Wisconsin Republican Mike Gallagher is giving President Joe Biden and his administration a “tip” to prevent further escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
At a House Armed Services Committee hearing on “State of the Surface Navy”, Vice Admiral William K. Laser, the vice chief of naval operations, admitted to Gallagher that Ukraine had failed to deter Vladimir Putin from invading.
“I want to stop,” said Gallagher. We all want to stop. We do not want to tackle NATO infiltration. We certainly do not want to deal with the conflict with Taiwan. But if integrated deterrence is a smokescreen to reduce our investment in hard power, and somehow believe that untested technology, or allies, or statements from Davos or the UN could be an alternative to hard power, I think we’re going to see. Further prevention failure. “
Below is a copy of the exchange:
Gallagher: In response to a question from Representative Wilson about Admiral Lesser, Ukraine working with Turkey, you said, “What it highlights in a positive sense, from a strategic point of view, we are focusing on integrated resistance which you have seen incredibly well done. “I am intrigued by this concept of integrated resistance. I am eagerly awaiting the publication of the National Security Strategy and then the National Defense Strategy. I assume that integrated resistance will be the basis. But in this context, and in light of your comments, See that merging with resistance that was not there before?
Laser: So the idea I was highlighting was integrated across all domains. So you see an increased focus on the concept of joint warfare, multi-domain, combined into domains, which is not to say that they did not exist before. It’s an evolution, sure. And then broader, again, to focus on evolution and provide as part of a joint force, as part of the whole government, and especially with allies and partners. All an evolution and emphasis that I think you are familiar with.
Gallagher: But if we work for a very incredibly integrated resistance in Ukraine, it raises a second question: what have we resisted?
Laser: EExcellent question, I think we are blocking any expansion in the NATO region, so we are committed to protection.
Gallagher: But really, would it be fair to say that we have failed to stop Putin from attacking?
Laser: Oh, absolutely. Yes.
Gallagher: So there was a resistance failure. I don’t mean it’s a cheap point score. I just think that’s interesting. This is something we should study, we should understand why it happened. My own point of view, and it leads to integrated resistance and why I am skeptical of the idea, part of it is that if it is used we can rely on non-military tools, especially sanctions or hashtag diplomacy-incoherent . From a credible military threat তাহলে then we will have more resistance failures.
My bias is that in order to hope for resistance, you have to use force in the way of people like Putin or Xi Jinping. I would go further and say that this is the first, real-world test of integrated resistance. And it failed. We need to learn from this, don’t we?
I want to stop. We all want to stop. We do not want to tackle NATO infiltration. We certainly do not want to deal with the conflict with Taiwan. But if integrated deterrence is a smokescreen to reduce our investment in hard power, and somehow believe that untested technology যা which will not be on the ground until the end of the decade or the next decade বা or allies, or statements from Davos, or the UN, Hard energy may be an alternative, I think we are going to see more resistance failures.
I understand there are many in the building who disagree with me, and I am open to counter-argument, but it is true that resistance has failed in this case. I welcome the firmness of the Europeans’ position, the change I feel in Germany, the unification of the West. These are great developments that we should make, but resistance has still failed.
And so I would argue, perhaps we did not resist integration, which means whatever, too, is incredibly good. Usually I actually ask questions. I don’t make such speeches, but you have touched a nerve for me. I think the best lesson we can learn from this is actually in a different theater. It is in INDOPACOM. I think the lesson is that we have to think about how we armed Taiwan yesterday, don’t we?
Once things start to boom, it will be difficult to increase support. We are in the process of trying to stop the PLA through denial. And the threat of sanctions and harsh words from the State Department’s press secretary mean the threat of tweets is not going to stop Xi Jinping. I harvest my remaining second.
The post GOP Correspondent Gallagher: The Best Way to Avoid WW3: Strengthen Military Resistance