suffering near annihilation. Drones, and especially satellite and electronic intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets provided by the US, make operational and tactical surprise almost impossible. Artillery is more precise and more deadly.

So foot soldiers must advance under continuous enemy observation and fire at a walking pace, and suffer catastrophically as a result.

The only thing that has allowed Russia to advance as much as it has, little though that be and at what cost, is the fact that Ukrainian lines are very thinly manned. Fortifications are the best way to compensate for that lack of manpower.

Since the outset of the war Ukraine as eschewed the construction of dense fortifications throughout the front–something I have criticized since the outset. Indeed, the Ukrainian resistance to fortification persisted even after its 2023 “offensive” failed because it could not penetrate the Surovkin Lines. One should learn from one’s enemy: Ukraine hasn’t.

This is just one item, albeit an important one, in the bill of particulars against Syrsky and Zelensky and their operational conduct of the war.

(As for the ACW analogy, Holmes overlooks the fact that the Union offensive stalled for 10 months at Richmond-Petersburg due to Confederate fortifications there. Also, the Federal’s multiple simultaneous attacks were conducted at the strategic level, a totally different situation from the operational level -situation in Ukraine. Thus, at the operational level–e.g., Petersburg-Richmond–the fortified defensive prevailed despite a huge numerical imbalance between the two sides. That’s a better analogy for eastern Ukraine today).

Is it too late for Ukraine to fortify as it should have years ago? Perhaps. And regardless, until it does, the Russians will continue to advance meter by meter in the bite and hold fashion they’ve employed for the past three campaign season, because Putin has clearly shown he is willing to pay the price that approach entails.

Which brings us to the political/diplomatic situation. Putin has agreed to meet Trump, who is attempting to broker some form of cessation of the conflict. Trump promises to meet Zelensky immediately afterwards.

Now of course, both sides have made irreconcilable demands. Putin demands complete control over Ukraine’s eastern provinces (which they have almost, but not completely, captured). Zelensky says not one bit of Ukrainian soil will pass to Russia.

But of course they are going to say that. The question is how willing–and able–they are to adhere to those positions. This depends crucially on their assessments of what will happen if the war drags on.

Putin has consistently expressed bravado and a certainty of victory. He has wagered that the disproportionate populations and economies of the two combatants give him a decisive advantage. He claims the Russian economy has withstood sanctions, and can withstand anything more the west throws at him.

The reality is somewhat different. The rate of losses is not sustainable. This will be especially true if, finally throwing up his hands at Putin’s obstinacy, Trump increases the flow of military equipment to Ukraine. As for the economy, it has become extremely unbalanced, with likely unsustainable expenditures on the war. Russia’s fiscal situation is extremely parlous. The civilian economy is suffering, and although the aforementioned national character may cause Russians to bear these privations more stoically than other nationalities would, war weariness will inevitably grow (as it did in Russia in 1917). Russian industry, particularly its oil refining industry–a vital prop to the war effort and the economy generally–has suffered considerable damage from Ukrainian drone strikes.

Russia and those who believe in the inevitability of Russian victory point to GDP figures. Even overlooking the dubious nature of official Russian statistics (not that US official statistics are that great these days), hyperactive military production combined with a suffocating civilian economy cannot go on forever. The example of War Socialism under Ludendorff and Hindenberg in WWI Germany comes to mind. It achieved prodigies, then collapsed in social chaos.

For his part, Zelensky has to consider the fraught military situation. Yes, Ukraine is holding on, but the personnel issues in particular are also not sustainable.

The war of attrition has continued because each side thinks it can hold out one more day and one soldier longer. As long as they continue to think that way, Trump will not succeed.

It ultimately comes down to what leverage Trump has. The very fact that Putin is willing to meet suggests that he has some with the Russian. The meeting has come to pass only after an exasperated Trump threatened to impose far more draconian sanctions on Russia, most notably efforts to throttle oil sales to India and China. That Trump is deadly serious about this is demonstrated by the fact that relations with India have been severely ruptured due to Modi’s refusal to accede to Trump’s demands.

If the conditions of the Russian economy and fisc are as shaky as I believe, Putin has to be seriously concerned that Trump getting serious about sanctions would collapse his ability to sustain the war.

Trump obviously has much more leverage over Zelensky. Ukraine survives at the sufferance of the US.

So I conclude that Trump has considerable leverage over both sides, and that this makes a deal possible, if not highly likely. Putin has to know that the US will bear little cost from imposing large costs on Russia, and again, the hardball with India (“oh, you don’t like 25 percent tariffs? Well, here’s 50 percent then, asshole”) demonstrates that Trump is deadly serious now, whereas I don’t think Putin thought he was prior to now. Unless Putin is living in Dictator Dreamland (which is not inconceivable) he knows that his current strategy and tactics are not sustainable for very long, especially if the US ramps up military support for Ukraine. And further, he has to know that every human and materiel casualty in Ukraine weakens him against whom he claims is his real enemy–Nato.

So although I don’t believe that Trump will achieve a miracle next week, or even in the following weeks, I think that next Friday could well represent the beginning of the end. And what will that end look like?

Well, with neither side getting what they are demanding now. Putin will have de facto control over most of eastern Ukraine, and perhaps de jure control over some of it, but he will not have de jure control over all of it as he is demanding. Which means that Ukraine will make territorial concessions. That is, as is the case in every conflict not ended by unconditional surrender, each side will find the outcome distateful.

And what follows? A hot peace/frozen conflict. Korea redux, perhaps.