Logo_EMN_dark-02
Logo_EMN_dark-02
Logo_EMN_dark-02
Logo_EMN_dark-02

Eisenhower Media Network

Logo_EMN_dark-02

Eisenhower Media Network

  • About EMN
  • Experts
  • Media
  • Reports
  • Reels
  • Contact An Expert
Recent Posts
  • William Astore: The Pentagon Cowbird
  • William Astore: The War in Yemen
  • William Astore: Civilians, the Forgotten Victims of War

Amid a staunch and passionate defense that has slowed the Russian advance to Kiev and global condemnation, Vladimir Putin’s motivation for invading has been subject to speculation: Just what does he hope to achieve by war in Ukraine?

Some have argued that Putin was responding to NATO expansion or was driven by a compelling sense of Russian nationalism. Others maintain he saw an opportunity to revive Cold War Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. Still others claim he is simply delusional, an oligarch divorced from reality.

But what if Putin’s decision to invade was based partly on a commonly held assumption that offensive wars of choice, more often than not, will deliver?

It’s worth evaluating if this war is as much about local and regional questions over who controls the eastern Ukraine Donbas region as it is about an unquestioning faith that using armed force is the surest path to achieving one’s political aims.

Some U.S. foreign policy analysts, like the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, contend that American support of NATO’s eastward expansion is just as important in explaining the current crisis in Ukraine.

But as a military historian who served in the U.S. Army for 26 years, I believe a more fundamental question is why policymakers, not just in Russia, have so much faith in war when even small miscalculations can lead so easily to disaster.

Read the full article here.

As a military historian who served in the U.S. Army for 26 years, I believe a…fundamental question is why policymakers…have so much faith in war when even small miscalculations can lead so easily to disaster.

Gregory Daddis

Previous PostWilliam Astore: America’s Disastrous 60-Year War
Next PostWilliam Astore: The New Cold War Is Here to Stay, Until It Isn’t

Latest Posts

News-item_Daddis-2

Gregory Daddis: Recriminations over Vietnam tell us what’s next in the debate over Afghanistan

The Taliban has retaken Afghanistan with lightning speed, forcing Americans to grapple with our 20-yea

Daddis, Washington Post
August 18, 2021
News-item_Daddis-2

Greg Daddis Calls for A “Military Reckoning,” Holding Immoral Veterans Accountable

In an op-ed for Salon, retired U.S. Army colonel Gregory A. Daddis criticizes America’s “ritualistic f

Daddis, Salon
December 28, 2020
Recent
William Astore: The Pentagon Cowbird
Astore, Bracing Views
June 21, 2022
William Astore: The War in Yemen
Astore, Bracing Views
June 21, 2022
William Astore: Civilians, the Forgotten Victims of War
Astore, Bracing Views
June 3, 2022
Twitter Feed
Missing Consumer Key - Check Settings
Tags
Afghanistan (3) Afghanistan war (6) Afghanistan withdrawal (18) automated warfare (2) Biden (2) boycott (2) China (6) Cold War (3) Congress (3) Dan Berschinski (3) Danny Sjursen (13) defense budget (11) Dennis Laich (3) department of defense (4) drones (2) Eisenhower (5) empire (2) Erik Edstrom (5) featured (19) forever wars (7) Gregory Daddis (3) Iran (2) Iraq (3) Lawrence Wilkerson (7) Matthew Hoh (9) military (8) military industrial complex (14) military spending (3) NDAA (4) news (86) Pentagon (13) podcast (4) President Biden (3) refugees (4) Russia (8) suicide (2) Taliban (2) Ukraine (8) United States (23) veterans (15) veterans day (3) war (3) War Profiteering (2) whistleblower (3) William Astore (27)
© 2021 Eisenhower Media Network. All Rights Reserved