Ukraine, Technology and the Politics of War

Ackerman argues that the United States’ central challenge is not a single missing technology but an acquisition system too slow to keep pace with wartime innovation. He contrasts long procurement cycles with the adaptation Ukraine has been forced to make.

The conversation turns to war’s political foundations: military capability must serve an attainable political objective. Ackerman draws on Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and Ukraine to explain why resources alone do not determine an outcome.

Reflecting on a recent visit to Kyiv, Ackerman explains why he interprets attacks on civilians as signs of strain and desperation in Putin’s regime. This is his assessment of Russia’s strategy, not a prediction that the war is about to end.

Questions about Starlink lead to a broader discussion of privately controlled defense technology, artificial intelligence and the power of the state. Ackerman considers what happens when governments depend on capabilities controlled by individual companies.

Ackerman examines the gap between sophisticated technology and industrial capacity. His account of visiting a HIMARS production facility illustrates why increasing defense output is not as simple as turning a dial.

Drawing on his reporting in Ukraine, Ackerman describes the value of Ukrainian battlefield experience and locally developed systems, while cautioning that the next conflict will not necessarily resemble this one.

Ackerman compares the isolation some American veterans experience with a society in which war has affected nearly everyone. He expresses hope about Ukrainian veterans’ sense of belonging without minimizing the country’s losses and trauma.

The final portion explores why Ackerman joined the Marines, the recurring tension between American engagement and withdrawal, and how domestic political cycles shape policy. The conversation closes on Ukraine’s agency and self-reliance.