Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is over two years old, and Kyiv is facing a population crisis. According to Florence Bauer, the U.N. Population Fund’s head in Eastern Europe, Ukraine’s population has declined by around 10 million people, or about 25 percent, since the start of the conflict in 2014, with 8 million of those occurring after Russia began its full-scale invasion in 2022. This report comes a week after Ukrainian presidential adviser Serhiy Leshchenko revealed that American politicians were pushing Zelenskyy to mobilize men as young as 18.
“Population challenges” were already evident before the conflict started, as it matched trends existing in Eastern Europe, but the war has exacerbated the problem. The 6.7 million refugees represent the largest share of this population shift. Bauer also cited a decline in fertility. “The birth rate plummeted to one child per woman – the lowest fertility rate in Europe and one of the lowest in the world,” she told reporters on Tuesday.
Combat losses and civilian casualties have been hard to accurately tally, as Kyiv treats them as a state secret. Best estimates from late 2023 put the number around 70,000, and Bauer confirmed that they are in the “tens of thousands.”
Further decline in Ukraine’s population will likely occur as the war drags on and includes draftees aged 18-25. According to Leshchenko, “American politicians from both parties are putting pressure on President Zelenskyy on the question of why there is no mobilization of those aged 18 to 25 in Ukraine.”
When the war ends, Ukraine will need labor for rebuilding and continued losses are likely to have long-term consequences. George Beebe, Director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute, says,
“Demography is not necessarily destiny, but such shocking projections bode ill for Ukraine’s economic prosperity and societal dynamism,” Quincy Institute Director of Grand Strategy George Beebe wrote in RS last year. “The future they portend is a vicious circle of decline. Under such circumstances, simply manning a substantial standing army as a counter to much more populous Russia would be a challenge for Ukraine, let alone mastering and maintaining a large arsenal of NATO-standard weaponry.” Beebe added, “the more resources it must devote to its military, the fewer it will have for launching new commercial ventures and building a productive civilian economy.”
Ukraine is already dealing with war fatigue, evident from shifts in polling, and in the report that a staggering 51,000 soldiers have deserted from the army this year.
Beebe also points to a demographic study that predicts that Ukraine’s working-age population will decline by a third by 2040, with the number of children declining by half, and adds that “mounting damage is likely to discourage many refugees from returning to Ukraine anytime soon.”
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Ukrainian soldiers hold portraits of soldiers father Oleg Khomiuk, 52, and his son Mykyta Khomiuk, 25, during their farewell ceremony on the Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine 10 March 2023. The father and son died in the battles for Bakhmut in Donetsk region. (Photo by STR/NurPhoto)
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
Matching the U.S. military to U.S. goals
The U.S. has long engaged in Pentagon prestidigitation. That’s where it proactively pledges to commit its blood and treasure around the world, until it realizes there ain’t enough to go around (cf., the U.S. military couldn’t fight two relatively rinky-dink wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously). Short of doubling the U.S. defense budget to something like $2 trillion a year —“not gonna do it,” as President George H. W. Bush reportedly said — there’s only one other option: pick the nation’s fights, and where to fight, more judiciously.
This is a national conversation that is long overdue. That was made clear March 18, when NBC’s Courtney Kube and Gordon Lubold reported that the Trump administration might let NATO’s top general be someone other than a U.S. military officer for the first time. President Donald Trump is, to put it mildly, no fan of history’s greatest military alliance.
NATO backers were not pleased with this heavily armored trial balloon. “It would be a political mistake of epic proportion, and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back,” retired Admiral James Stavridis, who served as NATO’s top officer from 2009 to 2013, said. “We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.”
But Trump has succeeded in pushing NATO members to spend more to defend against a revanchist Russia. This is a burden they should be willing to bear, 80 years after the U.S. saved their bacon in World War II. If such pressure continues, east Asian nations could increasingly follow suit to counter China’s expansionist aims.
This is where the tank tread, so to speak, meets the road: If the U.S. counts on other nations to pick up the slack far from home, it will lose leverage when it comes to calling the shots, military or otherwise, far from home.
Ronald O’Rourke, an analyst at the Congressional Research Service, regularly updates his primer(PDF) on “Geography, Strategy, and U.S. Force Design.” In it, he concludes that the size and shape of the U.S. military “for the past several decades” has been driven by Washington’s “goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia.” But, in his most recent update, he adds a key coda:
A change in U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. role in the world, and U.S. grand strategy toward one that accepts or supports the emergence of a spheres-of-influence world with spheres led by countries such as Russia, China, and the United States (whose sphere would likely be centered on the Western Hemisphere) could lead to a change in the U.S. force-planning standard, the size and composition of U.S. military forces, and U.S. defense plans, programs, and budgets.
Apparently, the only thing we have to sphere is sphere itself.
Dogfight
Trump’s disdain for NATO allies could bite the U.S. arms biz’s bottom line. Turns out some of those allies are in the market for new jet fighters, and the Pentagon’s F-35 fighter is looking less desirable in light of the White House’s barely concealed contempt for its potential buyers.
Britain, Canada, Germany, and Portugal are all candidates to scale back, or not even buy, F-35s since Trump declared he might hesitate to defend or even seek to annex NATO allies. The French-built Rafale and Swedish-built Gripen fighters, among others, are far cheaper, good-enough, options. “There’s going to be long-term negative consequences to the U.S. arms-export prospects to Europe and other allies,” veteran aerospace consultant Richard Aboulafia predicted. “The F-35 was the product of an era of extreme trust, and they may never trust the U.S. again.”
“The United States priorities, once closely aligned with our own, are beginning to shift,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said March 18 as he announced Canada was buying a $4.2 billion Australian radar system. The day before, he had discussed the deal with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who was pleased at the outcome. “Obviously,” Albanese said, “there are issues taking place, particularly between Canada and the United States, I wouldn’t have expected to have been happening in my lifetime.” Canada has already paid for 16 yet-to-be-delivered F-35s of a planned 88-plane buy worth $19 billion, but the balance could be up for grabs.
Trump may be a savvy pol, but someone in his orbit needs to remind him of Newton’s Third Law: for every action there is an equal, and opposite, reaction.
Arms sales aren’t the only thing at stake
U.S. allies pushing for their own nuclear arsenals have largely been sidelined for two generations because those nations counted on staying dry (from atomic fallout) under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. But Trump’s “America First” agenda, and his willingness to dismiss the need for alliances where the U.S. once provided superpower protection, are giving rise to second thoughts. France — the lone NATO member with nuclear weapons not dependent on U.S. technology — has suggested its neighbors share its own A-bomb bumbershoot.
The U.S. has fought to restrict access to the nine nations known to be in the nuclear club, primarily via good-government options like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But such efforts are no guarantee. Most infamously, Russia joined with the U.S. and Britain in 1994 in convincing Ukraine to give up the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons on its soil in exchange for Moscow’s pledge to respect its neighbor’s borders. Once stripped of such weapons, there was little Ukraine could do to thwart Russia’s attack on Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion three years ago.
“The Trump administration’s approach to Ukraine and Russia has significantly undercut allied confidence in the United States, including on extended [nuclear] deterrence,” Eric Brewer, who pushed nonproliferation efforts at the White House during Trump’s first term, said. “Not only is [Trump] pivoting away from allies but he’s seemingly pivoting toward Russia.”
Doug Edelman and his wife allegedly failed to pay $129 million in taxes from their Pentagon contracts supporting the Afghan war, the Wall Street Journal’s Margot Patrick reported March 18.
Sharing war plans via an unclassified mobile app — as the Trump administration’s high command just did — is something expressly barred by this 2023 Pentagon directive that apparently no one read.
But despite that, thanks for reading The Bunker this week. Consider sending to allies so they can subscribe here.
While Israel cited stalled hostage negotiations and ongoing security threats as reasons for ending the U.S.-backed ceasefire in Gaza, Netanyahu’s decision to resume large-scale military operations just days before the vote also appeared aimed at shoring up support from far-right coalition partners such as Itamar Ben Gvir. The budget, framed explicitly by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as a “war budget,” includes record levels of defense spending and a dramatic increase in funding for Israeli public diplomacy, a nod to the government’s attempt to counteract ongoing international condemnation of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
The breakdown of ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas has been widely blamed on Hamas intransigence, with Israeli spokesman Eylon Levy and others, including Trump aide Steve Witkoff on the Tucker Carlson Show, claiming Hamas refused to negotiate. Yet the record shows a different sequence: Israel introduced new terms during phase two of the talks — terms that had not been agreed to — and demanded unilateral acceptance.
The Israelis made this shift without coordination with mediators or the other side, appearing to reject the original framework that Hamas had agreed to based on verbal guarantees from U.S., Egyptian, and Qatari mediators. Despite this, Israel withdrew from negotiations and launched airstrikes across Gaza on March 18, killing more than 400 people in a single night. The White House later confirmed it was consulted in advance, raising questions about the depth of U.S. involvement and endorsement.
The timing of Israel’s decision to unilaterally end the ceasefire also raises questions about the extent to which Netanyahu’s political agenda drove the renewal of the war. Netanyahu narrowly avoided renewed investigations into so-called “Qatargate” — a scandal that involved Netanyahu’s aides allegedly receiving funding from Qatar while managing hostage negotiations. In a move widely seen as preemptive damage control, Netanyahu abruptly moved to fire the head of Shin Bet and began the process to remove the attorney general, in what critics called an attempt to derail investigations.
The attempt to fire both has prompted mass protests, with over 100,000 Israelis returning to the streets to condemn his attempts to avoid accountability, in a show of popular resistance not seen since before the October 7 Hamas attack.
According to Israeli polls, if elections were held today, Netanyahu would likely lose and finally be forced to confront longstanding corruption and fraud charges. War, by contrast, offers him a mechanism to delay legal accountability and maintain control over the national narrative. The question is, why is Donald Trump prioritizing Netanyahu’s political survival over U.S. interests?
When Trump, who was not yet in the White House, pressured Netanyahu to accept phase 1 of the ceasefire, he demonstrated America’s leverage over Israel (which Biden refused to use, and which arguably cost his party the White House). He also reasserted American national interests, which are best served by reducing tensions in the Middle East and avoiding being dragged into yet another endless war in the region.
The extent to which maritime traffic in the Red Sea is central to U.S. interests is debatable. Yet to the extent that the U.S. wishes to prioritize the Suez Canal, the Gaza ceasefire also prompted the Houthis to end their attacks on ships. By enforcing the ceasefire, Trump could have scaled back Operation Prosperity Guardian, a U.S.-led naval mission costing billions and receiving minimal support from the countries that benefit most directly from Red Sea shipping. With the Gaza ceasefire, Trump demonstrated that he would prioritize American interests over those of Netanyahu.
But that moment has passed. By greenlighting Israel’s desire to reinitiate its war on Gaza, Trump is following in Biden’s feckless footsteps, allowing Netanyahu’s political fortunes to put American servicemembers at risk, not only in the Red Sea, but potentially across the region.
This is particularly evident in Trump’s recent decision to escalate airstrikes on Yemen, resulting in53 civilian deaths, marking the most intense week of bombardment since the closing stages of the Saudi-UAE air campaign in January 2022. While officially framed as a response to Houthi threats to Red Sea shipping, the strikes resumed almost immediately before the Gaza ceasefire collapsed, despite a lull in Houthi attacks during the truce. The Houthis stated their intention to target Israeli vessels on March 11, in response to Israel preventing the entry of any aid or goods into Gaza, in violation of the ceasefire terms, since March 2.
The timing suggests that these operations serve less to protect U.S. assets, and rather more to back Israel’s broader military campaign across the region. In turn, American forces are being pulled towards a war posture directly reflecting Israel’s objectives as opposed to advancing defined American ones.
This shift raises essential questions about the direction of U.S. foreign policy, as despite rhetorical commitments to disentangle from costly, open-ended conflicts, the Trump administration appears increasingly aligned with a regional agenda driven by Netanyahu’s domestic imperatives rather than American strategic alignment, continuing to provide significant material and diplomatic support to Israel.
At a time when the U.S. faces overstretched resources and fraying alliances, subordinating American strategy to Netanyahu’s maneuvering risks entrenching Washington in a broader regional conflict with limited upside.
Trump once demonstrated that the U.S. could shape outcomes and recalibrate its role, but his current posture suggests that leverage is slipping. For a policy framework that claims to put American interests first, this trajectory leads elsewhere.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Unredacted memo by Arthur Schlesinger (JFK files) and President John F. Kennedy, 1962 (public domain/Donald Cooksey)
When the final, declassified records from the John F. Kennedy assassination files were posted on the National Archives’ website last week, the first document researchers and reporters searched for was White House adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s June 1961 memorandum to the president titled “CIA Reorganization.”
ABC News led its initial coverage on the release of the JFK papers with that document, quoting Schlesinger’s now unredacted, dramatic, statistics that showed that the "CIA today has nearly as many people under official cover overseas as [the] State [Department].” The New York Times also featured that document with a headline “A Kennedy aide worried that the C.I.A. threatened the State Department’s power.”
Meanwhile, the National Security Archive (where I work) posted a fully blacked out page 8 from when the document was first declassified, juxtaposed with the now fully unredacted page revealing Schlesinger’s detailed report to the president that “47 percent of the political officers serving in United States embassies were CAS ” — agents working under diplomatic cover known as “Controlled American Sources.”
“Sometimes the CIA mission chief has been in the country longer, and has more money at his disposal, wields more influence (and is abler) than the Ambassador,” as Schlesinger warned Kennedy about the CIA’s negative impact on the exercise of responsible U.S. statecraft. “Often he has direct access to the local Prime Minister. Sometimes…he pursues a different policy from that of the Ambassador.”
Newsworthy revelations, to be sure. But lost in the media focus on the final secrets of this one document is the broader historical significance of the entire 15-page memo. Since it was first partially declassified over 20 years ago, Schlesinger’s secret proposal on “CIA Reorganization” has captured a pivotal moment in the CIA’s controversial history — the brief interlude following the disastrous failure of the CIA-organized paramilitary invasion of exile forces at the Bay of Pigs, when the Kennedy White House seriously considered reconfiguring the Agency and re-distributing its clandestine and intelligence-gathering missions to other departments.
With the notoriety the document is now receiving, along with other records recently released under the Kennedy Assassination Records Act, the backstory of this unique juncture in the history of covert operations can now be told.
Bay of Pigs: Scattering the CIA to the winds
"How could I have been so stupid as to let them proceed?" President John Kennedy asked his advisers following the CIA's infamous fiasco at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961. Beyond the fact that the U.S. invasion of Cuba was an egregious act of aggression — violating international law and Cuba’s sovereignty — its failure was a catastrophic embarrassment for JFK, only weeks into his White House tenure.
Kennedy held CIA director Allen Dulles, and his deputy for covert operations Richard Bissell, personally responsible for deceiving him on the prospects for success of the ill-planned paramilitary assault. Indeed, as he processed the implications of the failed invasion, Kennedy vented his desire to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.”
That concept was more than angry rhetoric; the president actually set in motion a secret set of deliberations on breaking up the intelligence, espionage and covert action functions of the CIA and subordinating its operations to the State Department. Kennedy tasked one of his top White House advisers, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., as well as the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) — the high-level team of wisemen who monitored the intelligence community on the president’s behalf — to consider this option.
The special commission Kennedy appointed to investigate the debacle in Cuba, chaired by General Maxwell Taylor, also addressed what came to be known as “CIA reorganization.”
In his Pulitzer-winning account, “A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House,” Schlesinger briefly alluded to this effort. The Bay of Pigs “stimulated a wide variety of proposals for the reorganization of the CIA,” he wrote. “The State Department, for example, could not wait to separate the CIA’s overt from its clandestine functions, and even change the Agency’s name.”
In fact, it was Schlesinger himself who suggested various new “blameless titles” for a reconstituted CIA, such as “The National Information Service” and “The Foreign Research Agency.” And it was Schlesinger who presented the harshest critiques of the Agency to the President, and the most concrete proposals to splinter it apart and reconstruct its functions under State Department control.
The Schlesinger Memoranda
Schlesinger presented these arguments in two lengthy secret memorandums for the president. The first, dated May 18, 1961, and titled “How to Organize an Intelligence Service: Implications of the British Example,” responded to Kennedy’s request that Schlesinger examine the “British intelligence set up” to determine “what of value there might be for our own thinking about CIA reorganization.”
The memo illuminated the structure of the British intelligence service as it evolved after WWII, focusing not only on how it separated the functions of intelligence gathering from special operations but also how MI-6 coordinated with, and was essentially subordinate to, the British Foreign Ministry. “What is of special interest in the British experience is not the division between intelligence and operations, but the means by which the clandestine service is kept under continuous policy control,” Schlesinger advised Kennedy.
The British approach provided lessons to be learned from the Bay of Pigs debacle, Schlesinger argued, because the State Department had been kept completely in the dark about planning for the covert invasion. The CIA’s “non-consultation” prevented any independent policy oversight; there was no “son-of-a-bitch — a man charged with raising every question, forcing every objection, and picking every hole before a decision is made,” Schlesinger suggested. “In the Cuban discussions, the case against the operation was never fully stated.”
Most significantly, Schlesinger used the conclusions of this memo to advocate, perhaps for the first time inside the White House, against the U.S. conducting future CIA covert paramilitary operations like the Bay of Pigs. In a final section titled “Special Operations in an Open Society,” he suggested that “efforts to enforce secrecy in such situations (as through official misrepresentation, suppression of news, etc.) will, if successful, run counter to our whole national ethos, and in the long run will have a corrupting effect on the character of our society.”
Even worse for U.S. foreign policy interests, he pointed out, was if the effort to maintain secrecy and deniability over these operations failed — as in the case of Cuba. “If unsuccessful (and one can almost always be sure they will be unsuccessful), such efforts will cause apprehension and trouble at home, draw the world’s attention to the contradictions between our government’s professions and performance, make it hard for us subsequently to invoke treaty obligations or international law against the Communists, and permanently shake faith in our international decency and credibility,” he concluded.
In his now famous memo on “CIA Reorganization” submitted to Kennedy a month later, Schlesinger returned to those arguments. The document illuminated the main functions and missions of the CIA: Clandestine intelligence collection; covert political operations, undercover controlled American sources; and paramilitary warfare. He also issued a forceful critique of the CIA’s rogue autonomy.
“The contemporary CIA possesses many of the characteristics of a state within a state,” Schlesinger ominously advised President Kennedy. “CIA operations have not been held effectively subordinate to United States foreign policy.”
To remedy the lack of control and coordination over the CIA, Schlesinger offered concrete recommendations to carve up the Agency’s functions and distribute them to other departments, particularly the State Department. Under a newly restructured intelligence agency, “the State Department would be granted all clearance authority over all clandestine activity,” similar to the British model. The CIA’s operational branches would be “reconstituted” under a new agency.
“This new agency would be charged with responsibility for clandestine collection, for covert political operations and for paramilitary activities.” Schlesinger also recommended a second “semi-independent agency” that would focus on the collation and interpretation of intelligence. That agency would combine the CIA’s analytical division with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
With a degree of irony, Schlesinger suggested that this new agency “might well be located in the CIA building in McLean.”
The PFIAB pursuit
As special assistant to the president, Schlesinger had Kennedy’s ear. But he was not a lone ranger in his focus on CIA reorganization; at Kennedy’s behest, the president’s prestigious and highly secretive advisory board on intelligence also conducted an inquiry into the option of an Agency makeover. On May 15, 1961, just one month after the Bay of Pigs invasion, JFK personally attended a PFIAB meeting, clearly irate about the lack of supervision over the CIA.
According to minutes of the meeting released as part of the assassination records, the president “referred to a recommendation that covert action programs of the CIA may not have been worth the risk nor worth the great expenditures of manpower and money; that CIA concentration on such activities had tended to detract substantially from the execution of its primary intelligence-gathering mission; and that there should be a total reassessment of U.S. covert action policies and programs.”
The president made it clear that “someone in the White House should be constantly in touch with and on top of covert operations.”
Under the chairmanship of James R. Killian Jr., the PFIAB held two secret sessions in July 1961 to consider the opinions of U.S. intelligence officials on restructuring the CIA. At a meeting in early July, Roger Hilsman, the director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research told the board that “he favored reorganizing the CIA along the general lines of the British Intelligence System.”
Hilsman recommended placing clandestine collection and covert political action operations “under the Department of State,” according to a PFIAB summary of the meeting. “[A]nd he would require that the State Department exercise policy control over all aspects of intelligence including political, psychological, propaganda, paramilitary and related covert activities.”
On July 18, the Board met with CIA Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Bissell, the official most responsible for the failed Bay of Pigs operations. “Mr. Bissell of CIA was invited to discuss with Board members his views on possible reorganization steps that might be taken…,” according to a declassified summary of the meeting.
But Bissell appeared to focus instead on the need for the president to publicly defend the CIA. “At one point during the discussion Mr. Bissell volunteered the suggestion that perhaps a step might be taken by the President to obtain a better public understanding and acceptance of the CIA’s responsibilities.”
The Taylor Commission
The special commission of inquiry, appointed by President Kennedy on April 22, 1961, as Castro’s forces captured the last of the CIA-sponsored 2506 Brigade invaders, also briefly explored the short-lived deliberations on revamping the CIA’s institutional functions.
Indeed, the Commission, chaired by Kennedy’s close friend General Maxwell Taylor, met immediately with CIA Director Dulles who immediately urged them to leave the Agency intact. “[R]ather than destroying everything and starting all over,” Dulles told the commissioners, “we ought to take what’s good in what we have, get rid of those things that are really beyond the competence of the CIA, then pull the thing together and make it more effective.”
Dulles joined the Taylor Commission, which held closed hearings on what went wrong at the Bay of Pigs between April and June, 1961.
As Tim Weiner recounts in his award-winning history on the CIA, "Legacy of Ashes,” one of the last witnesses to appear before Taylor Commission was veteran intelligence official, retired General Walter Bedell Smith. This exchange took place:
General Smith: I think that so much publicity has been given to CIA that the covert work might have to be put under another roof.
Commission: Do you think we should take the covert operations from CIA?
General Smith: It’s time we take the bucket of slop and put another cover over it.
On June 13, 1961, the Taylor Commission presented Kennedy with its report that included 11 pages of recommendations for improving CIA operations, paramilitary preparations, communications, and coordination. But “CIA reorganization” was not one of them.
Indeed, in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, the president did little more than tinker with the CIA as an institution. Kennedy soon ushered Allen Dulles into retirement; and by the end of 1961, also fired Richard Bissell.
In one of the more bizarre twists of bureaucracy, JFK assigned his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to the powerful position of chairman of the “Special Group Augmented” — the top secret inter-agency unit in charge of covert operations around the world. With RFK’s oversight, the CIA and the Pentagon soon launched another set of legendary covert operations against Cuba, codenamed “Operation Mongoose."
In the end, Kennedy ignored Arthur Schlesinger’s prescient admonition that “secret activities are permissible so long as they do not corrupt the principles and practices of our society, and that they cease to be permissible when their effect is to corrupt these principles and practices.”
If the president had heeded such warnings when he had the opportunity and inclination, the CIA’s legacy might not be replete with the corrupting scandals of Mongoose, assassination plots, the overthrow of democracy in Chile, support for repressive military dictatorships, the contra war, and the Iran-Contra scandal, among other infamous case studies in the dark history of covert operations.
Our history, and the history of so many other nations, might have been different.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.