A lot of people asking why @votevets went into #NY19 for @PatRyanUC when almost no one else would. It's not very complex.
Here's a quick thread on why we spent over $500,000 to help Pat win.
First, @PatRyanUC is an incredibly smart and skilled candidate and public servant. We noticed that when @VoteVets backed him in 2018. He lost, but showed us a lot, and we knew his future was bright.
He then continued to serve in Ulster County and built a deeper base.
2/
Conventional wisdom was that #NY19 would go GOP by 5-8 points, given that it is a midterm and the Democratic president’s ratings are in the red.
We saw it different.Pat could turn out his base, which was growing. We also saw trends changing nationally. This race was ripe!
3/
We weren’t scared by GOP spending to hold #NY19. We looked at fundamentals.
Think about it. How could we NOT go into a district that Joe Biden won by a little over a point?
4/
To us, given the quality candidate and trends, not only was it a no-brainer, but if @PatRyanUC won, our $500,000 investment would be worth MILLIONS in further changing the national dynamic!
5/
So we ran this ad – a $500,000+ buy. @PatRyanUC had publicly articulated what was at stake with our rights, and reproductive rights in particular. We amplified that.
6/
This is what @VoteVets does, and what we’re going to do in races across the country this cycle. We’ll find the best candidates who can reach voters that others can’t, and we’ll show no fear about going into races where we think we can help.
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some questions on sustainment and the will to win in Ukraine based on my experience in Iraq as an advisor and working at the end with Foreign Military Sales (FMS) team. 🧵
Armies have to want to fight. The Peshmerga who I helped trained in 2011 wanted to fight. They had to fight. They were partners. The Iraqi Army wasn’t as committed and it showed. Yet, they had an extraordinary amount of US equipment. That brings me to my sustainment questions.
Q: Was it better to give the Iraqi’s AK-47s or M16? M16’s are much more accurate but they are much more complicated, they break, they get dirty.
A: Of course the correct answer would be an AK-47, because it doesn’t break.
1. Russia is clearly resorting to WWII-style tactics. A short thread on what that means for the people of Ukraine and NATO.
🧵
2. The horrific targeting of the nuclear power plant, by Russia, last night, makes clear that the Russians are very much focused on destroying basic infrastructure now -- power, water, etc.
The goal in doing so is to cause mass exodus of refugees. Potentially millions.
3. The refugee crisis they bring will be like nothing Europe has seen in decades. The human suffering will be terrible.
On a strategic level, it means Russia can then flatten cities completely. And they will.
Russia MAY use massive fires on Ukrainian cities. It will undermine their strategic goals so let’s dive into Russian doctrine and discuss why they are using operational objectives that undermine their strategic goals.
🧵
Obviously Russia’s operations didn’t force a quick and simple surrender like Putin expected.
Now caught in a corner and looking for a way out Russia may default to their love of artillery “fires” warfare to create leverage and pain during negotiation.
🧵
The 🇺🇸 military uses precision fires to support maneuver.
Russia relies on more massive fires than the 🇺🇸
Artillery and rockets are used as their decisive weapon using large scale bombardments making up for their inability to combine “war fighting functions” for operations
🧵
Another day, and Putin is no closer to achieving his strategic objectives 1) Limit western influence in Ukraine (NATO) 2) Install a puppet govt.
No matter what you see on TV Russia is losing this war.
Russia’s strategy has & will continue to backfire.
🧵
Let’s look at effects based doctrine to better understand. EBO was designed to understand the strategic objectives and develop operational and tactical objectives that support them.
🧵
Decimating Ukrainian cities creates “effects” that only undermines Russia’s objectives in Ukraine. If Putin does “double down” as you’re hearing on T.V. understand this operational approach only undermines Russia’s original strategic objectives
We awake in the 🇺🇸 to another day of Russia losing their war in the 🇺🇦
Lots of questions about how can Russia lose when they have a much more massive force, so let me explain from my Army War College education
1.
strategic objectives must be supported by operation and tactical ones. If they don’t align it’s hard to win.
Take Iraq for example. Somehow out strategic objective became a friendly democracy in the Middle East, but would war be the operational way to achieve this?
2.
If Russia’s strategic objectives were to defeat Ukrainian forces in Russia populated areas and destroy Ukrainian military capabilities then that limited mission would have a chance for success.