Russia Needs All Quiet on the Western Front

Can Russia salvage its national defense in the wake of the difficulties it is facing in its invasion of Ukraine? Russia's rulers have stupid and self-destructive ideas. Matching Russian defense means to its needs must start with a decision to stop digging the hole it is excavating in Ukraine, and in the West generally.

Don't buy the idea that Russia invaded Ukraine because it feared American offensive missiles in Ukraine. I think the invasion is more related to Russia running out of time to build a buffer before Russia has to pivot to face China.

Russia is clearly a regional conventional military power with continents-spanning defense needs. Until Russia invaded Ukraine, Russia created a false image of power. How can Russia do what it needs after its military image has been deflated in Ukraine, as NATO is reinvigorated, and as the Chinese threat looms over Russia in both Central Asia and in the Far East?

If Russia hadn't screwed up their assessment of Ukraine's ability and willingness to resist, Russia could have launched a more effective and localized invasion with more achievable goals. I even thought Russia might plan on simply pillaging Ukraine in order to pivot east. I was struggling for a reason for a broad invasion that might make sense in light of Russian conventional military weaknesses.

Instead, Putin prepared for a cake walk on a broad front. And Russia's army is flailing as it tries to recover from that mistake and fight a war that was already committed to the cake walk path. But don't assume Russia is a complete paper tiger:

This war right now—Russia’s poor performance in the early part of the war—has interesting similarities, or at least some parallels, with the winter war of 1939-40, and the Soviet invasion of Finland and the Soviets’ rather poor performance back then. And one of the big concerns I have with additional impressions of the problematic Russian performance is, first, that it’s already clear to me that I’m going to spend the coming years talking about how the Russian military is not four feet tall, either.

That was one reason I started calling this the Winter War of 2022. I brought up the issue of the Soviets initial failures that colored judgment of their military. The Soviets regrouped and pounded Finland with determination but did not overcome the initial impression. Nazi Germany found the Soviet army in 1941 much more resilient than they assumed from watching the 1939-1940 war and thinking the initial failures were all that mattered. 

Russia can recover from this public humiliation and build a military able to fight. Russia might yet defeat Ukraine. It would be a costly win. But still a win. Which will dull but not erase the embarrassment of its military prowess. Or Russia could proclaim it has sufficiently punished Ukraine and withdraw, with a nice victory parade in Moscow. And then Russia could pivot east counting on a devastated Ukraine needing a lot of time to recover. 

Yet as the war has dragged on and Russian forces have killed civilians and wrecked cities, Putin has severely damaged NATO's ability to forgive Russia and enable that pivot. The longer the war drags on, the worse this problem gets. Russia is in a hole it must escape. It must stop digging and end the war.

Regardless of how Russia ends its war with Ukraine, Russia must reconsider its conventional military. Russia needs to emphasize ground forces and the air power to support them. A surface fleet that is more than a powerful coast guard plus the ability to protect SSBN bastions is a complete waste of Russian resources.  And a lot fewer long-range nukes--because Lord knows if many work.

On the bright side for Russia in the east, if China wants to invade Russia the burden will be on China to show it can carry out a large-scale offensive with its untried army and air force. Which is at least what Russia's armed forces were designed to fight:

Gerasimov had designed a modern Russian army under Putin’s leadership based on an active defense concept. This envisaged waging a fighting withdrawal that would bring an enemy deep into Russia to be destroyed, as was done against Napoleon’s and Hitler’s armies.

Let's see if Putin's fantasy world of restoring Russia's empire in the west can be replaced by the real world of defending its empire in the east with a military that matches Russia's needs. If Russia doesn't try to quiet the European front, it might face a two-front war threat from NATO plus Ukraine in the west and China in the east (which could add a third southern front in Central Asia, actually). 

NOTE: War updates continue in this post.

The Myth of Russian Hybrid Warfare Finally Dies

One bright side to Russia's faltering invasion of Ukraine is that the panty-flinging Western fanboys (and girls) of Russia's brilliant "hybrid warfare" finally have to slink off and try something else.

What happened to Russia's "little green men" hybrid warfare? 

The Russian operation was the impetus for many Western defense experts to predict that future competition between Russia and the West would be dominated by so-called hybrid warfare. Hybrid warfare involves using a range of non-traditional means such as information operations, cyberattacks, lawfare, and economic subversion along with the calibrated use of surrogates, special forces, and even conventional military capabilities to achieve strategic objectives while avoiding war with the West.

Well, it was BS hype based on generalizing unique circumstances present in Crimea in February 2014.  

Basically:

Stop acting like hybrid warfare is anything but the warfare of the weak against the incapable or unwilling. ...

We in the West have just made up magical reasons why it is awesome and not the last resort of a weakened regional power with continents-spanning defense needs.

The Crimea model was not something that Putin could simply aim at every target and magically win:

In Crimea, Russia had a major base. Russia could reinforce the base pre-H Hour without a problem.

Ukraine was in chaos with the overthrow of the government and no clear authority in place.

The Ukrainian military was unsure of who to obey even if the government still forming was capable of issuing orders.

Nearly all of the Ukrainian military in Crimea was composed of support troops (a single marine battalion was the only combat unit).

The Ukrainian military was a shambles after years of deliberate near-sabotage by the pro-Russian government that didn't want an effective military.

And Ukraine was not a member of NATO.

That's clear enough, eh? No magic. Mind you, it was a well-executed mission for what it faced. I guess Putin believed the BS as much as so many Western analysts.

I repeated an earlier assessment of mine:

Good Lord people, Russian "hybrid warfare" is just Russian aggression that we pretend isn't happening. Sadly, there's nothing new or novel about that.

But now there could be an counter reaction that goes too far. I've spent years arguing that Russia's military was not nearly as good as Russian propaganda portrayed. But Russia's Ukraine stumbles don't reflect what the Russian army could do with better leadership. Don't go starting a new trendy topic of "little yellow men" who can't fight.

And while the best of Russia's military has been savaged in the war, the performance says nothing about what it could be in even a few years if leadership is motivated enough.

The Germans got stuck in their 1939 analysis of Russian military skill and invaded Russia in 1941, only to be crushed by 1945. The Soviet army that was humiliated by tiny Finland in 1939-1940 eventually destroyed the German army and marched to hammer Berlin into submission in 1945.

NOTE: War updates continue in this post.

What Replaces the "Obsolete" Tank?

Tanks can be killed. They have a history of being killed. But they are no more extinct because of that than humans are since the invention of the pointy, fire-hardened stick. Until there is a replacement for the mobile protected firepower tanks provide, tanks will be what we have.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine shows no such thing:

The success of Ukrainian forces in countering Russian armored vehicle columns with missiles and rockets in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine shows the vulnerability of tanks to missile-armed infantry, the Marine Corps commandant said, and seemed to reinforce his decision to shed tanks from the Corps as part of his Force Design 2030 concept.

Who didn't know tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank weapons? Lack of combined arms--supporting tanks with infantry, artillery, and air power--could explain Russian losses more readily than saying tanks are obsolete, as the Marine Corps Commandant correctly observed:

The Russians also are showing weakness in combined arms – infantry and armor and maneuver warfare. “One without the other is very ineffective.”

That is the key. Tanks have suffered huge losses from the beginning. In World War I it was largely from mechanical breakdowns. By World War II, tanks were lost in huge numbers in combat, too. Are people obsolete because they are vulnerable to bullets and shrapnel? 

I admit that tanks as we build them today may well be obsolete one day:

Will the Army choose another Abrams secure in the knowledge that active protection systems will make the expensive tank survivable? Or will the Army seek a new Sherman tank that is lethal enough but not terribly survivable--but able to be mass produced? 

Would it be too much to ask to build the medium tank, but with options built in to strip the design of much of its armor and gadgets to make it a simpler and lighter tank in case of a long war of attrition against a peer nation requires mass production?

In that post I reviewed the Army looking at replacement for the Abrams that might be lighter, in the same class, or heavier than the Abrams. It may still be unclear what is best. 

My best guess at this point:

I think ground and air drones will operate like clouds around manned tanks. But I'm starting to think that for campaigns against peers that the new tank will need to be a Sherman-like vehicle. Cheap enough to lose in large numbers and simple enough to produce in large numbers. The key for vehicle design will be helping a small crew survive hits that knock out the tanks. And seeing if our automobile plants can handle a conversion to such tanks.

And--back to the first article--this is rich from someone trying to keep opposed amphibious landings in the age of cheap anti-ship missiles going: 

"Tanks did tremendous work for us for many years in many different scenarios," Berger said. "Going forward, they are heavier, too difficult to logistically support, and in some cases too vulnerable to attack from a proliferation of very inexpensive missiles." 

Mobile protected firepower will always be needed. Russia's experience in Ukraine in 2022 is not evidence that tanks don't work. And I suspect the Marines will regret getting rid of all of their tanks. Will the Army be able to attach armor to Marine units that have to fight in a conventional war against a peer enemy?

UPDATE: Does the Army need more than 11 active and 5 National Guard armored brigades? And should they rotate or be permanently stationed? I'd like a robust REPORPOL.

NOTE: War updates continue in this post.

The Winter War of 2022 On the Knife's Edge

Russia has dug itself  into a hole in the west by invading Ukraine, both alienating NATO and getting bogged down fighting. Russia failed to get a quick win. Can Ukraine counterattack to get a quick win that persuades Russia to get out in whole or part? Or will we see a new low-level war of attrition like the Donbas was from 2014 until this year, but on a larger front?

 

The war goes on. Which worries me.

Ukraine has not lost. Russia has not won. Both need to do something to win. 

Russia could regroup and bulldoze Ukraine, paying a high price for a battlefield victory. And I still worry about Russia "bagging" Ukraine's regular army on the Donbas front.

Ukraine could launch a counter-offensive and exploit Russia's demoralized and over-extended army and gain a local battlefield victory.

I've summed these up in map form already:

Either could lead to diplomacy that ends the war. Sadly, Russia will likely hold some new territory even if Ukraine is judged the winner. If some deal can't be made, this war will drag on. The risk of an expanding war by design or accident will then rise. The risk of a big lost by either will rise. I think that Ukraine is most vulnerable to that, but Russia faces the risk, too.

This analysis argues that the war can only end with Ukraine making concessions to Russia. That may well be the most likely way the war ends. Russia is much larger than Ukraine and in theory can endure much more than Ukraine. After all, Ukraine would almost surely have to pay too high a price to eject Russia from everything Russia has conquered from 2014 to now. And fighting to defend a right to join NATO--which NATO is in no rush to grant--isn't likely. But I won't say that Ukrainian concessions is the only way.

If Russia doesn't reset its offensive to deploy its numerical and material advantage on a local front, this war and the casualties will drag on. Saying the Donbas is the main front while troops are stretched across Ukraine is a verbal and not a practical focus. If the troops looming over Kiev aren't withdrawn to better defensive positions, demoting their status to focus troops and supplies on the main front, Russia will risk a defeat at the hands of the Ukrainians defending Kiev. The same is true for other fronts. Even if the Donbas front is won.

Russia has 3.5 times the population as Ukraine. But that does not mean Russia can lose 3.5 times as many people as Ukraine and get a similar response from their people. In Iraq's long war with Iran from 1980-1988, Iran had 3 times the population. Yet Iran is the country whose morale broke despite suffering "only" twice the dead in the war as Iraq. Russians won't like casualties at this rate once they know. Although a bad reaction may be delayed depending on whether ethnic Russian or non-ethnic Russian provincial soldiers are dying.

Maybe it will be the Russian military or financial elites that take action in the face of a war not decisively won. Maybe it will be the people. The analysis admits this but dismisses it: "the Kremlin’s enormous repressive force can be relied on to keep any unrest in check."

I don't assume Russia can keep the unrest in check. Or if it can, how much damage it will do to Putin's power or Russia's global status before it is checked. Remember, Russia is still an empire. We forget because it isn't an overseas empire. Indeed, in college a political science TA was rather upset with me for calling the USSR "the Soviet empire." Russia is shrunken from its past peaks, but it is an empire. An empire that is trying to expand again.

As an empire, it is more vulnerable to problems shaking the state government. Maybe it will be a 1905-style revolt that jolts the leadership to change course in the wake of defeat. Maybe it will be a 1917-style revolt that topples the government and actually loses territory.

Heck, maybe the fragmentation of the Soviet Russian empire in 1989 and 1991 will get a third round as provinces of the empire get tired of the Viking funeral ride that Putin has taken them on. Russians may not like Putin's nuclear threats any more than Westerners do. Will a third round be like 1989 that loses territory but the form of the government continues? Or will it be like 1991 that saw the empire lose more territory and saw the form of government change?

Or Russia could win the war.

Heck, the analysis from the beginning seems to admit the potential for a dramatic defeat contrary to the initial position: "In the opaque world of Russian politics, change could come quickly – or not at all."

So yeah, maybe nothing much changes despite the war and sanctions. Maybe Putin has enough support and power to clamp down and restore a Soviet Union-style controlled country and economy to pursue his war. Maybe a worse replacement takes over from Putin. Hey, if Russia can't get the Soviet national power and territory back, he can at least get the international isolation, political power, and poverty back.

Just to get some land and people from Ukraine.

Winning! 

UPDATE: The Russians respond to Biden's comment that Putin is a "butcher": "'This is a statement that is certainly alarming,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters during his daily press briefing." Okay, Russia doesn't care what Biden says. I retract my "regime change" comment worries. Russia just wants to use the president's words to sow divisions within NATO. 

UPDATE: While Russia is generally stalled, Russian forces have made some significant gains, according to recent maps, in the Donbas region south of Kharkiv and north of the Donbas occupied by Russia before the February 23 (eastern American time zone) invasion. I wonder if the Ukrainians ordered their most exposed troops in the east to conduct a fighting withdrawal?

UPDATE: Ukraine's negotiating position: "'Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it,' [Zelensky] told several independent Moscow journalists, speaking in Russian." He also said "territorial integrity" in a ceasefire is necessary, while conceding Ukraine can't eject Russia from all territory. Also, he wants a referendum to validate any deal. And I assume it would be a well-armed neutrality.

UPDATE: A RUSI analyst "says the Russians have committed most of the forces they've built up and that most of these forces are inside Ukraine; they are not able to redeploy forces around the country." Their "main effort" consists of whatever units get logistics and support.

UPDATE: Amazing: Russia has been unable to create a secure battlefield communications network from lack of modern equipment and Ukrainian actions; while Ukraine has secure communications thanks to Starlink and previous efforts to secure its cell phone network. Plus multiple communications networks provide redundancy. In addition, the Ukrainians already had the new Russian radio.

UPDATE: A Russian victory is now much harder for Putin to achieve. He claims he fears NATO and so had to gain Ukraine as a buffer. The same could be said for the Anschluss in Belarus. 

But even if Russia ends up overwhelming Ukraine by mobilizing superior numbers and firepower, you have to define victory in terms of Ukraine or NATO. Whether or not Ukraine is crushed and fully occupied, NATO has seen Russian military weakness. 

So the alarm at Russia's invasion was not accompanied by fearful passivity. But by resolve to rearm. Even in Germany. 

And it gets worse if the Russian victory is partial. Propaganda might be able to portray a partial win as Great Patriotic War 2.0 for many Russians. But the security and intelligence people will know better. A strongman who shows lack of strength might have problems, eh? 

UPDATE: Fascinating: "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine turned into an embarrassing (for Russian leaders) failure because the Russians were unable to supply their forces while the Ukrainian internal transport system survived Russian attacks." The Fuck-Up Fair has been busy in Russia's war effort.

UPDATE: More: 

The Ukrainian army still has about a dozen combat brigades and over a hundred thousand troops. This is augmented by more than twice as many reservists and armed civilians who are organized into hundreds of smaller units and have inflicted most of the vehicle losses and personnel casualties on the Russians. The Ukrainian army brigades have to be used carefully because Russia has more combat aircraft and long-range missiles and guided rockets that could attack them.

That's about 40 regular army battalions, give or take a half dozen. I think a few of the heavy brigades could be a potent counter-offensive force in the south on the Kherson front, in cooperation with the reservists and partisans. And don't rule out local Russian army mutinies as they suffer from the mistakes of Russia's high command combined with obvious Ukrainian resistance to being "liberated."

UPDATE: This is interesting:

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president who ordered the invasion, has since removed or arrested many of his subordinates who were in charge of planning the invasion and assessing the degree of Ukrainian resistance that could be expected. Putin disregards the fact that he refused to consider advice that more accurately described Ukrainian preparations. These Ukrainian efforts were concealed by the Ukrainian but not invisible.

Much was made of the Ukrainians dismissing the invasion threat while America and Britain especially said an attack was imminent. It was Ukrainian disinformation.

UPDATE: Video of Ukrainians mistreating captured Russian soldiers? Ukraine should do nothing to discourage Russians from surrendering. And Russia has an incentive to make surrendering seem too risky for its own troops. [I read that the video included shooting prisoners. That's horrible. Sadly, in history that is all-too common even for troops from the good guys.]

UPDATE: The mayor of Irpin says the town just 12 miles northwest of Kiev has been recaptured by Ukrainian forces.

UPDATE: It's official: "The Russian landing ship attacked by Ukrainian forces this week at in the southern port city of Berdyansk has sunk, Pentagon officials confirmed on Friday."

UPDATE: Is Putin signaling an end to the war with a less expansive objective? Perhaps by "just" taking all of the Donbas and perhaps a land bridge to Crimea? That could be Putin's intent. But Ukraine gets a vote, too. And because Russia's focus on the Donbas region seems more of a logistics focus that leaves other fronts weakened, Ukraine could make Russia pay for making those Russian forces feel abandoned to sit where they advanced, vulnerable to Ukrainian counter-attacks. 

UPDATE: Curiouser and curiouser: "The [senior US defense] official added that Ukrainian forces are also working to eject Russian forces out of Kherson in the south."

UPDATE: The latest ISW update and map. Except for Mariupol, Russia is not advancing. Other fronts are static or failing in attacks. Ukraine is counterattacking around Kiev, exploiting Russian withdrawals to reform and reset battalion tactical groups prior to renewing efforts to isolate Kiev. Ukrainian partisans are working on retaking Kherson. It is amazing that Chernihiv--bypassed by the Russians in the early days of the war--is still holding out in the north. Russia has few reserves to throw in. A new draft intake is near but it will take a lot of time to train them. And we'll see how reservists enjoy being called up.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Interesting: "According to the Financial Times, Russia has dropped demands that Ukraine is "denazified" and is prepared to let it join the European Union as long as it is not militarily aligned." The EU wants to be a military alliance, too, at the expense of NATO. How would that work out?

UPDATE: Is this a sign Russia may declare--like China did in 1979 against Vietnam--that Russia has punished Ukraine sufficiently to pull back to whatever territory Russia intends to hold? "Russia's defence minister has claimed that Ukraine's military capacity had been seriously degraded and restated that the main tasks of the first phase of Russia's military operation in Ukraine had been completed."

UPDATE: We speak of Russian numerical superiority. But I don't think that is true. As an update yesterday noted, Ukraine has in the field 100,000 army troops plus 200,000 territorial army and armed civilians in the fight. 

Russia sent in 150,000 troops. They've suffered perhaps 10% KIA. I don't know how many of the non-KIA losses take troops out of the fight. But assume 20% total losses in boots on the ground. So Russia has 120,000 troops. On a huge front. Yes, some of Putin's National Guard has been sent in for occupation duties. But it isn't clear that there is a large number. Plus local people in the pro-Russian Donbas enclaves are in their own formations. 

Even if Belarus enters the war, it won't add that many troops to Russia's total.

What Russia has is firepower superiority. And the Russians seem to already be calling in old ammunition from ancient depots that have high dud rates. Some is probably blowing up in the guns. 

Until Russia can start generating new soldiers from a larger population, Russia won't have numerical superiority.

UPDATE: Yes, if the war drags on Ukraine will need more than infantry anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles initially sent in anticipation of supplying an insurgency. It will need tanks, infantry carriers, artillery, aircraft, high-altitude air defense systems, anti-ship missiles, drones, and ammunition and logistics help to sustain an army and air force. Ideally, for the big items, Russian and old but updated Soviet weapons already in Ukraine's arsenal.

UPDATE: Russia is trying to make their lack of offensive power around Kiev from casualties and supply shortages a kind of good faith concession to push negotiations forward. And  the Russians hope Ukraine will halt its counter-attacks "in return." Don't fall for that.

UPDATE: I just heard a Sky News report that said Ukraine has 10 army brigades on the Donbas front. But Strategypage (noted yesterday) said Ukraine had about a dozen (I assumed maneuver) brigades in action. Or is the 10 brigade comment including artillery and aviation brigades and not just maneuver brigades? Either way, Ukraine can't afford to lose 10 regular brigades in the east. But Ukraine has a dilemma. Hold territory in anticipation of a ceasefire; or risk those troops if the war drags on and Russia regroups to cut off and kill those brigades. 

My 2018 Military Balance (they are way too expensive for me to buy the annual updates--this one was costly enough!) says Ukraine had 2 tank, 9 mechanized, 2 mountain, 5 artillery, 4 aviation, 1 naval infantry, 1 airborne, and 4 air mobile brigades. Plus various battalions and regiments of various types, including combat support and paramilitary and border guards. And 25+ reserve light infantry brigades.

How is it that Strategypage says Ukraine has 12 brigades? Is that an uncommitted force? Or have casualties been that high? Or are many of Ukraine's brigades broken down into smaller task forces of various sizes? It really is very confusing.

UPDATE: This CSI: Kharkiv effort on the allegation that Ukrainian troops shot Russian prisoners in their legs is so bad right off the bat that I couldn't even go on. The video picture is so obviously NOT the farm building from a local web site that the attempt claims it to be that it defies my imagination that it could be considered evidence. The two building are obviously different in length. The building in the web site picture clearly extends far to the right of the video screen grab. I don't know if the video is real. But this evidence is amateurish.

UPDATE: Ukraine hits inside Russia near Belgorod: "Ukrainian forces shelled a Russian military camp inside Russia, according to reporting from the New York Post. Such a strike would be the first time Ukraine struck Russia on the other side of the border." I wondered how long that would take. Although honestly I expected strikes on Sevastopol naval base by now.

UPDATE: It sounds like Mariupol defenders are reaching the end of their limits.

UPDATE: The latest ISW update: Russia seems to have abandoned for the moment efforts to take Kiev or push artillery within easy range. Its forces continue to focus on the Donbas. Mariupol could fall in days as Ukrainian defenders are broken up into pockets. It is unknown if Russia will have usable combat power after taking the city to redirect elsewhere. 

Most significant seems this: "[Russia] may have decided to stop its previous practices of forcing units that have already taken devastating losses to continue hopeless offensive operations and of feeding individual battalion tactical groups into the battle as they become available rather than concentrating them to achieve decisive effects." If Russia is trying to gather rebuilt and new units for a main effort, that will test the Ukrainians. I continue to worry about the Ukrainian brigades on the Donbas front. I hope Ukrainian engineers have been busy preparing a defensive line further west in case Ukraine has to bug out to avoid encirclement.

UPDATE (Wednesday): The Ukrainians realize the danger in the east: "Russia is moving its forces from northern to eastern Ukraine to try to encircle Ukrainian troops, but is keeping some behind near the capital Kyiv to tie down part of the Ukrainian military there, a presidential adviser to Volodymyr Zelensky said today."

UPDATE: I can't imagine Putin wants a long war. But I imagine Putin wants something he can claim as a victory, whether territorial or battle, before declaring victory. Putin's claim that his military damaged Ukraine enough around Kiev isn't terribly credible. So that can't be it. Will it be all of Donbas and/or the defeat of Ukraine's army there? But pursuing one or both could be expensive for Russia. And if Ukraine conducts a successful counter-offensive at Kiev or Kherson, how does that affect victory  perception?

UPDATE: Ukraine's domestic anti-tank missiles.

UPDATE: The Belgorod explosions and fire was probably from old ammunition going up. That is a risk of using--or moving--really old ammunition.

UPDATE: I don't believe John Kirby: "While the performance of the Ukrainians on the field of battle has been amazing and incredible and inspiring, it's not like their performance came as a shock to people here at the Pentagon." We tried to get Zelensky to leave Ukraine in the first few days in the belief Kiev was doomed. 

UPDATE: The ISW update and map. There was little movement on the front, including Russia's slow drive into the heart of Mariupol. Ukrainian counter-attacks have been small local operations. Otherwise, Russia has pulled back some of its battalion tactical groups from the Kiev front to be restored to fighting ability. Perhaps to be transferred to Donbas operations. Russia may be using support personnel to replace infantry losses.

UPDATE: Interesting: "Russian troops have accidentally shot down their own aircraft and have at times refused to obey orders, according to Britain's cyber-intelligence agency, GCHQ." Well, friendly fire happens. So I don't read too much into that.

UPDATE (Thursday): Well, that helps Russia claim it was successful: "Russia has destroyed almost all of Ukraine's defence industry, Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych said on Thursday[.]"

UPDATE: Russia is regrouping to continue their offensive, likely on a more limited front in the south. But what is Ukraine doing? "Ukrainian forces are preparing for new Russian attacks in the east of the country as Moscow builds up its troops there after suffering setbacks near the capital Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Thursday."

Hopefully preparing for a counter-offensive to take advantage of Russia reducing forces and/or supplies on the non-primary fronts. Hopefully establishing a strategic reserve if they don't have one. Hopefully making plans to get their army in the east out of the potential Donbas kill sack.

UPDATE: About half of Russia's scarce precision weapons didn't hit their targets.

UPDATE: Useful perspective: "Given these past realities, Ukraine can defeat Putin’s expeditionary army if the U.S. and its NATO allies increase aid, do not embrace no-fly zones or other provocative trajectories to World War III, cease crazy talk of killing or removing Putin, stop whipping up hatred of all things Russian, and remember that history was never on Putin’s side when he invaded Ukraine." However, the form of history not being on Putin's side has a wide range. Would Russia fail only after a long, generations-long Ukrainian insurgency? Or will Russia fail with Ukraine holding all the territory it held right before this year's invasion? Or something in between? Or different? That detail matters.

UPDATE: If Russia really does recruit significant numbers of Middle Eastern mercenaries to fight Ukraine, whoever doesn't desert after the free plane ticket to Europe is going to be part of a force that Ukrainians will hate. Americans hated Britain's German mercenaries in the Revolution. And how will Russians react to these aliens being sent against brothers who are supposed to be in need of rescue?

UPDATE: I will say that I have been shocked that Russian artillery hasn't performed better in this war. Did the Russians get worse or did the Ukrainians learn a lot from their experience.

UPDATE: Ukraine's suppliers will now focus on "longer range artillery, ammunition, and more anti-aircraft weapons" for Ukraine.

UPDATE: Russia's Syrian fighter recruitment effort.

UPDATE: The latest ISW update. Ukrainian counter-attacks around Kiev and Kherson. Russia continues to attack in the Donbas and against Mariupol but with small gains. Russia's spring draft begins Friday. I wonder how that will go during war. Russia may be trying to set up local puppet governments in areas it controls. Who would serve in them?

UPDATE: Russia may not be able to advance on Kiev, but Russia is still bombing the city.

UPDATE: (Friday): Did Ukraine use helicopters to strike a Russian oil depot near Belgorod? Ukraine denies it. Which they should if they did it to keep Russia guessing. I wouldn't rule out special forces.

UPDATE: More on the speculation about a strike with two Ukrainian Hind helicopters.

UPDATE: Russia invaded Ukraine. But never say the Russians don't have a sense of humor: "The Kremlin has said that a purported Ukrainian air strike on a fuel depot in western Russia will hinder future peace talks." Yeah, Ukraine fighting back is the problem. Lord.

UPDATE: I am perplexed at the notion that the attack on the Russian oil depot might be a Russian "false flag" attack. How does that make sense? The depot is a legitimate military target. Russia has done the same thing. What does Russia get for faking a daring Ukrainian attack unless Russia just wants to hide the fact that an oil depot went up in flames from a Russian accident. Heck, I still don't rule out that Ukrainian special forces launched the attack and that no helicopters were involved in the attack, despite the video. Although the simplest explanation is that Ukraine used helicopters to strike the target.

UPDATE: Russia says the oil depot was civilian. So? Lots of non-military assets can be used by military units. Roads. Bridges. Railroads. They are legitimate targets. And Russia has a history of mobilizing civilian vehicles for their military. And now Ukraine says Russians unhappy with the war might have done it. 

UPDATE: Russia will want to suppress news of this nuclear blunder: "'The Russian occupiers have left the Chernobyl nuclear power plant,'' said Ukraine's defence ministry. Two key reasons: losses caused by the Ukrainian army and radiation exposure.'" Or Russia will claim they are victims of a Ukrainian dirty bomb.

UPDATE: British intelligence says the loss of the oil depot will harm Russian military operations: "British military intelligence said the destruction of several oil tanks at a depot in the Russian city of Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border, will likely add short-term strain to Russia's already stretched logistics chains."

UPDATE: ISW accepts that Russia has stopped feeding in troops for a broad front strategy and will focus on taking all of the Donbas. It will perhaps then push for a ceasefire. 

If that is the objective, will Russia pull out of other territory to get that? Will Ukraine accept that? Will NATO pressure Ukraine to accept that deal and scale back support to get that? Will Russians accept getting Donbas at the price it will pay for it? Will Russians ever know the price?

On the new focus, can Russia overcome its losses and gather units and supplies for a Donbas offensive? Can Ukraine hold the line in the Donbas or will Russia cut off units too far east? Russia's capture if Izyum advances Russia's efforts to cut off those Ukrainian units. Can Ukraine exploit the lesser efforts around Kiev and Kherson to launch major counter-offensives? Ukraine is already counter-attacking on that front. And partisans are active behind Russian lines.

So far Russia is screening its withdrawal around Kiev as Ukraine takes back ground. How far back will Russian forces go? ISW thinks the Ukrainians will advance to the Belarus border. And Ukraine opened supply routes to Chernihiv. How many Russian troops will this free up? Will it free up Ukrainian forces, too? What will the sight of Russian forces retreating into Belarus do to Belarus?

I have a lot of questions so far. But Russia bit the bullet and narrowed its objectives. We'll see how the heavy casualties Russia has already suffered limit this shift.

UPDATE (Saturday): Have the Russians pulled back from Hostomel airport, the site of their day 1 failure? 

UPDATE: Russia's military industry relies on parts made in Ukraine. Which Ukraine stopped supplying, naturally.

UPDATE: The U.S. will work with new NATO allies to get their Soviet-made tanks to Ukraine. The story implies that the "tanks" include self-propelled artillery.

UPDATE: This is useful information: "Ukraine had already stationed its best-trained forces in the east because of an eight-year war with Russian-backed separatists. They are thought to have suffered heavy losses but are still a significant challenge to Russia's invading army." War reporting is generally very shallow.

UPDATE: Russia's famous 4th Guards Tank Division was humbled near Sumy in northwest Ukraine. Also: "It is Ukrainian tanks that are making history now, as the country’s 1st Tank Brigade broke the Russian siege of Chernihiv in the north on Thursday." People keep telling me that Javelins prove tanks are obsolete. I keep saying that it is likely just poor Russian combined arms capacity that is dooming its tanks. And now we find Ukrainian tanks are performing well. Perhaps it isn't the tank itself that is the problem. One day our current tanks will be obsolete. And I do think they will evolve to cope with threats. But this was doesn't prove tanks aren't necessary on a battlefield.

UPDATE: I will say that Russia is being smart around Kiev as Russia pulls troops out to refit and apparently move to the Donbas. Rather than deplete and demoralize the units still on the line while giving them a "hold at all costs" order, Russia is pulling them back. Where Russia will finally stop withdrawing to hold the line is unclear.

UPDATE: The many ways the Fuck-Up Fairy undermined Russia's military.

UPDATE: The latest American $300 million military aid package.

UPDATE: Ukrainian forces continue to follow the Russians out of the Kiev region. That's nice. And it ends the Hell some of the occupied people faced.  But it also isn't defeating the Russians in offensive action. It is letting the Russians break contact and escape. We'll see if that changes.

UPDATE: The latest ISW update. Russian units are successfully pulling back from positions close to Kiev.

 

Russia seems to have increased attacks in the Donbas but without much success. Russia has not had time to shift forces from other parts of the front to the Donbas. Continuing the attacks in Donbas without refitting depleted units won't gain ground. Which will make transferred units to that front less likely to be decisive. Mariupol is still hanging on but time is running out. Belarus is training its army but is resisting Russian pressure to get involved. Russian forces in Transnistria stirred but are unlikely to enter the fight.

To me the focus on the Donbas seems like it is giving the front priority on logistics and expectations only. Just more of coming at the Ukrainians in the same old way but on a smaller front. Surely the Russian know better, right?

UPDATE (Sunday): Russia struck a refinery and oil storage facilities in Odessa.

UPDATE: If Russia pulls its troops back into Belarus and Russia in the north, it at least eases Russia's problem of draftees. Units inside Russia or Belarus could be filled with draftees while contract soldiers (whether volunteers, tricked, or coerced) can be focused on the southern campaign inside Ukraine.

UPDATE: There are reports of Russia kidnapping 11 Ukrainian mayors. I wonder if those mayors were Russian assets and want to go to Russia in light of Russia's failure to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine is corrupt, too. I have no doubt some Ukrainians were bought before the war and are now in a difficult situation.

UPDATE: I must admit that the Russians appear to be withdrawing in good order in the Kiev region, with units screening the retreat. There has been no panicked rout. Ukraine may be unable to put pressure on the Russians or Ukraine may not want to further destroy the region by fighting for what Russia is giving up.

UPDATE: I don't think this is lawful resistance to Russian occupation. Russian brutality in the wake of that--if true--isn't justified. But it is to be expected. No matter what paper pledges Ukraine makes about "neutrality" to get Russia out of Ukraine, Ukraine will consider Russia the enemy.

UPDATE: I'm waiting on details of liberated Bucha before really judging. It seems like some atrocities may have taken place. But mass graves aren't--by themselves--signs of Russian crimes. Perhaps the people buried weren't killed in violation of the laws of war during battles. Or perhaps they were murdered by occupation forces. But that must be determined. Mass graves might be a response to the need to prevent disease from spreading. War is ugly on a good day. And now we see it more quickly and closely. War is Hell, you know. Even the Russians might not have committed crimes at a scale suggested by the first stories.

UPDATE: The latest ISW update. I stand corrected on my impression of an orderly withdrawal: 

Russian forces had attempted to conduct an orderly retreat from their positions around Kyiv with designated covering forces supported by artillery and mines to allow the main body to withdraw. The main body of Russian troops has withdrawn from the west bank of the Dnipro and is completing its withdrawal from the east bank, but the retrograde has been sufficiently disorderly that some Russian troops were left behind.

Although it is unclear enough that it may be days to figure out what is happening now. Russia appears to be intent on largely pulling out of Ukraine west of Kharkiv.

Russia has not been able to gain ground in Donbas. And Mariupol is somehow still holding out in a shrunken core--or cores. Russia has even carried out an attack in the Kherson region.

Russia hasn't lost the war despite the defeat at Kiev. If they only hold what they have now and get a ceasefire, Russia can build up and try for a round three. And this time Russia will know it has a fight on its hands.

NOTE: War updates continue on this post.

Weekend Data Dump

Not shocking: "The European Union was set to approve Monday a new defence strategy designed to increase the bloc's capacity to act, including setting up a 5,000-strong rapid reaction force." A real defense effort would reinforce the existing military structure in NATO. But the EU won't waste a crisis.

The wording is needlessly specific: "The Chinese ambassador to the United States says that China will not send weapons and ammunition to support Russia’s war in Ukraine and that Beijing would 'do everything to de-escalate the crisis'." What about weapons that don't support the war? What about ammunition for reserve stocks? Or am I ruined by the need for Clintonian parsing of language to accept this?

Afghanistan: "The IEA took power but it turns out that holding onto it will be far more difficult."

Airborne electronic support experiences significant shrinkage. It is cold at high altitude, after all. 

About that Russian hypersonic missile used in Ukraine: "The truth is, the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic missile is actually little more than a conventional air-launched ballistic missile with a design that dates back to the 1980s." It technically flies at hypersonic speeds but is not in the class of what is discussed today. Add another tree to the forest of lies. 

Russia believed its own bullshit and sent its marketing machine to war. From the above link: "Russia has continued to fund the development of new weapons and systems aimed at garnering a great deal of attention, rather than focusing on maintaining or improving its existing equipment fleets." Again, no shock.

America won't import fossil fuels from Russia to punish Russia. America won't import fossil fuels from Canad to punish America. Oh. Oh, and Venezuelan and Iranian oil is okey dokey. Will I ever grok nuance?

Only certain people get accused of being traitors, I guess. Via The Morning Briefing.

Putin thought he could revive the territorial and power glories of the USSR without also getting the Soviet diplomatic and economic isolation. He also failed to appreciate the brain drain that Russia might face, too. How long before the old Soviet exit controls are reimposed? It's a package deal--not à la carte.

One of the problems of holding Afghanistan was that in adversity the Afghan armed forces had no loyalty to the idea of Afghanistan as a nation. If we'd done what I wanted before our surges there, actual loyalties to local political entities under a nominal national state would have been resilient enough to defeat the Taliban.

What's one more enemy at this point? "Russia said it is abandoning peace talks with Japan, which were aimed at signing a formal World War II peace treaty, due to Tokyo's tough response on Ukraine."

The Saudis want America to act like an ally if it wants them to pump more oil: "The Biden administration has transferred a significant number of Patriot antimissile interceptors to Saudi Arabia within the past month, fulfilling Riyadh’s urgent request for a resupply amid sharp tensions in the relationship, senior U.S. officials said." I bet we see the Saudis pump more oil. Tip to Instapundit.

To be fair, sucking up to Putin and declaring a cold war on Israel rolled up the red carpets: "'Turkey’s diplomatic isolation was the focus of excited punditry in recent years,' writes Amberin Zaman, 'but today, Ankara is running out of red carpet as a deluge of foreign dignitaries knock at its door.'"

NATO's challenge: "An emboldened Moscow could encircle NATO's new Baltic members, and cut them off from the alliance." Indeed.

To say "post-Soviet Russia was humiliated after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union" is some revisionism. Recall that the Russian federation itself was eager to get out of the USSR to stop subsidizing the poorer parts of the Soviet empire. Current Russian rulers have stoked a sense of grievance that just wasn't there except in the hard core Soviets.

Crap: "A Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey with four crew members on board crashed during a training exercise in Norway, according to the Norwegian military." Just operating and surviving--let alone fighting--is hard in that environment. 

American troops will stay in Iraq: "Going forward, [Marine General Frank] McKenzie said, the role will look a lot like it does now, as the Iraqi government comes together to make another go at strengthening the defense of its sovereignty." Iran is the main threat now. And unless Biden grants Iran a nuclear deal/financial boost--which, God help us, they want to do--we can defeat Iran's malign influence in Iraq. Surely we wouldn't court disaster by abandoning Iraq a second time, right?

Well why the ef not? Or are you listening to 2012 calling for its force posture back? It's not like an enemy would attack our diplomatic facilities, right?

Ah yes, the "historic ties" of being conquered and crushed by Russia, as told by Putin's man servant: "Moscow has made thinly veiled threats against Poland with an essay that stressed the two countries’ historic ties and attacked 'imbecilic' Polish leaders as 'vassals' of the US." The Russians act on this BS whether they believe it or not.

This is banana republic stuff: "Imagine a country that imprisons peaceful protestors on false charges of participating in an attempt to overthrow the government, as part of efforts to discredit and ultimately criminalize all opposition to the ruling party’s agenda." Vote accordingly. Via Instapundit.

It's like America is trying to lose influence in the region: "Iraq, like Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf Oil states are very angry with the Americans because they are offering to not only rejoin the 2015 treaty but to modify the terms to make it easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Worse, the United States is considering taking the Iranian IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and its Quds Force off the list of known terrorists."

In related news, "Israel makes it clear it will launch a major air and missile strike against the Iranian nuclear program if Iran gets close to creating a working nuclear weapon. Israel’s new allies among the Arab Persian Gulf oil states will cooperate with such an attack, as they are already being hit by Iranian missiles, cruise missiles and guided rockets."

Okay: "Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and IRGC are demonstrating 'growing expertise,' the U.S. intelligence community said in February in its annual threat assessment. Iran, the assessment concluded, takes an 'opportunistic approach' to cyber operations, particularly those that target U.S. and allied critical infrastructure." One word: JDAMs. 

Basically, stop obsessing over what Putin might do to us; and think more about what we can do to him. Grant said it better, but the advice is good. That doesn't mean we do everything we can do. Just don't act like Putin gets to decide the limits of this war. Tip to Instapundit. 

Our media is composed of partisan garbage people. And if this activist garbage collectively ends up having to learn to code or driving ride shares, it couldn't happen to a more vile group of partisan liars. Tip to Instapundit.

Spending more money is just a start to repairing the faux German military, training it to fight, and expanding it. Luckily for Germany, Russia is destroying the best of its ground forces attacking Ukraine.

If woke Americans won't take pride in America and its achievements past and present--and insist on pushing woke policies on the world--why should we expect other countries to rally to our side--even against Putin's Russia? Tear America down and pretty soon other countries believe we're garbage as much as the woke claim. You can't just turn that effect off when it is convenient. Use America's power to punish those who don't share woke views, and maybe they won't say "thank you" and comply.  I'll ask again, why do we hate America? And what made us great? America has surely made mistakes. But look at history and the rest of the world, and we look pretty damned good.

The way the Fuck-Up Fairy seems to be guiding Russia's war effort, I can totally see Belarus throwing off Russian control; and many of the Central Asian former Soviet republics turning to China for protection and trade ties. Hell, Russia's Far East might cut unofficial deals with the Chinese to avoid Putin's immolation of Russia. Would anybody really obey a Putin command to use nukes?

Medvedev: "One of Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin's closest allies said on Wednesday that the United States aimed to humiliate, divide and ultimately destroy Russia, and vowed the country would never allow that to happen." Very clever of the U.S. to infiltrate the Fuck-Up Fairy to Russia who tricked Russia into a bungled invasion of Ukraine.

Fact-checkers are no such thing. Tip to Instapundit.

Is it magical thinking or lovesick blindness that explains the Biden administration fervor to revive a nuclear deal with mullah-run Iran?

Live by the jihadi. Die by the jihadi.

Unvetted Afghans that America pulled out of Afghanistan after the Taliban captured Kabul can't be deported for the next 18 months. We wouldn't have this problem if we'd evacuated American allies instead of just grabbing nearby bodies to pad the numbers and obscure America's defeat.

The evolution of the Marines to the first Marine Littoral Regiment: "The littoral infantry teams also use tactics similar to what the allied 'coast watcher' teams did in the Pacific during World War II. The coast watchers formed spontaneously when Europeans or locals on Pacific Islands began observing Japanese ship traffic passing by and reporting it back to the nearest allied military base."

The "Z" signifying support for Putin's invasion of Ukraine doesn't really stand for anything? On March 15th I saw a sign with the Z and underneath it, "Za Pobeda", or "For victory." Perhaps that is just one of many after-the-fact definitions.

Russia's nuclear forces and willingness to use them. The Russians threaten nukes because they know the West fears them. The Russians have a history of nuclear threats. This war is no different. Still, Russia's nuclear posture reflects their conventional military weakness. And really, I wonder if Russia's nukes are really a pocket of military excellence amidst their ramshackle mediocrity.

Yes, don't let Russia's invasion of Ukraine damage U.S.-India relations. India needs Russian weapons to oppose China. And I hope India might be a lever to split Russia from China. FFS, isolating Russia from India reduces a point of Russia-China friction. Other countries we want to rally to oppose China, like Vietnam, should also be given some room to maneuver. Vietnam, too, wants Russian ties to balance China. Let's not get major cases of strategic stupid, okay? Despite Russia's outrage and real threat to NATO, China remains the primary foe.

Oops: "The [Russia-China] alliance is still rhetorically there, but the possibility of actual support is not. Russia has already been damaged by economic actions from the United States and its allies, and China, at this economic juncture, cannot afford to be caught in the trap Russia is in. Any military support would run afoul of sanctions. Put simply, Russia is a liability for China." Agreed.

Four more NATO battlegroups will extend the tripwire against Russian aggression from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.

Taliban 2.0 same as the original: "Taliban leaders in Afghanistan on Wednesday said that high schools would remain closed to girls until a reopening plan that is compliant with Islamic law was established."

 

From the "Well, Duh" files: "If current mission requirements — totaling nearly five ABCTs worldwide — hold without a change in force structure, their operational tempo could see a major increase[.]" The obvious solution is to restore a number of armored brigades. Until this century, about half of our active brigades were heavy. We have just 11 now (and only 5 in the Guard), an increase of 3 since 2016. So it could be worse.

Ka-ching: "Western spy agencies are getting ready to examine one of Russia’s most potent electronic warfare systems [the Krasukha-4] after a unit was captured in Ukraine."

I don't think Ukraine wants to be the anvil that teaches China not to invade Taiwan. We should all be satisfied with getting Russia to end the war and withdraw. Let Russians punish Putin.

For years I've worried that China might start a war because it wrongly believed it was stronger than its shiny new military hardware makes it seem. China approved Russia's invasion of Ukraine. China apparently believed Russia would quickly win, just as Russia did. Chinese certainty about its calculations about winning a war against Taiwan, America, Japan, and/or Australia surely took a big hit. And yes, I worry America is subject to the same problem.

More about the Switchblade suicide drone the U.S. sent to Ukraine. Honestly, with the explosive power of a hand grenade, it seems most useful for attacking enemy officers. But the post says they are good for taking out supply trucks.

The Army will formally adopt multidomain operations doctrine this summer. I have concerns. And that's on top of wondering how much support the Army will get from the air domain.

Egypt, Israel, the UAE--and maybe Saudi Arabia--met in Egypt in an apparent growing alliance to stop Iran. Sadly, the biggest obstacle to stopping Iran is the Biden administration.

The Russians aren't answering calls: "'We have tried on numerous occasions to connect Secretary Austin with his counterpart; Chairman Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has also tried to connect with his counterpart,' Kirby said. 'We have made multiple attempts here but they have not answered up. They’ve declined to take these calls.'" Maybe Putin ordered his generals not to answer. Maybe he is afraid that his officers will act like Chairman Milley did when he told the Chinese he'd warn them if America was about to attack.

There is little reason for Belarus to go to war with Ukraine. Given how badly bogged down Russia's army is in Ukraine, Putin can hardly order an invasion of Belarus as punishment. 

LOL!

This is funny. I'm hoping it is very serious. Tip to Instapundit.

Russian airlines are screwed. Via Instapundit. Russia needs aircraft to move troops around their huge country because the railroad connecting European Russia with the Pacific coast is not enough.

Huh: "China has seen investors pull money out of the country on an 'unprecedented' scale since Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, marking a 'very unusual' shift in global capital flows in emerging markets, according to the Institute of International Finance." Tip to Instapundit. 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has persuaded Biden not to weaken America's nuclear deterrent with a no-first use pledge. Yeah, reality sucks.

More than two years ago, America focused on preventing Xi Jinping Flu (Covid-19) deaths. America became obsessed, in fact. So much so that only deaths from (or "with") Covid mattered. Deaths from the lockdown response to the pandemic weren't a factor in guiding public health policy. One day we'll know if the American response killed more than the virus did.

The former is good news if true (via Instapundit): "Daily coffee may boost heart health, lower mortality." But I don't buy the latter. I think all people have a 100% mortality rate. But I'm not a biologist.

FFS, only the willfully blind couldn't see this coming. But that's who leads us. They can't learn, can they?

What the Hell? It's not like Russia doesn't have other problems. Besides, Japan is hardly a threat compared to China: "Russia was conducting drills on islands claimed by Tokyo, Japanese media said on Saturday, days after Moscow halted peace talks with Japan because of its sanctions over Russia's invasion of Ukraine." 

So that happened. "Undisclosed location." Try it. Via Instapundit.

No worries, America will make up for it by making Iran and Venezuela our friends.

While it is true that superior motivation provides Ukrainian troops an edge, don't forget the other side of the coin--poor Russian morale and training. In the Iran-Iraq War, Iran's Islamic revolution-inspired had far superior motivation to fight and die. But Iraqi firepower and ability to hold their line eventually broke the morale of Iran's poorly trained yet motivated troops. America sent the Islamist-motivated Taliban running in 2001. And the American-led Coalition did break the motivated jihadis in Iraq. Superior motivation is not the only factor.

LOL:

Because in a war with China, American Atlantic-based fleet elements would need to move to the Pacific: "Restrictions to the passage of traffic through the Panama Canal and the Strait of Magellan as China moves aggressively to expand its footprint across Central and South America are the top concerns of the current U.S. Southern Command head told a Senate panel."

In theory, the United Nations is supposed to rally the entire planet to halt aggression against a member state: "Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday took aim at the sanctions the United States and other countries have imposed on Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine, saying he believes that the West has declared 'total war' on Russia." So it could be worse, but for Russia's Security Council veto. 

Lemonade? "Economic disruptions created by the current Russian invasion of Ukraine had some beneficial effects. Two examples are the accelerated demise of the American ULA (United Launch Alliance) monopoly and the elimination of Roscosmos, the Russian government organization controlling all space program activities, as a major competitor." 

Uh oh: "A leaked document has revealed that China and the Solomon Islands are close to signing a security agreement that could open the door to Chinese troops and naval warships flowing into a Pacific Island nation that played a pivotal role in World War II." The Marines might want to review the last time they were sent there. Australia, too, of course. 

I wish our enemies sabotaged themselves this way. Tip to Instapundit. 

As if you had to ask, I do not participate in "Earth Hour." 

Germany's path to NATO freeloader and its "oh sh*t" moment this year. It's a long and expensive path to fix what the Germans screwed up. But hey, I'm just grateful Germany decided to join the West and defend it.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. Thanks Chinese Communist Party! Tip to Instapundit.

I worry that foreign policy decisions are being made to improve polling numbers and not for national security reasons: "Biden's job approval falls to lowest level of his presidency amid war and inflation fears[.]" Are my worries needless? Tip to Instapundit.

J and J vaccine recipients more likely to die from the Omicron variant than those with other vaccines. I thought I just read about another study saying it was good. But the rate is still really low (5 versus 2 out of 100,000). And it doesn't say if this is corrected for risk groups. I think the elderly were more likely to get it. So I'd expect a higher death rate. But I don't know. And honestly, the chance of death if unvaccinated is still low (20 out of 100,000). Via Instapundit.