An Exit Strategy For Putin's Survival

Putin bit off more than he can chew in Ukraine. His only hope is to negotiate deals with Ukraine, NATO, India, South Korea, and Japan to let Russia pivot to Asia to fend off Chinese threats to Russian interests in Central Asia and the Far East.

The war is clarifying and accelerating Russia's junior status in the China-Russian partnership:

Mr Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which has not gone according to plan, has weakened Russia. The Kremlin admits that the Russian army has suffered "significant losses", while Western sanctions are putting the economy under intense pressure. In the Russia-China relationship, it feels more and more that Russia is the junior partner.

In their meeting, Mr Putin conceded that China has "questions and concerns" about the situation in Ukraine. It was an unexpected admission, by the Kremlin, that Russia's so-called special military operation is causing some anxiety in Beijing.

Having burned bridges with the West and sparked an energy war with Europe, Mr Putin is attempting a pivot east (he's left himself little choice). He's hoping to reorient the Russian economy and find new markets for Russian oil and gas. It's quite a challenge.

"The hope is that this pivot will work and will have credible dividends for Russia. But I don't see this happening," believes Sergey Radchenko, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "What Russia needs is ultimately in the West: its technology, its markets.

Russia is certainly publicly doubling down on its relationship with China:

Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the national Security Council chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin, described the “strengthening of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation with Beijing as an unconditional priority of Russia’s foreign policy.”

But given the power disparity and the exposure of Russian military weakness in Ukraine, the "partnership" and "strategic cooperation" can only mean letting China call the shots.

How long can Putin let this go on without Russian paranoia leading to suspicion of Putin himself?

Years ago I noted an old assessment of Russian power:

Russia has ... three sources of weakness, inherent and irremediable--Poland, the Caucasus, and the Fleet. All these deprive her of immense sums of money and large masses of men.

And as I address in that post, expecially given Poland's impressive military improvement drive and membership in NATO, Russian focus on NATO as a threat certainly makes this apply; the Caucasus is certainly distracting Russia with its unrest and conflicts that Russia tries to police since 1991; and you know my view of the Russian blue water fleet waste of money.

Pivoting away from all three of those commitments--or as many as they can--would help Russia defend its Far East territory and position in Central Asia.

Already it seems as if Putin is hedging bets by making the Pacific fleet Russia's priority fleet. He can say it is to fight alongside the Chinese. But if NATO is the threat Putin has claimed, this decision is insane. Putin's decision only makes sense to obscure a pivot to facing China.

The only way Putin can survive is to argue that he must pivot from Ukraine to an even bigger threat from China. Putin could claim that the war against Ukraine was all about getting the West to pay attention to Russia's real security concerns--in the Far East and Russia's lost Central Asian territories.

And if the West plays along with Russia, we can flip Russia against China. Not that NATO would let Russia join it. NATO states barely on board defending new eastern NATO states against Russia are never going to extend NATO's border to the Amur River to face China. But you must admit, NATO has proven with its Ukraine policy that it is willing to help a friendly non-NATO state against territorial aggression.

America can keep another argument for Russia flipping just between America and Russia.

Russia has seen what Western arms can do for an outnumbered army facing invasion. Russia doesn't need to be in NATO for that help any more than Ukraine needed membership. 

I speculated that Russia might be striking Ukraine trying for a quick win prior to pivoting to defend itself from China. Faceplanting in Ukraine doesn't change the need for that pivot even if it raises the degree of difficulty and the freedom to do it on Russian terms. Although tearing up Ukraine helps the pivot, Russia damaged itself to a perhaps dangerous degree in the process. And Russia is continuing to damage itself.

Will Putin--or Russia without him--seek this dramatic way out of Russia's increasingly horrible strategic position of a two-front war a continent apart? 

UPDATE: While signing the documents for the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory, Putin blamed Russia's woes on the West. Clearly Putin doesn't want an exit strategy. Perhaps his successor will disagree.

Russia has to decide whether the Fuck-Up Fairy is Putin's personal advisor or someone who rules Russia. 

UPDATE: I'm not very worried about Putin's recent nuclear sabre rattling. Russia needed nukes to defend its long borders even when the leaders thought they had a good military. 

The war against Ukraine both exposed Russian conventional weakness and wrecked what was there. Russia needs potential enemies (coughChinacough) to fear Russian nukes even more, now. So the nuclear rhetoric goes up. 

UPDATE: Via reader Eric, Putin's speech shows he clearly has no intention of breaking the societal paranoia that Russia has about the West to address the real threat China poses to Russia.  

When will China decide this reality-challenged frenemy is going to drag China down with it? When will China decide Russia has created too great of an opportunity for China to reclaim lost Chinese lands in Russia's Far East? And/or to supplant Russian influence in Central Asia?

UPDATE: ISW has its own assessment of the annexation/paranoia speech. Although I suspect the nuclear threats were directed at China more than at the West.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Black Sea is a Potential NATO Distraction

NATO does not need to emphasize the Black Sea militarily. A larger NATO presence would not have deterred Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

No:

More strategic focus [by America and NATO] needs to be on the Black Sea as the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, a panel of experts said during a Center for European Policy Analysis discussion Tuesday.

The U.S. and NATO’s lack of focus on the Black Sea allowed Russia to pursue aggressive goals, like its invasion into Ukraine, said Natia Seskuria, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.

First of all, the idea that NATO power in the Black Sea would have deterred Russia from invading Ukraine is unsupported by any evidence. Russian naval and air weakness plus energetic Ukrainian defenses even from their meager resources prevented Russia from using their naval power to affect the invasion. As that article notes, Ukraine's destruction of one Russian capital ship sent the rest of the Russian navy back to port for its own safety. How much more does NATO need to add to contain Russia?

And how would that added NATO power have countered Putin's belief that a quick victory parade by his vaunted legions would crush Ukraine before NATO could respond--if it dared?

Unless you are suggesting that NATO should have threatened war, why would Russia have paid attention to the NATO vessels other than repeatedly buzzing those NATO ships from air bases around the Black Sea?

I think it is perfectly possible to make the Black Sea a fiery cauldron for the Russian navy from NATO territory around the Black Sea.

And more NATO naval power from outside the Black Sea is highly limited by the Montreux Convention on use of the Turkish Straits.

Which isn't so bad because Russia's ability to enter or exit the Black Sea is highly constrained by the convention. And even if Turkey lets Russia use the straits notwithstanding Turkey's NATO status, NATO bases in the Balkans and Crete will destroy any Russian fleet elements trying to leave or enter the Black Sea.

And worse, NATO emphasis on the Black Sea is a potential distraction from controlling and using the Baltic Sea to defend Poland, the Baltic states, and soon Finland and Sweden.

The Black Sea is a minor NATO front whose only usefulness is distracting Russia from the main front west and northwest of Russian-controlled Belarus.

Ukraine is proving to be a formidable enemy of Russia that alone will make sure Russia has to devote resources to a secondary front that is no immediate threat to NATO.

Although if Russia conquers Ukraine by hook or crook, by all means revisit that issue. But we're not dumb enough to fail to keep Russia as far east as possible, are we?

One day Russia will be ready to be part of the West instead of looking for--and naturally "finding"--Western hostility and plots. We're clearly not there yet, as much as I've hoped a post-Soviet leadership would move Russia there.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

"Synchronized." That's Pretty Damned Funny

Russia and China have "synchronized" their policies for Eurasian hegemony? I really want to examine the Definitions Section for that word.

Ah, the partnership without limits:

The “no limits” partnership established between Russia and China this February had been decades in the making. It was not an abrupt strategic shift for either country. Both have long envisioned cooperation with their Asian neighbors as a means of constructing an anti-American bloc in Eurasia. To accomplish this goal, Russia has become rhetorically, militarily, and geopolitically synchronized with China.

Beijing’s Defense Ministry justified the recent military drills around Taiwan by calling them a “solemn deterrent against collusion and provocation between the U.S. and Taiwan.” During the 10th Moscow Conference on International Security held last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin labeled Nancy Pelosi’s trip to the island as “part of the purpose-oriented and deliberate US strategy designed to… sow chaos in the region and the world.”

Russia and China are frenemies with benefits. Nothing more.

And Russia's invasion of Ukraine has ruined Russia's military reputation and capabilities, putting Russia in the position of a "no limits" vassal of China.

Russia needs to worry that China will not seek hegemony in Eurasia with Russia as a partner, but with Russia the target in both Central Asia and the Far East.

Seriously, Putin should not invite Xi Jinping to Central Asia. Isn't Russia worried about this?

Speaking in Uzbekistan at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a security grouping led by China and Russia, Xi said member countries should support the efforts each other have made to safeguard their own security and development interests. ...

He also said that China will train 2,000 law enforcement personnel from member countries over the next five years and set up a training base focusing on anti-terrorism work.

He invited member countries to sign up to China's Global Security Initiative, a concept he proposed in April which includes the idea that no country should strengthen its own security at the expense of others.

The member countries are basically former Soviet Central Asian states (except Turkmenistan). You never can tell who Xi will walk away with.

As for Russia's defense of China's claims on Taiwan? That's no partnership. That's Russia desperately hoping to get China and America to smash each other up and leave Russia standing. 

Face it, if Russian rulers had any sense, they'd make peace with NATO and Ukraine in order to make Europe a safe rear area to deploy military power east to block China before Russia experiences further imperial shrinkage.

Unless it is grand strategery to synchonize Russia's kneeling before China. I guess I'm beyond guessing how Putin defines Russia's interests.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Win the Brown Skies From the Air

We must not expect our forward maneuver companies to defeat drone swarms flying low in the "brown skies" just above them while they carry out their ground combat missions.

The Army is rightly worried about enemy drone swarms hitting our troops in the field:

Since [ISIL defenders used commercial drones as their air force in the Battle for Mosul six years ago], the U.S. military has been running flat out trying to catch up to what is a rapidly evolving range of capabilities that are now causing havoc on battlefields and beyond. One ominous video posted by the commander of the U.S. Army's National Training Center sums up what our troops are going to be facing in the future and how the military is racing to prepare for it.

The problem of advanced, networked enemy drones requires a response even more than the home-adapted jihadi drones used in Mosul:

Countering such a swarm remains a major problem. Depending on the concept of operations, electronic warfare remains one of the best bets, especially for countering large groups of drones spread out in the sky, but everything from kinetic means — missiles and guns, as well as even other drones — to lasers and high-powered microwaves are deep in development or beginning to be fielded on a wider basis. 

The one problem in defeating enemy drones that doesn't seem to be addressed is the burden on ground units trying to carry out their ground combat missions. Are we going to expect our tank and infantry companies to close with and destroy the enemy ground forces while lugging around and using anti-drone weapons sufficient to defeat an attacking drone swarm?

Really?

It's the "other drones" option of defeating enemy drone swarms that I proposed years ago in Army magazine, which I addressed in this blog post:

Can forward American troops carry ground-based systems that can fend off a drone swarm attack?

I don't think heavier air defense systems at higher echelons can protect American troops from small drone swarms operating low over the battlefield in the "brown skies" above our companies and platoons. High-flying F-35s certainly can't do the job.

My worry is that American small units can't carry around enough air defense systems to protect themselves from drone air attack while still carrying out their primary ground combat mission. I wrote about this in Army magazine.

The only way to do the job and free American combat units for their primary mission is to have combat air patrol drone swarms that the forward American combat units don't have to think about while they do their primary jobs.

We need many weapons to defeat drone threats from the front all the way back to airfields and logistics assets. Ground-based drone defenses are more useful the farther away from the front the targets are (and necessary against larger drones going deep into rear areas).

But for the forward maneuver companies in combat, if they spend all their energies and efforts keeping drone swarms from wiping them out, what use are they for winning the battle?

Only drone combat air patrols (DCAP) can protect the forward companies and protect their ability to carry out their primary mission of defeating enemy ground combat units.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Gets Awkward for Putin

Putin has to decide whether to sacrifice Russia to save himself. I suppose Russia has to decide if that's a fair bargain.

The war is not going well for Putin. He thought his legions would roll through Ukraine, with Ukrainians showering his troops with thanks; and his people full of pride that their glorious leader had brought more glory to Russia.

Not so much. It's been donkeys bled by lying. Putin's legions were hollow, the Ukrainians didn't want Putin's rescue, and the West rallied to support Ukraine, which has resisted enough that Russia pulled its troops back from Kiev and the north; and now Ukraine counterattacks in the east and south, pushing the Russians back.

And now, on Putin's orders, Russia will involuntarily recall up to 300,000 former troops to fight in Ukraine:

The decree is short on detail. It says nothing about a cap on numbers or about any exceptions, such as not recruiting students or conscripts.

Instead, it is left to regional heads to decide how to meet quotas. In theory, the net could be cast far wider than the Kremlin has specified.

Russian officials said it would announce "very soon" those who would be exempt from its partial mobilisation.

The call-up stops short of full conscription, a move that would have risked turning a public that has so far largely been in favour of the conflict against it.

Properly speaking, these aren't reservists. They are former soldiers. Which is different. Let me tell you, I forgot my MOS skills shockingly fast when I got out. These Russians are cannon fodder until trained and equipped. 

Russia has problems replacing combat losses. And equipment losses mean Russia seems better at equipping Ukrainian units than Russian units. Worse for those Russians mobilized, Russia has been sending training establishment personnel to the front. And Russia's brigades have had their ability to train new units crippled. So how much training can these people get?

And bizarrely, the Russians are forcibly enlisting protesters. Which violates the entire "reservist" concept. Who, Russians may ask, is next?

If done right and with enough time, Russia could convert this decree for manpower into combat power. Who thinks that will happen?*

Will domestic opposition sharpen as the prospect of going to war and dying for Putin's place in the history books hits home in a lot more homes in Russia?

What happens when these troops get sent into the meat grinder with predictable results? Assuming Russia's nearly shattered ground forces hand on until that "help" arrives.

As for Putin's nuclear threats? This answers the question of how many nuclear weapons Russia has. I want to know how many actually work. Freedman raises the same point. Fear of technical failure might be the biggest deterrent to Russian use of tactical nukes in Ukraine. What does Putin have left to deter China if people doubt his nukes work?

Without a credible nuclear deterrent Russia would have to accept full vassal status under China in a desperate effort to hang on to its Far East--on paper. What concessions will China demand for letting Putin pretend he is powerful?

We can go back to my questions from December 2021, including the main one:

Honestly, this level of crisis that Putin is stoking might just provoke enough powerful and ordinary Russians to wonder if Putin himself is the foreign plot to destroy Russia. Could Putin end up hanging from a lamp post by his heels before this is over?

Or maybe Russia will leave him, and we'll see Putin in charge of the Grand Duchy of Moscow.

But other than that, Putin is brilliant!

*Yet still I have nagging worries. Mostly because I don't have as clear a sense of what Ukraine has lost. As bad as Russia's personnel and weapons losses have been, could Russia still have a resource advantage? Could the addition of even cannon fodder in large numbers overwhelm Ukraine's ability to hold the entire length of its frontier? 

Remember, despite some protests the mobilized men are accepting going off to war.

I'm not worried in the short term. I think the war is tilted toward Ukraine. But if Ukraine can't exploit its advantage while it has it, could Russia emerge in the spring ready to push Ukraine over the edge?

The cost to Russia might be astronomical and ultimately ruinous. But Ukraine could lose.

UPDATE (Monday): ISW issued its latest report largely on Russia's mobilization effort. Unless Russia fixes personnel and equipment issues, shoving ill-trained bodies into the front is the only likely outcome.

UPDATE: Lukashenko flew to Russia to meet with Putin. Last week I noted that in a UN speech Belarus has seemingly tied its fate to Putin. Will Belarus join the war and invade Ukraine from the north?

UPDATE (Wednesday): Nearly 200,000 Russians have fled abroad to avoid military service already. That's a lot, considering that 30-40,000 Americans fled to Canada to avoid Vietnam service--over nearly a decade. 

Although the number seemingly includes supporters of draft resisters who aren't liable for service. But that adds to the economic harm to Russia, doesn't it?

Still, this might just be the accepted price of doing business for the Russian government.

UPDATE: Are the Ukrainians on the verge of enveloping Lyman and capturing more Russian troops, supplies, and equipment? 

Mud is approaching. But could Ukraine mount a winter offensive in the south when the ground hardens? If Ukrainian troops are better prepared for the cold, Russia might not get as much of a break to recover as they think? Surely the Ukrainians and the West are getting cold weather gear in place. Right?

UPDATE (Thursday): According to ISW, Russian sources say Ukraine has isolated Russian troops around Lyman.

UPDATE (Friday): Russia illegally annexes conquered Ukrainian territory. On paper, Russia has a victory.

UPDATE: Ukraine has cut off Russian supply lines to Lyman by fires--not by physically controlling all routes in. 

UPDATE (Saturday): ISW thinks Ukraine will capture or isolate Lyman in the next few days. Also, I have to conclude that Ukraine is finding it harder than it thought to advance on the Kherson front than they expected. Which must mean the Russian troops there are more numerous and willing to fight than on the Kharkov front that collapsed.

UPDATE: Has Lyman fallen? 

UPDATE: Literally moments after I asked if Lyman has fallen, Russia says they retreated from there. It's somewhat of a win for Russia if the Russian troops escaped. We'll see if any took up Ukraine's offer to accept their surrender.

UPDATE: Ukraine says the battle is ongoing; that thousands of Russians are trapped; and that some have surrendered already. Will Ukraine capture more weapons and supplies there?

And can Putin admit a defeat that would justify using any means necessary to reverse this defeat?

NOTE: ISW updates continue here.

Weekend Data Dump

Is the A-10 grossly overrated? Something to think about. I've admitted advances in air defenses make the A-10 less useful in a low-level strafing role. And that I'd accept F-35s dedicated to close air support. Still, I knew the A-10 gun couldn't penetrate tank frontal armor. So why did the test cited limit the A-10 to strafing tanks from the front? And other armored vehicles would be toast if hit. My trust issue does not change.

Putin sent the army to Ukraine to die and doesn't seem to want to revive it: "Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly relying on irregular volunteer and proxy forces rather than conventional units and formations of the Russian Federation Armed Forces."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has accelerated Ukrainian patriotism and bad views of Russia.

If Turkey doesn't act worthy of being a NATO member, it's hard to argue against selling arms to Cyprus. Especially if NATO wants Cyprus to be the Incirlik air base Plan B.

Even if we don't break up the FBI for parts, a good decimation of leadership is in order.

The Party of Privilege. Via Instapundit.

Sometimes I read Europeans will be fine--if chilly--on energy this winter. Other times (tips to Instapundit) I read they have problems. If the latter, why isn't America opening energy spigots here to help?! Will there be food and energy shortages? It won't be as bad as post-World War II, at least. Because Europe is refusing to take actions on its continent to restore fossil fuel resources there. Good luck with that. I'm not terribly worried about the "Great Reset" fear near the end. But your mileage may vary, I suppose.

A bill in Congress would commit America to training Taiwan's military. Good. Weapons aren't enough. 

Sure, you go with the idea that Ukrainian irregular warfare on land using mobile anti-tank teams within friendly territory validates moving Marines with anti-ship weapons to islands inside China's firepower envelope. So you don't need those LAWs to move them?

Germany will send 4 more Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine. Ukraine already received 18 from the Germans and Dutch.

This is nuts. And I say this as someone who because of age has retreated from his former (perfectly adequate) average height. Tip to Instapundit.

The major surprise to me in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the apparent disregard for Russian troop casualties. I didn't think Putin would want to risk that. Although perhaps Putin thinks he just needs to prevent his people from fully realizing the casualties rather than avoiding casualties.

Via Instapundit: "Today's climate activists resemble nothing so much as a religious movement, with carbon the new devil's spawn." Well, duh. Now go and emit no more.

The Department of Justice is out of control. It seems that way:

The media demand for white racism exceeds the supply. Which normally you'd think is good news. Via Instapundit.

I don't think it is fair to say that China's snap military exercises carried out for the political purpose of rebuking Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan indicate China is incapable of invading Taiwan.

The new extraterritoriality: Chinese edition. Tip to Instapundit.

Erdogan thinks Putin wants to end the war soon. Which contradicts the idea that Russia has an advantage over Ukraine in a long war. But does Russia really think it can annex conquered territory and gain the legal and practical ability to threaten Ukraine with nukes to keep it?

We're 85% close to a civil war? One, what is that number supposed to mean? And two, just stop. Via PJ Media.

Trash? Isn't that 16K pounds of raw materials that would cost a fortune to send to Mars for use as building materials?

To be fair, Iran's mullahs repress everyone and not just women: "Riot police used water cannon and fired tear gas to disperse crowds in Tehran after hundreds of demonstrators skirmished with security forces on Monday."

America's PACAF commander said China's J-20 stealth fighter isn’t “anything to lose a lot of sleep over.” Indeed.

Starlink will try to get exemption to continue providing internet service to protesters in Iran. 

Can the West strangle China's hopes of building a first-class computer chip industry? That would be good. But is a second-class Chinese semiconductor industry good enough to dominate East Asia militarily? Tip to Instapundit.

That wasn't undermining our elections! Waaaay different!!

Eritrea invaded Ethiopia's rebellious Tigray province. WTF? I did not see Eritrea siding with Ethiopia's government. I forgot that Eritrea already did that. 

"A base [Green Village] housing U.S. troops in northeastern Syria was struck by a rocket attack Sept. 18, according to a press release from U.S. Central Command." There were no casualties and no damage in this small harassment attack.

The US thinks Ukraine has shot down 55 Russian warplanes; and Ukraine still has 80% of its air force. I assume the latter means Ukraine's air force in operating condition. Ukraine has suffered losses, so replacement planes and spare parts from NATO countries have apparently restored much of what was lost by putting non-operational planes in the air and replacing some losses with new planes.

The Russian parliament passed a law that "codifies dramatically increased penalties for desertion, refusing conscription orders, and insubordination. It also criminalizes voluntary surrender and makes surrender a crime punishable by ten years in prison." Huh.

Also, annexing Ukrainian territory will allow Putin to send conscripts to "defend Russia." Will sending unwilling soldiers actually help Russia?

An argument for homeland missile defense. The American homeland is no longer a sanctuary, you know.

Armenia chose poorly when it made Russia its protector. How much will the West let it suffer for that mistake?

After decades of PLAN expansion, now the Navy gets a sense of urgency to end its shipyard maintenance backlog?  To be fair, if the Navy doesn't end the backlog in peacetime, its already poor shipyard capacity will have zero chance of repairing battle damage before the war ends.

I've noted that I have no idea if European energy is a crisis situation or not. I read things both ways. But if it is really bad, why aren't Europe and America pulling out all the stops to produce energy?

Murderous political hate. Who put the figurative crosshairs on that now-dead young man--Cayler Ellingson? But I guess we're supposed to celebrate the killing of a semi-fascist. If the self-confessed killer's tale is to be believed. And if a tale, what does that say about what he expects to be justification?

We don't hear much about the glorious tank tactics that Russia pioneered in Syria, do we?

Middle East fossil fuels are not going to be irrelevant for a long time.

Iran: "Amini’s death in the capital [in the custody of Shia Islamist "morality police"] has ignited a wave of protests across the country, exposing a raw anger among Iranian women about their treatment by the regime and an unprecedented willingness to defy the government." Big fires can spring from small sparks.

What does Eritrea get for this help? "Eritrean troops have launched a full-scale offensive in Ethiopia's Tigray region, a spokesman for the Tigrayan rebel group, the TPLF, has said." Electricity from Ethiopia's big Nile River dam?

Huh: "Iranian authorities said three people including a member of the security forces had been killed on Tuesday during unrest sweeping the country, as anger at the death of a woman in the custody of the morality police fuelled protests for a fifth day."

I seriously doubt that the Air Force can't defeat the Chinese air force--assuming there are enough airfields in the western Pacific to base Air Force units. Although flying hours is a problem. Simulators aren't enough.

China can blockade Taiwan. Sure, which is why Taiwan needs conventional naval units--especially some of its new future subs--on its east coast to break or increase the cost of that blockade. As for internet connections if China cuts the cables? Have Elon Musk on speed dial for Starlink.

Bike Lives Matter. I'm starting to get happy that these fools are getting what they voted for. Tip to Instapundit.

Sure: "If things have to go even further and Putin has to recruit the children of prosperous families in Moscow and St Petersburg to keep throwing men at the fronts, his regime could face serious internal dangers." But don't pretend that sending the non-ethnic Russians to die doesn't have a potential internal danger.

Say, where are Western feminists as Iranian protests against mullah killing of a Iranian woman over not covering up properly spreads to university campuses? Feminists are so worked up about punishing microaggressions here that the macroaggressions by Iran aren't noticed.

I used to like Peacock, the free/pay streaming service with advertisements. But it recently put almost all of their stuff on the pay side of that site. 

America Britain, Australia, and New Zealand participated in Exercise Cartwheel in Fiji. That's an interesting call back.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is leading Britain to have second thoughts on its planned focus away from ground combat in Europe. I did say I'd miss the BAOR. But it may be of the Vistula, now, I suppose.

No! Way! "The Obama Foundation stored classified documents in an abandoned furniture warehouse, according to a 2018 letter from the Obama Foundation to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)."

Has Ukraine suffered crippling casualties? Macgregor was an outstanding combat commander in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Yet I question his judgment outside that skill set. But I'll put that assessment out there to avoid just reading what I want to read. There was certainly a time in the defense of the Donbas salient that I expressed worries over the Ukrainian casualty rate. So I can't rule it out.

On the bright side, in space no one can hear you sing.

Just say "no" to Democratic Nations as an alternative to the United Nations. I went over this ground with the League of Democracies alternative. An NGO League of Nations on Taiwan is the way to go.

Pirates and terrorists.

Putin's recent speech included a complaint about Western so-called Russophobia:"They used indiscriminate Russophobia as a weapon, including by nurturing the hatred of Russia for decades, primarily in Ukraine, which was designed to become an anti-Russia bridgehead. "  Yeah:

#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

I continue to read that Russia's mobilization order demonstrates that Russia's far larger population gives them the advantage over Ukraine in a war of attrition. That isn't completely true.

"Islamist terror act" in Norway.

Strategery. It's hard to argue against the suspicion that Biden sent our Strategic Petroleum Reserve down to a 40-year low in order to provide a boost to his poll numbers. Tip to PJ Media.

Helping the Iranian people overthrow the mullah regime is the best path to resolving Iran's nuclear weapons problem. Tip to Instapundit. Indeed. A lot of problems become easier to cope with if the mullah regime is gone.

The legions of leftist medical and psychological professionals who could remotely diagnose Trump are suddenly too busy to look at John Fetterman. 

Actual Russian election rigging.

WT Actual F? Via Instapundit.

Whistleblowers: from hero to zero. Tip to Instapundit.

The Navy will replace the Burke DDG and Ticonderoga CG with a new ship. It will use systems from the latest Burke models plus some from the truncated Zumwalt class--as I figured. Note that the current destroyers have a 5" gun and not a 76mm. But I'm shocked that the ship will have so few standard VLS cells--the same as our new frigate will have--apparently to make room for 12 larger cells, presumably to handle hypersonic missiles. Unless the larger cells can handle inserts for 6 standard cells, too, it makes little sense. We can't afford to ef up designing and building these ships.

Yeah, there's a lot of talk of China invading Taiwan in 5 years. Because as we all know, Sun Tsu said "When 5 years away, appear 5 years away."

The Air National Guard isn't happy with cuts to planned purchases of the F-15EX. It seems like a fine plane for North America air defense. We really don't need stealth fighters for that mission at this point.

A former Italian PM made some odd justifications for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It is another lesson that continental European "conservatives" (even if I don't trust media descriptions of them as tied to fascism) are different than a lot of American "conservatives." European conservatives have more of a monarchist bent and are nationalist socialists. In opposition to the internationalist socialists on the left. Many American (and British, to some degree) conservatives are classical "liberals" who value individual freedom and free markets. Which was their term in America until leftist "progressives" stole the term "liberal".

Back in April, Russia apparently tried to get it's client Transnistria into the war. Which seems insane given how little military power could be generated--even from Russia's garrison there. I imagine Ukrainian Territorial Army forces could have taken that sliver of an entity. But Transnistria didn't go along with Russian desires. Could that entity exploit the war to join Moldova to escape association with Russia despite its dominant Russian speakers?

The EU says Putin's nuclear threats must be taken seriously. How soon before the EU exploits this so-called crisis to claim it should have nuclear weapons?

LOL:

More good jihadis in Somalia. We can't "mow the grass" in Afghanistan.

World opinion is shifting against Russia. Good. Initially that wasn't the case.

Russian society may be "anxious" because of Putin's mobilization order, but the men are still going off to war. Will Russia get 1.2 million in uniform?

Good: "SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said on Friday that he would activate the firm's satellite internet service, Starlink, in response to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's tweet that the United States took action 'to advance internet freedom and the free flow of information' to Iranians." 

Belgium insists on shutting down a nuclear reactor despite the continent's energy shortage. Belgium's energy situation was called "dire" in scale. Gaia thanks Belgians for freezing and losing their jobs. FFS.

The B-21 is supposed to be an affordable stealth bomber that can finally replace the good enough but ancient B-52 and the expensive B-2.

Fascinating: "Lavrov dismissed the complaints [of illegal elections in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory] as the West 'throwing a fit' about people making a choice on where they feel they belong." Isn't that what former parts of the Soviet empire (legally) did when they sought to join NATO or the EU?

I went to Las Vegas with a couple friends. It was back to normal, Covid-wise. I tried Blackjack for the first time and did okay after weeks of intensive practice to memorize rules. But the high weekend night minimums for bets at the nicer casinos we go to exceeded my risk willingness. The minimums are higher than I remember from a year ago. My luck on slots was horrible. But I lost less than I anticipated. Several expensive restaurants just about exceeded gambling losses! I did come back with a common cold which hung on forever. Odd that I didn't get Covid, but three negative tests and a different, lingering sickness all screamed "cold." Been a while since I had one.

Nothing to see. Move along. Tip to Instapundit.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Well, I'll die as I blog here today. Knowing that asleep in my dream they'll fall to ruin one day for making us meme.

Forward Defense

America tries to keep overseas threats from developing to the point of threatening America at home.

This Geopolitical Futures essay summarizes America's strategy nicely:

America’s goal in Ukraine, then, is to deny Russia the strategic depth it wants in order to limit the Russian threat to Europe. With China, its goal is to retain American strategic depth in order to prevent China from threatening the U.S. or obtaining global reach.

The issues are similar in principle, but the stakes for the United States are not. For Washington, the China question is much more important than the Russia question. A Russian victory in Ukraine would redraw unofficial boundaries and increase risks. A Chinese success would create a more global power that challenges the U.S. and its allies around the world.

So we try to keep Russia as far east as possible where it can't harness the resources of Europe. And we try to keep China penned inside the first island chain by supporting allies there, preventing China from organizing the resources of the western Pacific.

Achieving both objectives prevents powers in control of Europe or Asia from threatening North America.

While the China threat is more pressing, Europe has the power to blunt Russia, as long as America is there in NATO to knit together the European military forces scattered across the continent. 

I'll add that American leadership in NATO prevents a second threat from arising in Europe--the European Union. The EU is a proto-imperial state that seeks to strip away the prefix.

And to achieve those goals America needs a quiet home field.

Do read all of the GF piece. It goes into Chinese and Russian needs regarding America that are interesting:

China needs to reach an understanding with the United States. Russia does not have that need. The U.S. is flexible.

In theory, America can throttle China's seaborne trade. But America is clearly fine with China prospering within the Western system. And if America was truly a military threat to Russia, Russia would need an understanding, too. 

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 updates continue here.

The Effort to Keep Carriers Afloat and in Action

China's 600-mile range DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile (and the newer longer-ranged DF-26B) looms over American carriers in the western Pacific.

America has invested a lot of money in our carrier task forces. The ships, aircraft, and escorting subs and ships represent a lot of money.

I think the damage to American national morale if one or more are lost could be significant given their glorious history and status as symbols of American power. Notwithstanding nonsense notions that they are unsinkable. And even if they are unsinkable, much less than that takes them out of action, possibly for the duration.

The Navy is not oblivious to the threat of working anti-ship ballistic missiles: 

While the U.S. Navy has been quiet about how it plans to defend its ships against Chinese ship-killer ballistic missiles, they have not been idle. The navy has quietly expanded its layered air defense system with the addition of new electronic defenses. The navy is particularly quiet about any efforts to conduct realistic tests of its defenses against Chinese ballistic missiles.

It's a long kill chain to attack. Fingers crossed it can be broken at multiple points. 

And I still have the worry that targeting is much simpler than we like to think. Is my worry really ridiculous given China's broad role in our supply chains? 

And the Navy is working on even more capabilities:

The U.S. Navy will deploy a carrier strike group with advanced networking capabilities next year, in furtherance of the Pentagon’s vision for Joint All-Domain Command and Control.

Yes, networked carriers able to plug into networked defenses will add to the defensive strength of carriers. This says nothing about whether the effort to keep the carriers alive is worth the expense. 

And what capabilities are lost in this effort to create a bubble at sea to protect the carriers close to China?

Of course, the DF-21 is not the only threat to carriers, which have been attacked and sunk long before the DF-21 appeared. Aircraft, submarines, shore-based anti-ship missiles, and missile-armed surface ships are threats.

I'm not comfortable with big carriers--the apex of platform-centric warfare--being the center of our surface fleet for sea control missions when network-centric warfare (or whatever the current term of art is) is increasingly possible to mass effort without massing platforms.

Before you object to that assessment, are you defending the carrier for sea control missions? Or for power projection missions? They are different. Once you appreciate that, my views may not be so different than yours.

And God help us, the Chinese are practicing to strike before the carrier strike group is formed at sea with its layered defenses up. Worse, there are newer threat in American home ports, too.

We're spending a lot of money to keep carriers in the sea control battle, shoehorning them into network-centric warfare. Wouldn't it be better to keep fewer for power projection and use the money freed up for assets more suitable--and cheaper and expendable--for network-centric warfare?

Keep in mind, too, that China can use those anti-ship ballistic missiles against other enemies. Including Russia, should China sour on their frenemy with benefits' usefuleness.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 updates continue here.

A Peace Constitution is Not a Suicide Pact

China's military rise has reached Japanese shores. Japan has issued a white paper on the defense of Japan.

Japan is far less hesitant about asserting its right to defend itself as threats arise, citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a threat to global peace:

This defiance of international order is not just Europe’s problem. As strategic competition between nations becomes more apparent against the backdrop of changes to the global power balance, the existing order is being exposed to serious challenges, especially in the Indo-Pacific region, which is at the center of this competition. 

In particular, China continues to unilaterally change or attempt to change the status quo by coercion in the East China Sea and South China Sea. The country’s ties with Russia, an aggressor nation, have deepened in recent years, with joint navigations and flights being conducted in the areas surrounding Japan by both Chinese and Russian vessels and aircraft. Furthermore, China has made clear that it would not hesitate to unify Taiwan by force, further increasing tensions in the region. 

North Korea has repeatedly carried out ballistic missile launches well into 2022, thereby unilaterally escalating its provocations towards the international community. It has also defended Russia in respect of the latter’s aggression against Ukraine, asserting that the fault for this situation lies with the United States and other Western countries. On the Publication of Defense of Japan 2022 KISHI Nobuo Minister of Defense 

And Japan highlights its close friendship and alliances with America, Australia, and India. And notes European interest in defending international waters under threat by Chinese claims. Which removes the stigma of unilateral defense measures by placing Japanese concerns along with these nations' concerns:

Standing firm in its policies as a peace-loving nation, Japan resolutely continues to oppose any parties who attempt to forcibly change the world order. Japan also intends to continue demonstrating the strength of freedom and democracy and the significance of human rights and laws to the world through its unwavering conviction and tireless efforts.

After lengthy discussions placing Japanese defense concerns in wider contexts, Japan claims the right of self defense:

The independent state of a nation must be protected in order for it to determine its own direction in politics, economy, and society, as well as maintaining its culture, tradition, and sense of values. In addition, peace and security are essential for the people to live with a sense of safety and for Japan to continue to prosper. However, peace, safety, and independence cannot be secured by simply wishing for them. The essence of national security can be found in creating an international environment that is stable and predictable, while preventing the emergence of threats before they occur, through diplomacy.

And proclaims that Japan's efforts protect regional security from threats, benefiting all under threats to the peace. A discussion of the peace constitution and the right to self defense follows, with the statement that Japanese defense efforts will be sufficient for defense and not enough to threaten others.

The paper then goes into organization and capabilities, including those of American forces based in Japanese territory. And highlights Japan's defense cooperation with numerous states and peacekeeping initiatives, highlighting the position within a broader alignment of countries defending what Japan seeks to defend. 

The report looks at defense technology and the defense industrial base, along with softer topics (complete with pink borders, although I may read too much into what is an American view) that seem like they seek to take the hard edges off of what is a defense paper that at its core is about killing people and breaking things.

But the cost is not clear even if the direction is:

Japan’s Defense Ministry made a budget request for the coming year Wednesday without specifying the costs of missiles for preemptive strikes and dozens of other weapons as well as its development plans, as the government aims to drastically raise Japan’s military capability.

The ministry said it can disclose details only after the government in December adopts a new national security strategy and defense guidelines. They are being revised to fundamentally strengthen Japan’s military over the next five years. ...

Only a partial sum of 5.6 trillion yen ($40.4 billion) was disclosed for 2023, but the ministry’s budget plan could rise to around 6.5 trillion yen ($47 billion), up 20% from this year, Japanese media said.

Japan has cited the NATO 2% goal for the portion of GDP going to defense. Which will provide a lot of funding from what until recently had been an effective cap of 1%. Japan's economy is hefty, remember.

The Japanese rising sun is visible from China's shores. 

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 updates continue here.

If You Can't Be With the Nuke You Love, Love the Nuke You're With

North Korea's apparent decision to pursue tactical nuclear weapons is pointless or perhaps an admission of difficulty getting working ICBMs that can survive the journey and get past American missile defenses.

Is this a dangerous turn?

In January 2021, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told his country – and the world – about the plans he had for the evolution and modernization of his nuclear deterrent. He outlined a far-reaching, ambitious menu of military modernization goals. Among these were tactical nuclear weapons, a capability that North Korea had until then not formally sought.

The development and eventual deployment of tactical nuclear weapons by North Korea will represent the most serious negative development for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula since the country’s development of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles capable of ranging the United States.

The article rightly notes that the idea that "tactical" nukes going off around South Korean cities is unlikely to generate the nuanced calm in South Korea of not being hit with a bigger nuke.

And I'm not convinced North Korea has working ICBMs. It is possible that pursuing easier-to-build short-range nukes is more likely to succeed with North Korea's resources.

Although shooting those down is much easier.

To me it seems that nukes don't add anything that North Korea's chemical weapons capabilities don't already threaten--to weaken South Korea's ground forces to pave the way for a North Korean ground offensive.

Yet North Korea's army and even the once-supported commandos are rotting away. How will they exploit the potential chaos of nuclear strikes? Hell, the U.S. is making a claim that might be relevant: 

The Russian Ministry of Defense is in the process of purchasing millions of rockets and artillery shells from North Korea for its ongoing fight in Ukraine, according to a newly downgraded U.S. intelligence finding.

Are tactical nukes intended to make up for less ammunition? Or do the North Koreans accept that their conventional forces are so degraded that ammunition levels are irrelevant. And North Korea finally has a customer desperate enough to use their probably ancient ammunition?

I think pursuing tactical nukes makes it more dangerous for North Korea. South Korea is more likely to launch decapitation strikes on Pyongyang leadership with precision weapons; and more likely to advance north of the DMZ to deny those tactical nukes launching positions for strikes on Seoul.

Worse for Kim, if we conclude that North Korea is emphasizing tactical nukes because its longer-range weapons don't work, America is more likely to respond for South Korea with a nuke or two on North Korean military targets. This kind of joint South Korean-Japanese-American unity of response is thus more likely.

And if we won't commit to that kind of respone, South Korea may pursue nukes. Might China finally get serious about reining in their little pet psycho to keep that cascading choice around China's periphery from starting? (Note that I was clearly wrong to expect American military action. All I can say is that in 1994 I thought we were on the edge of striking, yet we did not. Years later I read we were actually close.)

NOTE: LOL. After writing this, I find I went over the some of the same ground 5 months ago.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 updates continue here.