In the six months since Russia invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainian military has conducted a stout and stirring defense, inflicting heavy casualties on Russian units and contesting every foot of ground. Against long odds, Ukraine managed to defend the capital, Kyiv, as well as its second largest city, Kharkiv. This has forced Russia to abandon its goal of a quick takeover of the country.

However, staving off defeat is not the same thing as victory. Russian forces today control about 20% of Ukrainian territory, including large tracts in the east and south. What does Ukraine need in order to win the war?

A first step must be to address the disparity in airpower. Success in modern, high-intensity warfare is almost impossible without at least parity in the air. Ukraine began the contest woefully behind the curve with perhaps 100 flyable jets compared to Russia’s more than 1,500. Where Russia has been able to conduct 100-200 sorties per day, the much smaller Ukrainian air force can manage around 10-20.

Accordingly, Ukraine has been generally unable to provide air support to its ground forces for fear of losing its small inventory of high-performance aircraft (mostly MIG-29 and SU-27 fighters and Su-24 and SU-25 ground attack aircraft). Instead, its approach has been to carefully husband its assets and use them only selectively.

On the other hand, Ukraine has been outstandingly successful in denying Russia air supremacy with extremely effective air defense and a strategy of “air denial.”

Though lacking the most advanced air defense systems such as the US Patriot or the Russian S-400, Ukraine’s use of older S-300 (high altitude), SA-11 (medium altitude) and SA-8 (short range) systems has been lethal to Russian airpower. The US has also provided small numbers of its NASAM short to medium-range air defense system, while Germany has promised to send decommissioned Gepard air defense vehicles, though ammunition shortages have delayed actual use.

Employed in concert with large numbers of US-supplied Stinger shoulder-fired missiles and using “shoot and scoot” tactics for survivability, Ukrainian air defense has downed dozens of Russian fixed and rotary-wing aircraft and largely sidelined Russian airpower. An adequate supply of air defense missiles for Ukrainian systems is essential here, and they must come from outside sources in quantity for Ukraine to prevail.

Ukraine has also used drones with devastating effect. The principal military platforms have been the Turkish Bayraktar TB2, which can deliver laser-guided bombs, and the US-supplied Phoenix Ghost drone as well as the Switchblade, a kamikaze drone with onboard explosives that can be flown into the target.

These military drones are supplemented with thousands of cheaper commercial drones used for artillery spotting and intelligence collection. Russian forces have adapted and the loss rate of Ukrainian drones is high, but low cost and ready availability mean that drones will continue to play an important role. When linked to nearby artillery units, drones enable quick target acquisition and precise fires, making the most of Ukraine’s limited artillery resources.

Ukrainian innovation and tactical agility have blunted much of Russia’s dominance in the air, but the ability to generate offensive airpower in the form of close air support and air interdiction will go far towards helping Ukraine prevail. Earlier in the war, Poland and other former Warsaw Pact nations suggested a transfer of Soviet-era jets to Ukraine, an offer blocked by US officials. If NATO is determined not to provide air cover, it is imperative that this block be removed and that partners be permitted to support the Ukrainian air force with platforms it can employ quickly to support air operations.

Backfilling these transfers with US fourth generation aircraft like the F-16 would also hasten the transition in Central Europe’s NATO member states from Soviet-era jets to more interoperable Western aircraft. Even 50 additional jets, with associated munitions and spare parts, could make a major difference in Ukraine. Without a boost in air support, a Ukrainian victory may still be possible if the strategy of air denial holds up, but it will come at higher costs to ground forces.

Subscribe to UkraineAlert

Just as important as air support is artillery, which comes in three forms: tubed, rocket, and missile. Ukraine began the war with substantial but outdated tubed artillery from the Soviet era, complicated by a dearth of ammunition. With some 2000 artillery pieces to Ukraine’s 500, Russian artillery is far more numerous, modern, and powerful, with a daily consumption of artillery rounds some 10 times greater than Ukraine’s.

As with air defense, Ukraine has used its limited artillery intelligently, quickly relocating after fire missions to avoid counter-battery fire and relying on drones for precision targeting. The addition of towed 155mm howitzers from the US and smaller numbers of 155mm self-propelled  systems from Germany, France and other countries has strengthened Ukraine’s tubed artillery holdings considerably, but Russia’s advantage is still strong. 

Here the US can help with M109A6 155mm self-propelled howitzers, recently replaced by the newer M109A7 model and now in storage in quantity. The M109A6 is an armored, tracked vehicle, more survivable against counter-battery fire, quicker to displace, and with smaller crews. It is accurate, lethal, and rugged, making it well-suited to Ukraine’s terrain and operational environment. Approximately 320 of these systems would give Ukraine four additional artillery brigades (one for each of its four regional headquarters), plus an additional battalion in general support for each of Ukraine’s 12 or so division equivalents, leaving some 10% for training and spares.

The real artillery game changer is the multiple launch rocket system in wheeled (M142 HIMARS) and tracked (M270 MLRS) variants. Both are long ranged, precise, mobile, and very destructive. Small numbers have been provided to date and have rendered excellent service. While Ukraine does field older rocket artillery systems like the BM-21 Grad and BM-30 Smerch, HIMARS and MLRS are far superior in range and precision.

As a matter of policy, the Biden administration has withheld longer ranged ATACMS ammunition that can strike targets up to 300 miles away. To level the playing field and transition to the offense with some hope of success, Ukraine probably needs some 50 or so HIMARS or MLRS systems, and it needs the ATACMS round. These capabilities will enable Ukrainian forces to strike high value targets like command posts, airfields, logistics hubs, air defense complexes, and ballistic missile launchers. Given the mismatch in airpower, long range rocket artillery has the potential to turn the tide and put Ukraine on a path towards ultimate success. Without it, victory will remain elusive.

Stronger airpower and more modern rocket artillery will greatly improve the odds, but Ukraine’s tank forces must also be strengthened. When the war began, Ukraine’s standard tank was the T-64B, an older and underpowered Soviet-era design lacking the most modern explosive reactive armor, thermal sights, and modern ammunition. While Ukraine has inflicted heavy losses on Russian armor (often using hand-held anti-tank weapons), its own tank force has been depleted and offensive breakthroughs with tank-heavy forces have not been possible.

Poland has committed to providing 240 PT-91 main battle tanks along with small numbers of Czech T-72s. To equip the Ukrainian army for offensive operations in 2023, the US should consider providing a similar number of M1A1 tanks from its large reserve stocks. Though not the very latest model, the M1A1 is more than a match for most Russian tanks and is available in large numbers.

To assist Ukraine, NATO should consider establishing a NATO Training Mission-Ukraine (NTM-U) based in Poland and developed on a scale similar to the robust training support organizations seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Led by a US three-star general with senior-level representation and staffing from the UK, France, Poland and Germany, NTM-U could provide the expertise, technical assistance, and “connective tissue” that is badly needed as Ukraine fights for its national existence. This organization can serve as the conduit back to the training bases and defense industries of contributing nations as well as the schoolhouse for Ukrainian commanders and staff officers.

Such full-blooded support, even without direct participation in the fighting, will undoubtedly draw Putin’s ire. Why should the US and its European partners risk a confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia in this way? The clear answer is that a negotiated peace in Ukraine would be nothing of the sort. Any settlement that leaves Russia in control of occupied territory in exchange for a cessation of hostilities will reward Russia and encourage more aggression.

Western leaders can be sure that Russian success in Ukraine, even at high cost, will put NATO allies like the Baltic states squarely in Putin’s crosshairs. If anything, US and European reluctance to increase support for Ukraine will only reassure Putin that the West fears confrontation and will take pains to avoid it. This is not a recipe for deterring future aggression.

Nor should the West fear Russian rhetoric about the use of nuclear weapons.  Distilled to its essence, this amounts to the threat of a nuclear exchange if Russia is not allowed to invade and occupy its neighbors. The nuclear deterrence regime that has been in place since the 1950s is surely strong enough to deter such wild adventurism.

Constant statements from Western leaders claiming “we cannot risk WWIII” only encourage Putin to believe that reckless threats about nuclear weapons are working. While a nuclear event cannot be ruled out entirely (Russia might stage a low-yield tactical nuclear detonation in a remote area, for example, to frighten and intimidate the West), the use of nuclear weapons in combat when the existence of the Russian state is not at risk is extremely unlikely. 

The outcome of the conflict in Ukraine will have consequences far beyond Europe. China is watching carefully and will weigh the West’s commitment to its friends and partners carefully as it considers the military conquest of Taiwan, especially after the US and NATO’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. So will Iran and North Korea.

For the most part, Russian aggression in Georgia, Crimea, the Donbas, and more broadly in Ukraine has not been met with confidence and firm resolve. Instead, the Western response has consisted of sanctions, rhetoric, and a pronounced unwillingness to risk confrontation. We should not fool ourselves here. Much is at stake.

As the war grinds on, Ukraine has advantages it can leverage. These include an educated and highly motivated military and citizenry, a well-run and efficient railway system, a good understanding of modern technology, and an adaptive and innovative approach to the problems of modern, high-intensity warfare.

An intimate knowledge of the terrain and interior lines has enabled tactical success throughout the campaign. Ukrainian leadership, both civil and military, has on the whole been markedly superior to Russia’s. Above all, the Ukrainian soldier has proven to be tough, resourceful and determined, a fighter who “knows what he fights for and loves what he knows.”

Nevertheless, Ukraine is outmatched and must have stronger outside help to avoid dismemberment and continued occupation. The US and Europe do not need to introduce ground troops in order to ensure Ukraine’s success. Magnificent Ukrainian resistance has badly hurt the Russian military, which is almost totally committed in Ukraine. An opportunity now exists to end further Russian aggression in the European security space for a generation, and perhaps forever.

Ukraine can win the war but victory depends on Western support that goes well beyond the current level. We cannot ignore that Ukraine, too, has suffered painful losses in troops and materiel. Ukraine has been consistent and clear about its needs. Peace in Europe, and perhaps the world, depends on meeting them.

Richard D. Hooker Jr. is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council. He previously served as Dean of the NATO Defense College and as Special Assistant to the US President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia with the National Security Council.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Image: A Ukrainian soldier stands next to a destroyed Russian tank in Malaya Rohan village amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, May 5, 2022. (REUTERS/Ricardo Moraes)

The second forum of the Free Nations of Russia ended in Prague. There, representatives of national minorities of Russia adopted a declaration on the decolonization of Russia.

The conference was attended by representatives of the Russian opposition, participants of regional and national movements, public activists, and experts, including former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin.

As noted in the announcements of the conference, if “the famous leaders of the Russian opposition want to replace the bad Kremlin king with a good one,” then the Forum of Free Nations is devoted to radically restructuring Russia, which should be “decolonized, deimperialized, and deputinized,” Novynarnia reported.

According to the forum participants, Russian President Vladimir Putin built a dictatorial system with a prosperous metropolis, which pumps out resources from the subordinated “colonies” and uses them to satisfy imperial ambitions.

Forum of Free Nations. Photo: Screenshot from video by RFE/RL

“This aggressive policy has already led to the greatest war in Europe over the last 80 years,” Ceskenoviny.cz quotes the organizers of the event.

According to the Forum, all peoples of the Russian Federation have the right to political, economic, and cultural self-determination.

Participants adopted a declaration. It calls, inter alia, upon representatives of ethnic groups who are fighting in the ranks of the Russian army “in an unjust war against Ukraine” to return home or surrender to Ukrainian troops.

The authors of the document refer to the UN basic documents: the right of peoples to self-determination, a declaration of independence to colonial countries and peoples, a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, and declarations of sovereignty, approved by parliaments of national republics in the early 1990s.

“The Prague Declaration defines the Russian Federation as a terrorist state, whose colonial practices for centuries, such as forced eviction and genocide, have made indigenous peoples victim of historical injustice.

Our peoples were involved in war crimes. Through the policy of the imperialist center, sanctions are imposed against us, we are threatened with civilization isolation, and even complete disappearance,” the declaration reads.

Representatives of ethnic groups and nations that operate in Russia stressed that Moscow’s actions led to the Russian Federation being on the verge of chaos and civil war.

” Only complete, controlled decolonization of Russia can prevent this,” they stated.

It is also noted that the process of complete and full decolonization of Russia should be based on international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the right of nations to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter.

The first forum of the free peoples of Russia took place in May in Warsaw.

“The forum is held every time in another European city, which has a prehistory of freedom and a fight against dictatorship,” the organizers said.

The next conference is likely to take place in Klaipeda in Lithuania.

Related:

Tags: decolonization, nations of Russia, Russian imperialism

NEW YORK (AP) — In the bloody years when killings peaked in New York City, Detective Louis Scarcella built a reputation for closing cases.

A second-generation cop who smoked cigars, ran marathons, worked a side job at a Coney Island amusement park and jokingly put “adventurer” on his business card, the now-retired sleuth has been frank about lying to suspects, even praying with them, to elicit information. In the 1980s and ’90s, he got confession after confession. Prosecutors got conviction after conviction.

But in the past nine years, nearly 20 murder and other convictions have been tossed out after defendants accused Scarcella of coercing or inducing false confessions and bogus witness identifications, which he denies. The same prosecutor’s office that won those convictions ended up repudiating most of them.

Yet the Brooklyn district attorney has stood by many other cases the detective worked on. For the first time, prosecutors are now retrying one of those long-ago cases.

“This defendant is still guilty,” prosecutor Chow Yun Xie said at the retrial of Eliseo DeLeon, who says he is innocent. DeLeon’s murder conviction was overturned in 2019 after he spent 24 years behind bars.

With a verdict due Aug. 31, the retrial illustrates the tricky line the Brooklyn district attorney’s office has been walking through a decade of doubts about the work of a onetime star detective.

Scarcella worked homicides as they soared to over 2,200 a year citywide in 1990. There were under 500 last year.

After retiring in 1999, he told the “Dr. Phil” show that he’d done “whatever I have to do within the law” to get confessions or cooperation.

“The bad guys don’t play by the rules when they kill Ma and Pop,” he said. “I don’t play by the rules, but I play within the moral rules and the rules of the arrest in Brooklyn.”

Years later, the DA’s office became known for its Conviction Review Unit, which has scrutinized hundreds of cases and agreed to exonerate over 30 people after individual investigations. (Additionally, 90 drug convictions were dropped en masse because of police corruption allegations unrelated to Scarcella.)

So far, 17 people in cases involving Scarcella have effectively been cleared when prosecutors disavowed convictions or declined retrials after judges overturned guilty verdicts.

In two other cases — including DeLeon’s — convictions have been overturned, but prosecutors are fighting to restore them. Prosecutors have also concluded that convictions should stand in dozens of other Scarcella-related cases, though some defendants are trying to persuade courts otherwise.

“In every case involving this former detective, CRU exhaustively reviewed all evidence, and the decision as to whether to vacate or uphold the conviction is based on the facts of the individual case, mindful of past findings regarding Scarcella’s conduct,” DA Eric Gonzalez’s office said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Prosecutors say Scarcella and his partner played only a minor role in DeLeon’s case. And prosecutors emphasize that two eyewitnesses — the victim’s wife and a stranger — returned to court 27 years later to identify DeLeon anew as the killer of victim Fausto Cordero.

“We were compelled to present that evidence” again, the DA’s office said.

A would-be robber shot Cordero as he headed home from a 1995 religious confirmation party with his wife and other relatives, including the couple’s 7-year-old son. A tip led police to DeLeon, then 18. Detective Stephen Chmil was assigned to the case, and his partner, Scarcella, got involved.

Just how involved is a key issue in the retrial.

Case paperwork shows that Scarcella accompanied Chmil and co-lead Detective Anthony Baker to arrest DeLeon. As they took DeLeon to a police station, he said he was out of town when the shooting happened.

At the stationhouse, Scarcella was on hand as DeLeon was read his rights, paperwork shows. But there’s dispute over whether the detective participated in an interrogation that, police and prosecutors say, produced a confession documented in a few brief sentences. DeLeon says detectives made it up.

When Baker and some prosecutors later turned on a video camera, DeLeon asked for a lawyer to “make sure that my situation is right.”

“I’m not going to just go and be a fool, put myself on tape and say I did something I didn’t do. I’m not stupid,” he said in the video, which jurors at his initial trial weren’t allowed to see.

Scarcella testified last month that he didn’t remember the case but believes he wasn’t at the interrogation, though Baker said Scarcella was there but said nothing, and Chmil said his partner wasn’t the type to stay mum.

DeLeon’s lawyers don’t buy that Scarcella was a bit player.

“Everything in this case has been tainted” by Scarcella and Chmil, defense attorney Cary London said in a summation last month. He argued that the confession was fabricated and that the witness identifications were inaccurate and questionably obtained.

Xie said that the case “withstood the test of time” and that the focus on Scarcella and Chmil was misplaced.

The verdict is up to Judge Dena Douglas, who is hearing the case without a jury.

Scarcella and Chmil, also retired, have now spent years defending their investigations as court hearings and news stories picked apart their cases. Their lawyers say that the investigators used techniques that are legal and endure today and that prosecutors signed off on every homicide arrest and vetted all the evidence.

“The detectives worked diligently to apprehend the correct perpetrator and stand by their work,” attorneys Alan Abramson and Joel Cohen said in a statement to AP.

At DeLeon’s retrial, Scarcella made clear he isn’t second-guessing himself.

“You prided yourself on being a good homicide detective in the ’80s and ’90s?” London asked.

“I still do,” Scarcella said.

Military Expert Stavros Atlamazoglou Explains the Latest Happenings in the War in Ukraine. His Analysis is Simple – Russia is in Deep Trouble: Despite almost months of what seems like a neverending war, the Russian campaign in Ukraine has largely stalled. On day 178 day of the Russian invasion, the Russian forces are trying to deal with the imminent Ukrainian counteroffensive.

A man jumps from a Russian T-72 tank destroyed during Russia’s invasion, in the village of Yahidne, Ukraine April 20, 2022. REUTERS/Vladyslav Musiienko

The Russian Campaign in Ukraine 

The Russian campaign in Ukraine is advancing at a snail pace. For months, the Kremlin had dedicated most of its combat power to the Donbas in an attempt to break the Ukrainian defenses and capture the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces that make up the Donbas.

“The last week has seen only minimal changes in territorial control along the front line. In the Donbas, after small advances from early August, Russian forces have approached the outskirts of the town of Bakhmut, but have not yet broken into the built-up area,” the British Military Intelligence assessed in its daily estimate of the war.

However, the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the south in the direction of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia threw off the Russian plans and forced the Russian commanders to relocate forces and weapon systems to the south, something that has hamstrung the campaign in the Donbas.

The Ukrainian forces, meanwhile, continue to set the conditions for an advance toward Kherson. Using the long-range precision fires of the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), the Ukrainian forces have been targeting and taking out Russian ammunition dumps, fuel depots, command and control hubs, and lines of communications and supply.

“Russia has not made any major efforts to advance in the Zaporizhzhia or Kharkiv sectors. In the southwest, neither Ukrainian nor Russian forces have made advances on the Kherson front line. However, increasingly frequent explosions behind Russian lines are probably stressing Russian logistics and air basing in the south,” the British Ministry of Defense stated.

“It is unlikely that the situation will significantly change in the next week. Russian forces are, for now, probably only prepared to undertake limited local assaults, rarely involving more than a company of troops. However, over the coming months the initiative will go to whichever side manages to generate a credible, committed force for offensive operations,” the British Ministry of Defense assessed.

The Russian Casualties

Russian tank firing main gun. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense claimed that as of Saturday, Ukrainian forces have killed approximately 44,900 Russian troops (and wounded approximately thrice that number), destroyed 234 fighter, attack, and transport jets, 197 attack and transport helicopters, 1,907 tanks, 1,018 artillery pieces, 4,212 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, 266 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), 15 boats and cutters, 3,137 vehicles and fuel tanks, 141 anti-aircraft batteries, 803 tactical unmanned aerial systems, 97 special equipment platforms, such as bridging vehicles, and four mobile Iskander ballistic missile systems, and 190 cruise missiles shot down by the Ukrainian air defenses.

1945’s New Defense and National Security Columnist, Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations, a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ), and a Johns Hopkins University graduate. His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Former President Trump is pushing for the full, unredacted release of the affidavit that led to the search warrant for his Mar-a-Lago estate, a move that carries risks for both Trump and the Justice Department.

“Pres. Trump has made his view clear that the American people should be permitted to see the unredacted affidavit related to the raid and break-in of his home,” Taylor Budowich, a spokesperson for the former president, said Thursday after Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said he may be willing to unseal portions of the document.

Reinhart ordered Justice Department officials to suggest redactions to the document by next Thursday.

“Today, magistrate Judge Reinhard rejected the DOJ’s [Justice Department’s] cynical attempt to hide the whole affidavit from Americans,” Budowich continued. “However, no redactions should be necessary and the whole affidavit should be released, given the Democrats’ penchant for using redactions to hide government corruption, just like they did with the Russia hoax.”

Trump and his supporters have for years believed the FBI and Justice Department are biased against the former president, arguing that the bureau improperly surveilled his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump separately posted on Truth Social, his social media platform, calling for the “immediate release” of the unredacted affidavit, citing the need for transparency. He also called for Reinhart to recuse himself from the case without giving a clear reason.

The rhetoric from Trump and his camp follows a similar playbook, experts say, in which the former president demands the release of potentially sensitive information.

If the government and judge decline to release the full, unredacted document, it allows Trump and his allies to claim federal law enforcement is hiding something, further fueling distrust among Trump supporters.

“It certainly is consistent with a project of delegitimizing law enforcement and law enforcement targeting him in particular,” said Dan Richman, a law professor at Columbia University. “Because he knows, as everybody knows, the government will regardless of the case be averse to the disclosure of search warrants as an institutional matter.”

The affidavit, which was used to convince Reinhart that there was enough evidence to support the probable cause needed to obtain a search warrant, contains information about the federal law enforcement investigation into Trump’s handling of material marked classified following his departure from the White House.

The Justice Department has argued that released the affidavit could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, as well as the sources of information in the case. Releasing identifying information about those sources could lead to threats. Reinhart, for example, has been subjected to threats since signing off on the warrant for the Mar-a-Lago search.

Beyond the risks for the Justice Department, there could be some risks for Trump should the full affidavit come out.

“There is a risk if it seems like he was sharing intel with unauthorized parties while out of office,” said one former Trump adviser, who noted that such details could ultimately be redacted by the government.

Experts also pointed out that the affidavit could reveal exchanges between the Justice Department and Trump’s team discussing the need to return sensitive materials, ultimately showing the government had made multiple good faith efforts to secure the documents in question before resorting to a search warrant.

The release of the affidavit could also carry political risks for Trump if it bolsters the case that Trump mishandled classified information.

Polling has already showed a significant percentage of voters believe Trump may have broken the law as president. 

A Politico-Morning Consult poll released days after the Mar-a-Lago search found roughly half of registered voters approved of the raid, though only 15 percent of Republicans approved. And 58 percent of voters said they believe Trump definitely or probably broke the law as president.

Trump mulling motion to appoint ‘special master’ to review evidence from Mar-a-Lago search: attorney Five things we learned this week about the FBI search of Trump’s home

While calls to release the affidavit are likely to galvanize his hardcore supporters, it could ultimately create further concerns for the broader public. Trump will have to win over a broader base to win the White House if he runs for president in 2024.

Richman, the Columbia law professor, said he would not expect it to be the end of the matter if the judge opts to release the affidavit with limited or no redactions, saying the government would likely appeal such a decision.

“I would expect that central to the appeal would be the broader institutional question of whether this ought to be done,” Richman said. “It could set a really poor precedent for high profile searches in the future.”

Reading Time: 9 minutes

CN: Sexual assault, homicide

I had a passion for serial killers in college. The topic, not the people. Armed with an investigative mind and a passion for the intersection of psychology and crime, I was seriously pondering a career in forensic psychology as a way to marry my knowledge of violent criminals with my desire to see justice fulfilled.

I read countless books about psychopathy, personality disorders, and violent criminals, written by former FBI profilers, psychiatrists, criminologists, and retired homicide detectives. I developed an unpopular tendency to bring up serial killers out of the blue at social gatherings. 

It was while reading the umpteenth such book that I finally made the connection. 

John E. Robinson, known as the “first internet serial killer,” was the book’s focus. A pattern surfaced in the pages listing all of the crimes Robinson committed before he’d begun his murder hobby: Every time he found himself arrested, a judge would simply slap him on the wrist. Every time. His crimes were so numerous and egregious that I found myself softly gasping when I read about each crime and the judge’s decisions to essentially put him in the Naughty Corner for five minutes. 

In 1969, Robinson embezzled $33,000 (around $260k today) from a doctor. When he was arrested, the judge sentenced Robinson to three years’ probation. He violated his probation by moving out of state in 1970 without permission, but he wasn’t arrested until he was caught embezzling again in 1971 while working as an insurance salesman. For these offenses, the judge thought it appropriate to simply extend his probation. 

In 1975, Robinson was arrested again for securities and mail fraud and the judge decided to, wait for it… extend his probation. 

In 1982, Robinson was sentenced to jail for embezzling again, but served only 60 days. When he got out, he started a phony medical company and conned a friend out of $25,000 (around $75k today). He hired a 19-year-old to be his sales representative for this company, and she became his first known murder victim, vanishing after she had told her family that her boss was sending her somewhere “for training.” When her family went to the police showing them a letter they received from her that was typed except for her signature, the authorities apparently thought there was nothing odd. They didn’t look into her disappearance. Police would later learn Robinson made his victims sign the bottom of an empty piece of paper so he could later type a letter and send it to the victim’s family for the purpose of staving off suspicions of his victim’s whereabouts and buying himself time. Robinson moved on to using this new thing called “the internet” to find his victims, luring young women from kink chat rooms into being his sex slaves and murdering them. 

Jeffrey Dahmer had left a 14-year-old Laotian boy in his apartment so he could go buy alcohol. He had injected hydrochloric acid into the victim’s brain, in what was probably an attempt to turn him into a zombified sex slave, so he felt secure that the boy wouldn’t escape. But he did escape, and when Dahmer returned he found the boy on the street with two women who had called the police because his victim was naked, drugged, bleeding, and wearing handcuffs. None of that mattered to the cops after Dahmer explained that he and the boy were lovers who’d simply had an argument. 

The officers led the dazed teen back to Dahmer’s apartment, where he was swiftly killed after they left. Had they searched his apartment properly before leaving, the police would’ve discovered the body of a previous victim still lying on Dahmer’s bedroom floor.

Robert Hansen, “Alaska’s Butcher Baker,” would pick up sex workers, drive or fly them (in his own small plane) to his isolated cabin, sexually assault them and then let them go so he could hunt them down in the woods with his hunting rifle as they fled. He was committing these depraved acts while pretending to be a normal guy who bakes cakes for his community. But he had received his share of wrist-slapping for previous crimes, too. He’d been arrested in 1960 for arson and only served 20 months of his three-year sentence. He was accused of rape in 1971, but nothing came of it. He was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon during the period he was secretly serial killing but served very little time.

Ted Bundy had already severely beaten two young women who both survived, one of them with permanent brain damage, and killed several other women when he attempted to abduct Carol DeRonch. She got away and told the cops her abductor drove a tan Volkswagen Beetle and tried to put handcuffs on her. The key to those handcuffs was later discovered in the school parking lot of a missing student. When the Highway Patrol stopped a tan VW Beetle that was reported for sitting outside someone’s house and watching them, the cop found a ski mask, crowbar, handcuffs, and an ice pick in the car. Bundy was identified as the vehicle owner and arrested, but only charged with “evading police” and soon released. He promptly moved to Florida where he continued to murder young women. 

Robinson, Dahmer, Hansen, and Bundy all shared a lucky characteristic, something that allowed them to glide along below the radar, to blend in, and to enjoy every benefit of doubt. They were all white men. 

Robinson, Dahmer, Hansen, and Bundy all shared a lucky characteristic, something that allowed them to glide along below the radar, to blend in, and to enjoy every benefit of doubt. They were all white. 

White privilege is “inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice.” It’s a succinct definition, but it only scratches the surface, as there are myriad ways in which being light-skinned in a culture mostly populated and controlled by other light-skinned people can be advantageous. Most dangerously, white people often give other white people the benefit of the doubt. When a white person is behaving suspiciously or even appearing very guilty of criminal activity, other white people often default to judging that person as innocent until proven guilty. “There must be some other explanation”, they say. “John is a church-going family man so he couldn’t be a serial rapist”, they say. “That home alarm is blaring and a white man is climbing through the window, but he must’ve set it off by mistake and accidentally locked himself out of his own house”, they say. Brown and Black people, by contrast, are judged guilty until proven innocent. They can’t even walk home from the store, go jogging, or be at home playing video games without being assumed guilty of something and murdered.

Larry Gene Bell was on his way to serial killer status in South Carolina when the FBI helped catch him before he could abduct and murder a third victim (although many in law enforcement suspect he’d murdered others). Here’s what John Douglas, former Special Agent criminal profiler for the FBI, said about Bell in his 1995 book Mindhunter: 

His background quickly emerged. As we’d predicted, he had been involved in various sexual incidents since childhood, which had finally gotten out of hand when he was twenty-six and tried to force a nineteen-year-old married woman into his car at knifepoint. To avoid going to prison, he had agreed to psychiatric counseling, but quit after two sessions. Five months later, he tried to force a college girl into his car at gunpoint. He received a five-year prison term and was paroled after twenty-one months. While on probation, he made more than eighty obscene phone calls to a ten-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty and only got more probation.

Most serial killers are white because whiteness provides the necessary minimum conditions of leniency and benefit of doubt that smooth the path toward serial murder. Black and brown offenders are rarely given the benefit of the doubt and often given full sentences for even minor, nonviolent crimes. White male criminals become emboldened with every merciful judgment in a courtroom, each lax punishment affirming the psychopath’s narcissistic belief that they’re smarter than everyone else. They serve light sentences, if they serve at all, then enjoy the freedom to hone their skills and criminal savvy in order to outwit the detectives better next time. 

A white man in college accused of being a peeping Tom and stealing women’s underwear from their dorm rooms is more likely to come from a well-off family who can rally (white) friends and family to vouch for their son’s character, helping to create an image of someone who contributes to his community and has a positive future laid out for him, all of which the judge will take into consideration when sentencing him. It would be terrible judgment if the judge handed him the minimum and he only served half of that sentence because voyeurs guilty of breaking and entering have a high recidivism rate and are extremely likely to add violence to their repertoire.

Ed Kemper fatally shot his grandparents when he was 15 years old just because he wanted to know what it would feel like, but was released from a California psychiatric facility when he turned 21. He went on to rape and murder (or murder and rape) several hitchhikers and his mother. Some would consider his release understandable given his first act of violence occurring while he was still a minor, but it’s important to note that Black juvenile offenders are twice as likely to receive a sentence of life without parole as white teens guilty of the same crime. It’s also worth mentioning that psychopaths commonly explain their motivation for violent crimes as nothing more than a curiosity, and there’s currently no effective treatment for psychopathy. 

Wayne Williams, the Black perpetrator of the Atlanta Child Murders, had no arrests before he began killing. Neither did Harrison Graham, a Black serial killer from Pennsylvania. 

There are exceptions to everything, as Samuel Little proves to be.

Considered the United States’ most prolific serial killer, Samuel Little claimed to have killed 93 women over a span of 35 years. The FBI have confirmed 60 victims so far. His career of crime began when he was still a teenager.

In 1956, Little spent time in juvenile hall for breaking and entering. By the mid-70s, he’d been arrested over 26 times in several states for various crimes, both violent and nonviolent, chief among them attempted rape, fraud, and theft. In 1982 he’s arrested for murder but a grand jury refuses to indict him, then in 1984 he’s charged with murder again but acquitted. He moves to California where he abducts and strangles two women who survive their attacks. For these vicious crimes, he serves only 2 1/2 years in prison. 

In Samuel Little’s case, it appears racism was directed more at his victims than at him. Since most of his victims were young Black women who were impoverished or struggling with addiction, their deaths were given a cursory glance and ruled as drug overdoses, suicides, or accidental. It’s been noted that white victims of violence receive far more media attention and empathy from the public than Black or Indigenous victims do. Little himself reportedly believed he’d never be caught because “no one was accounting for [his] victims.” 

Serial killers have existed throughout time in most countries. Hundreds of years ago it was probably serial murderers who inspired the monster mythologies of popular culture today. When villagers discovered the brutalized remains of their missing loved ones, werewolves, demons, vampires, and witches were imagined to explain what could’ve inflicted such monstrous evil. One need only look at Jack the Ripper’s horrifying handiwork to see how people would’ve assumed only inhuman creatures could abduct, torture, and kill for no apparent reason. 

Mass shooters, on the other hand, are a relatively recent development.

Data on mass shootings vary significantly, partly due to lacking a professional consensus on the definition of a mass shooting. Some sources define it as any shooting in one location at one time in which four or more people died, so these statistics would include the times a drug dealer kills the guys who stole from him or someone decides to shoot their entire family at home. Other sources narrow it down to the impersonal violence the media tends to focus on, the terrifying and inexplicable examples most people envision when they hear the term “mass shooting”. Yet others remind us of the genocidal mass shootings that were perpetrated against Black and Indigenous people, long before Charles Whitman killed 17 people shooting from the University of Texas tower in 1966.

Mass shooters with a personal grievance, motivated to avenge some real or imagined wrongdoing by people they know, come in all races, colors, and ethnicities. But the very public shootings of strangers gathered for some shared purpose, like grocery shopping, movie watching, dancing in a nightclub, or getting an education, seem to mainly be executed by entitled, aggrieved, angry white males. Again, white privilege plays a role.

Conservative white people have been photographed open-carrying AR-15s and other sorts of enormous firearms while picking up donuts and coffee at the cafe, standing in line at the pharmacy, and perusing the bread aisle looking for hot dog buns on sale. The reasons they do this are varied, but what matters is that they feel safe doing so. They know their whiteness means people will give them the benefit of the doubt, despite knowing the men who shoot up the public schools, movie theaters, concert venues, and sidewalks of pedestrians are white. Their blatant displays serve to normalize seeing armed white people, making it even easier for mass shooters to enter public places without ringing alarm bells. 

Black people too often can’t even shop for a pellet gun, play with a toy gun, or store their legally owned and licensed firearm in their car’s glove compartment without being seen as a dangerous threat and killed. 

So what can we do about all this? Beginning in the early 1990s, several states passed “Three Strikes” laws in an effort to take repeat offenders off the streets for good: after the third conviction, the sentence is automatically 25 years to life, without parole. There have been legitimate criticisms of Three Strikes laws over the years, but some states like California tout their reduction in crime as evidence of their effectiveness. Crime is a complicated issue with a plethora of contributing factors, but fairness and equity in our justice system should not be complicated. Unfortunately, we see this pattern repeated outside of our courtrooms as well, such as the greater likelihood of  Black students being harshly disciplined by school staff for minor infractions than white students.

There are several areas in which our criminal justice system needs a serious overhaul. But it seems a small thing to ask that judges track their own biases to avoid treating repeat or violent white offenders like children in need of a stern lecture.