Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

Things that seem epochal seem to be happening all at once, as I type, as though we are witnessing the hand of Providence. I may be speaking too soon, but rumours are growing of an economic collapse and a change in power in China. And to a more “pro-Western” regime.

What seems especially uncanny, and implausible, are reports of a sudden demographic collapse, of empty villages in the countryside, and of strangely empty streets in major cities. How can millions of people just disappear suddenly?

Possibly much work and purchasing has gone online, as it has, after all, in North America. Possibly an economic collapse means people do not have money to go out and spend, or work to get to. Possibly the government is harassing those who venture out, fearing any concentration of people might become an anti-government demonstration or a riot.

But counter to this last hypothesis, reports are that the extensive Chinese network of security cameras has been cut off. Surely not what they want to do if they fear unrest. A power shortage?

Whatever the case, it seems that something big is happening in China. And any thing big happening in China is big for the whole world.

Meantime, there is the apocalypse in Iran. Israel is suddenly, in lightning strikes,  wiping out much of Iran’s military capabilities and creating chaos in the regime. Rumours are that many top leaders have flown out to Russia or Pakistan. 

If true, this is what happens when a regime is about to collapse. The Iranian regime has for many years not had any popular support. The military was vital to hold the people down through fear. Now the military is in disarray, and shown to be weak. Iranians  may seize the opportunity to rise up. Iranian friends in Canada are cheering on the Israeli attacks. There is an organized opposition abroad; as there was when the Shah fell. Then, they successfully flew in to take charge and restore order. It may happen again now. Losing a war or some reckless military adventure is a common trigger for autocratic governments to fall. 

That’s two of the three strongest anti-Western regimes.

And then there is the third leg of the triple alliance, Russia.

Russia and Putin have also just gotten a big shock, with the Ukrainian drone attacks deep into Russia. It was actually eerily similar to the Israeli attack on Iran, happening almost simultaneously, as though the same mastermind was behind both. If not God, perhaps the USA? 

It took out a significant part of Russia’s strategic abilities; and it brought the war to the common people back in Moscow. Not good for popular support, I imagine. 

Online commentators also say Russia, having now lost a million casualties, is finding it hard to replace lost manpower. They may be losing this war of attrition.

At first glance, this looks improbable. Surely Ukraine has a greater manpower problem, with a much smaller population. They’ve been fighting just as long. And a greater materiel problem: their economy is smaller, and their factories have been under attack far longer.

But the argument goes that, in order to gain ground, the Russians have been using human wave attacks, in a war which heavily favours the defense. The Ukrainians, by staying mostly on the defensive, have been able to take advantage of this. Perhaps the optics were bad, but it was the smart move. Let the other side run straight into the machine guns. 

As for materiel, Ukraine still has all of the EU, and beyond, to draw on.

Rumours online are that all this recent attack puts Putin on shaky ground; a palace coup seems possible. As with Iran, a failed military adventure is the most common trigger for the fall of an autocratic regime. 

Of course, this has all been said before, the imminent fall of Putin has been widely predicted, ever since the initial Russian invasion, supposed to take three days, was repulsed. He has shown great resilience. But even a cat has only nine lives. This recent mass drone attack, and the detonation under the Crimean bridge, does look like a possible tipping point. Like the Tet offensive was for the US in Vietnam—the frustration and sense of failure is that much greater once having started to feel victory was at last within view. It must be psychologically devastating.

With Israel’s attack on Iran, Putin has probably lost his main source of drones with which to respond to Ukraine. There are suddenly leaks that Russia and China no longer see one another as allies—consistent with the rumours that China is about to turn pro-Western. It makes sense; China has unresolved historical grievances and border disputes with Russia, and not with the USA or the West. 

So Putin too might soon and suddenly fall.

If any one of these three regimes goes, the other two are more vulnerable. We’re talking dominoes. And China, the biggest and most important of the three, seems to be a pretty sure thing.

What will the world look like if all three dominoes are down?

Hugely enhanced prestige for the US and the West. 

Surely lesser regimes like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea, who have been anti-Western, will also fall or convert. Partly for lost financial backing; partly for lost prestige; partly from spreading revolutionary fervour. 

More importantly, the anti-Western elites within the West will be relatively discredited: the multicult groups running Canada, France, the UK, Germany, Australia, and the EU broadly. Already in process, their fall may be turbocharged. The superiority of the Western way will have been emphatically illustrated.

Hugely enhanced prestige for Donald Trump. FWIW. Cue AI to carve a niche on Mount Rushmore. Maybe with an assist from Musk’s Boring Company.

This may be bad for peace in the Middle East. Hostility towards and fear of Iran has tended to drive Gulf States into cooperation with Israel and the US; this incentive will now be gone. 

However, a number of terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, will have lost their funding. The current forever wars will cease. Certainly, this should end the conflict in Gaza. Without this hot conflict between Israel and fellow Arabs, the other Arab states may feel better able to sign on to the Abraham Accords.

I see a day peace will come to the Middle East. It once seemed impossible for peace to come to Ireland, too. Then it did. 

With Putin gone, Russian matters are unpredictable. But on balance, it would seem that, with the relative loss of strategic capabilities, a more bellicose leadership would have nowhere to go from here—just carrying on just the same. So if you see a problem, why reinforce failure? The obvious possible change is to try for peace. Even to end Russia’s dreams of standing apart from and against the West. That gives you a chance to declare a kind of victory. After all, culturally, Russia is Europe. Division is artificial. Pure self-interest suggests integration. It is only a childish national pride that makes Russia want to fight and seek empire.

One happy consequence of the end of the regimes in Iran and China could be a revival of Christianity. The CCP has discredited atheism in China; the Ayatollahs have discredited Islamism in Iran. Rumours are of a large number of Christian conversions as it is; although such conversions are more or less illegal in both states. With the lid off, this may grow; this may blow. And the vitality of Christianity in these influential nations, in turn, may also hasten revival in the older Christian lands; a revival that already seems to be starting. When the Iron Curtain fell, Pope John Paul II and Polish Christianity brought a new enthusiasm to Catholicism.

And Christianity is the backbone and foundation of Western culture. Is a Renaissance about to begin?

On Standing Up to Bullies

 

I am what is referred to these days by many as a “war pig.” That is, I endorse military aid to Ukraine. I endorse Israel’s pacification of Gaza.

I believe those who object, saying it is “none of our business,” and we should not be sending money overseas when there are serious problems at home, are being cowardly and selfish. 

Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan: we find Ukraine or Israel set upon by robbers and left lying in a ditch. It is our responsibility to help.

Remember Edmund Burke’s caution: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Moreover, collective security requires that acts of aggression against anyone not be allowed to succeed. Ensuring that aggression does not succeed is the surest way to ensure peace internationally, just as having a police force is the surest way to ensure peace domestically. We cannot honourably duck our responsibility and hope someone else does it.

I think it likely that the current turmoil in Ukraine has much to do with the disorderly American pullout from Afghanistan, which seemed to signal a lack of resolve.

Suggesting we should not send money abroad when there are needs at home is the fallacy of the false alternative. The one does not necessarily preclude the other.

If those who endorse unilateral pacifism really thought they had an argument, they would not resort to namecalling and would not try to dismiss pro-intervention positions out of hand.

We don’t want war; that’s why we must fight.

Pacifism and the War in Ukraine

 

A number of commentators, both left and right, have taken the position that it is wrong for the US, or Canada, to be involved in the fighting in Ukraine.

This position is morally depraved. The worst of it is that it masquerades as a superior morality. It is the devil’s work.

There are snide, self-serving suggestions that Ukraine is corrupt, and its ruling elite has bribed the American leadership into giving support. Hunter Biden doesn’t help.

This is not plausible. They must then also have bribed Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Latvia, Morocco, Denmark, … over fifty countries who have sent material aid. If we are getting into bribery, Russia would be able to outspend Ukraine on that battlefield. And Putin, ex-KGB, would surely have thought of it.

First point: every man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. The people of Ukraine, or Russia, are just as much our brothers as those biologically linked to us. We share the same father. That they are separated from us by distance means nothing; considering that significant would be like supposing, if we close our eyes, the thing is not happening. 

Second point: the rights and wrongs of the situation are clear. Russia invaded Ukraine.

Whenever there is conflict, the default assumption needs to be that it is a fight of right against wrong. Nine times out of ten, there is no “misunderstanding” to be negotiated. Strife breaks out because someone without moral constraints thinks they can take something from someone whom they think is in a weaker position. This is not always so, but must be the default assumption. “A plague on both your houses” works in the case of a vendetta, but is usually moral sophistry. And it amounts to blaming the victim at the moment of his or her victimization. This is weasel morality.

Third point: in the face of evil, we are required to come to the defense of the victim. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.” This is inherent in the essential scenario: conflict occurs when someone stronger tries to take something from someone weaker. If no one intervenes, evil will always triumph.

Fourth point: Refusing to become involved, on the plea of “pacifism,” is simply cowardice. It is not even in one’s own long-term self-interest. If aggression succeeds, more aggression can be expected, and sooner or later you yourself will be the victim. 

And, as C.S. Lewis has explained, courage is the one essential virtue. Without it, none of the other virtues can exist. There is virtue only in something difficult or dangerous to do. In any other case, you are simply acting in immediate self-interest, or on a whim.

There is no moral ambiguity here.

The Next Move for Ukraine

 

Had I been Ukraine’s chief military strategist, and assuming I had the resources, the ideal overall design for a counteroffensive against Russia is obvious. It is Napoleon’s classic strategy. First, you attack both flanks. In a small-scale battle this can be decisive, because you can then outflank and surround. In this case, you cannot, because the mass of foreign troops is spread out and you cannot move into Russian territory. 

But attacking the flanks is still the best option, because it pins down troops as far away as possible from the centre.

Which is where your main blow then falls.

In this case, there is all the more reason to hit hard now at the centre, the land just east of the Dnipro River, around Orkhiv. Now that the Kerch Bridge is blown, if the Ukrainians can slice through to Melitopol, they cut off the entire Russian army west of this point. 

And the road to Melitopol is flat terrain without natural obstacles or defensive lines.

If the Ukrainians know what they are doing, they will have kept their largest force in reserve until now. Gaining ground on the flanks had little strategic value. All that was necessary was to keep the Russians engaged. I expect the Ukrainian ground gains were not really part of the plan, but the Russians proved to be weaker than the Ukrainians expected.

And they should attack now, before the bridge can be repaired, and before winter sets in. They may not succeed, for the same strategic considerations must be apparent to the Russians, but I would expect this to be the plan.

Now let's see if I know what I'm talking about as a military strategist...

Ukraine Endgame

 

Elon Musk has publicly proposed a peace plan for Ukraine that would give Russia all that it currently demands. The annexation of Crimea formally recognized; Ukraine guarantees it will not join NATO; referenda are held, presumably under international supervision, in the Donbas, and Russia withdraws if they lose the vote, annexes if they win.

The argument given for this pro-Russian settlement, even while Ukraine is winning in the field, is that, realistically Ukraine is not in the end going to defeat a country three times its size.

I disagree. 

That sounds right if this is a war between Russia and Ukraine--although Afghanistan managed to fight the Russians off, didn’t they? But what if it is a war between Ukraine and Putin? What if the Russian people or even the Russian oligarchy are not solidly behind this war? Couldn’t Russian popular opinion force an end to the war?

It is absurd to ask Ukraine never to join NATO. The very fact that Russia has invaded, for a second time in a few years, proves they need a security guarantee. NATO is the only option.

Referenda in the disputed territories is a good solution—but under international mandate, after a Russian withdrawal. If before, it is likely the Russians will simply refuse to withdraw if they lose.

There is much talk of Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons. And, if they do, how could the West respond?

I think General Petraeus has the right idea: NATO sends in the bombers and, using conventional munitions, bombs every Russian troop concentration in Ukraine, every supply depot, and every Russian warship on the Black Sea. They maintain air superiority and bomb whatever moves.

Some insist Petraeus cannot be serious. This, after all, would be direct war between Russia and NATO. This would be World War Three.

Yet why are we afraid of direct war between Russia and NATO? Russia cannot handle Ukraine acting alone. The quickest way to end this war would be to send in NATO to make the defeat quick and decisive. Many lives might be saved. NATO would establish itself as a vital guarantor of international security. The world would be a much safer place.

The only argument against is that direct conflict between nuclear powers might lead to nuclear war.

But if Putin uses nuclear weapons, that argument is gone. We are already in nuclear war. A swift and overwhelming response is the only way, then, to prevent more nuclear wars in the future. Nations must not discover they can go nuclear without repercussions.

The Dinosaur Effect

 

The experts contemplate signs appearing in the sky

Putin’s formal annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts looks like an example of what Marshall McLuhan called the “dinosaur effect.” It also perhaps gives insight into what is going on in the wider world right now.

According to McLuhan, things commonly reach their greatest extent, indeed, suddenly balloon, just before they become extinct. This is not quite an accurate description of the dinosaurs, as it turns out, but it looks superficially plausible in some other cases. Consider the British Empire. It reached its greatest extent after the First World War. On paper, on the map, it was magnificent. It had just won the war to end all wars against its great rival. 

Yet, thanks largely to debts incurred in the war, it was already financially unsupportable. Within twenty five more years, it was being rapidly dismantled.

It is just when they realize they are losing their grip—as Putin is now—that the powerful will lunge for grandeur. The instinct is to grab the last few glorious moments of power before it is gone forever, and exercise that power fully. That is what Putin is doing, annexing provinces he does not even now fully control, the day before his forces are surrounded in Lyman. He is living his preferred fantasy while he can; because he knows the reality is slipping away.

And this is just, I submit, what the clerical elites are doing now all around the world, in countries as widely spread as Canada, New Zealand, China, the Netherlands, the USA. They have grown abruptly more dictatorial, because the underlying news is bad for them. They have become suddenly more censorious, because their instinct is to suppress the news and pretend. For now, men can decide to be women, there is no right and wrong, and the narrative is whatever you want the narrative to be.

As in the case of Putin’s Russia, this cannot last much longer. Communications technology is making the established elites redundant to the rest of society. We are witnessing the mad thrashings of a dying beast.

British Confirmation of Ukrainian Gains

 

More Good News

 

Keeping track of the good news: reports from Ukraine suggests major gains against the Russians. At last report, the Ukrainian forces near Kharkov are advancing at a walking pace, twenty kilometers a day. They are through the Russian lines and, for now, moving more or less at will. It looks like blitzkrieg. 

I would have thought this impossible with modern missile weaponry—unless, that is, the Russians are out of missiles. It is possible the Ukrainians will soon cut off up to 20,000 Russian troops. They have fled so fast the Ukrainians are capturing large caches of weapons and ammunition intact. 

If Russian morale is as low as has sometimes been reported, this might lead to general collapse—on the front lines, and perhaps, in Moscow.

It is all going better than could have been expected.

Canadian Poets for Ukraine

 

Canadian poets are reading online in support of Ukraine, FWIW.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDARA01MjoyW7WccH9j6yGtI3XZhcE0BD

The Plan Shifts

 

This seems to reinforce my suspicion that Ukraine was planned as part of a one-two punch, although I sawthe second blow in April.

I also suggested that the Russian lack of success in Ukraine would now deter the Chinese.

The Mask Is Off

 

By now any residual support for Putin’s Russia in its invasion of Ukraine should be gone. 

Most conflicts are between good and evil. In most conflicts, there is a right and wrong. When we refuse to take sides, it is generally immoral. It is always easier and safer not to take a side. It’s not use being invaded, is it? 

None so guilty as the innocent bystander.

One argument made early on was that Russia was showing admirable restraint. They had not sent in their best troops. They had not taken out infrastructure. They were only applying measured pressure to get the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.

They are now bombing and shelling civilian targets. This seems to prove that, instead, they were simply overconfident and weak. Unable to achieve their objectives militarily, they are shifting to terror tactics, like Germany’s Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. 

Another argument was that Ukraine was oppressing its Russian-speaking citizens. Putin even used the term “genocide.” The Russians were coming in to protect the weak.

There is now an obvious problem with this claim. The Russians have faced hard fighting, and have been unable to advance, in those areas of Eastern Ukraine that are Russian-speaking. It seems that the local populations are attached to Ukraine. Kharkiv, predominantly Russian-speaking, has been holding out. Mariaupol, which I believe is also predominantly Russian-speaking, has been holding out against a historic siege. As of the 12th, the Russians were not even able to take all of the two supposed breakaway regions, Doenetsk and Luhansk.

And they have been indiscriminately shelling both Kharkiv and Mariupol.

Another argument was that NATO was trying to “encircle” Russia, by considering Ukrainian membership. This was in violation of promises made in 1991; the Russians had a right to fear for their national security.

Apparently there was no promise by NATO not to advance further eastward. NATO did not view itself, and was not viewed in 1991, as an anti-Russian alliance. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, it was there as a way to ensure peace in Europe, similarly to the EU. Russia itself is officially a “Partner for Peace.” If Russia is now hostile to NATO, this is apparently Russia’s choice. It is no threat to Russia unless Russia wants to invade.

Another argument was that the Ukrainian government was controlled by Nazi or neo-Nazi elements.

Putin’s government is itself close to the Fascist model, of tight government control with collusion between government and corporations. It is the typical game of Fascists calling themselves Antifascists, and calling the non-fascists Fascists. It was first played by Hitler himself, in claiming to be defending Germany from Bolshevism.

The Kremlin apologists point to the Azov Battalion of the Ukrainian forces. The Azov Battalion is tiny, 900 to 2,000 members. It denies being neo-Nazi. It includes Jews among its members; and the president of Ukraine is a Jew. The actual Nazis considered Slavs, including Ukrainians, an inferior race, fit only for servitude.

So, okay, at least the Azov Battalion is “ultra-nationalist,” right? 

But it also includes fifty Russian members, and its language of command is Russian, not Ukrainian. So if this is nationalism, it is apparently not a nationalism based on either race or ethnicity. It seems to be based solely on Ukrainian national unity and independence. Is this such a toxic concept? 

Symbols that reminiscent of Nazism may be for shock value, to look tough and scary to opponents. Rather like the Gadsden flag, doing a hakka dance, or painting shark jaws on your airplane’s fuselage. Nazi symbols would be particularly frightening in Russia-Ukraine. But it seems juvenile to get upset over this or that symbol.

At the same time, there seems to be an equal and opposite immorality emerging too: scapegoating Russia and Russians. Ordinary Russians have little say over their government. Ordinary Russians were not consulted, and are not responsible for what is happening in the Ukraine. It is cowardly and evil to attack or harm innocent Russians. Which is apparently happening in Western countries.

Wali in Ukraine

 

This seems real: reported by a neutral source, the Hindustan Times, and confirmed by the National Post and La Press in Canada and the Sun in the UK. The Canadian sniper "Wali," from the VanDoos, has joined the fight in the Ukrainian side.

Watching Russia Go Down?

 

An interesting piece by Francis Fukuyama on what is going on in Ukraine.

He thinks Russia is going to lose, and dramatically. He says “collapse.” He also thinks Putin has no off-ramp. He thinks Putin will not survive in power. He expects this to herald a “new birth of freedom.”

Unfortunately, Fukuyama has a track record of being over-optimistic.

He thinks the US decision not to send in the MIGS is right. Aside from any risk of escalation, they are not needed, and Putin’s defeat could then be blamed on NATO. It looks worse for Putin if he is beaten by Ukraine seemingly acting alone.

Fukuyama also thinks this war is discrediting populist movements in the West, because they have been sympathetic to Putin. Perhaps so, but I think he is off base here. I see populist figures insisting we in the West stay out of the war, but not because they support Putin. Because they oppose foreign entanglements generally, and distrust the reports they are getting from the legacy media and the various governments as probably propaganda. This goes for Ukraine, and the US, but equally for Russia.

We shall see.

Is Peace Near?

 

There are hopeful signs that peace might be possible in Ukraine. Russia says it will stop its invasion immediately if Ukraine agrees to four conditions:

1. Ukraine ceases fire

2. Ukraine recognizes that Crimea is part of Russia

3. Ukraine recognizes the independence of the two Donbas mini-states.

4. Ukraine changes its constitution to declare permanent neutrality.

The first condition goes without saying. The second and third are no great concessions, as they simply recognize facts on the ground. Crimea and the Donbas are primarily Russian-speaking, too. There is a good chance that, were a neutral referendum held, they would vote for this result.

A compromise might be to hold internationally supervised referenda in each of these regions. 

The fourth condition is trickier; but parties to negotiations rarely open with their final position. At present, joining NATO is actually in the preamble of the Ukrainian constitution. Might it be enough if this were removed?

We may have an off-ramp here. Sure beats starting World War III.

A Vision

 

Once Ukraine has won the war, what happens next?

To begin with, Ukraine will have immense cultural prestige.

This reminds me of a vision I had long ago, in the late Sixties. It was that Russia would become the world’s cultural leader; not the Soviet Russia that existed at that time, but a new spiritual Russia based on the virtue of honour.

Ukraine—almost Russia—may be acting that out right now.

There seems to me a decent chance that, as a result of this war, the current regime in Russia will collapse. It might be replaced by a more democratic, outward-looking regime. This has happened elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, almost as though it is inevitable given time. And surely, those nations that have embraced the West, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, and the rest, have profited as a result.

If this happens, I predict that Central and Eastern Europe will become the new centre and cutting edge of world civilization. Fostering a revival of the principles of honour and ethics.

Unless, that is, the regime in Beijing also falls. Then it might be East Asia.

We have been needing one.

Winnipeg Tonight

 

Eddie Shack was Ukrainian-Canadian.

The Russian Checkmate

 

You've heard of Peking duck? How about Moscow goose?

Vladimir Putin’s goose is cooked. 

He had to win in Ukraine quickly and relatively bloodlessly. He did not.

It is not just that Ukrainian resistance will stiffen, with the element of surprise gone. 

The invasion has revealed the Russian military’s weakness. 

Now there is both opportunity and every reason for NATO to pour support into Ukraine. They need not be as cautious as they have been. So long as they can preserve plausible deniability, they can engage at will. It is hardly in Putin’s interest to call them out. Declare war on any of them, and he has twenty new adversaries, including the US, UK, France, Germany, built up on the border and ready to go. And they all see he can barely manage Ukraine.

Meantime, they can ensure that Ukraine has all the support it needs to hold out. All the supplies can be stacked right across the border, invulnerable to attack—like the Ho Chi Minh Trail that so bedeviled the Americans in Vietnam. Ukrainian-marked planes might even take off and land from air bases across the border. Putin has already warned against anyone doing this—showing that he fears it.

All Russia can do against all this is threaten to go nuclear. But the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction still applies: it would be suicidal. Threaten is all they can do.

All possible ways, Russia loses. 

If they ever get close to overwhelming Ukraine, Europe can simply ratchet up their participation as needed. Popular opinion, as well as strategic self-interest, would demand it, would demand it. Meantime, so long as the Ukrainians can do the heavy lifting, why not leave them to it? This way NATO can limit its own costs and losses.

As the war drags on, Russia’s economy will decline, and domestic unrest will grow. It will end in collapse, either of the country or the regime.

This invasion might have been a plot between Russia and China. Otherwise why invade in the winter? It may have been intended to draw Western resources away from a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the spring.

If so, the scheme has probably failed. The weakness revealed in the Russia armed forces suggests the European land and air forces are adequate to the task in Ukraine, leaving the US to manage Taiwan if necessary, along with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India.

In fact, it all opens up a new possibility for China. Putin had better hope that there is honour among thieves. If Russia is so weak, and so committed elsewhere, why not lunge instead for Vladivostok? China has always claimed as its territory. 

And they get to cash in on joining the winning side.

Ukrainian Uprising in Kherson

 

And other reports of Russian failure.

Saw This One Coming

 

What Did I Just Hear?

 

My ears perk up at something Ukrainian president Zelenskyy has just said. He mentions being in contact with French President Macron, Turkish President Erdogan, Polish President Duda. This makes sense; all are especially active in helping Ukraine. But he also mentions being in contact with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

What do they have to do with what is happening in Ukraine?

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have, between them, formidable air forces, with the latest equipment and extraordinary pilots. I taught at the UAE’s Air Force College. Flying is an Arab specialty, and it attracts their best and brightest. I think they might have the wherewithal and the moxie to take on the Russian Air Force in Ukraine, and enforce a no-fly zone. 

As I suggested with the Philippines or Thailand, they might be a useful proxy for the West, avoiding a direct confrontation of nuclear powers.

This might also explain Zelenskyy's evident upbeat mood.