Behold the SINKEX-Class Warship!

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) had a flawed purpose but innovative modular mission design concept that held promise. The Navy abandoned the littoral missions but couldn't produce the mission modules. And in the greatest sin couldn't even make the basic ships work. We need to do better to beat China at sea. Give the LCS proper burials at sea.

We should just rename these ships the SINKEX class and write them off, shouldn't we?

The littoral combat ship Wichita suffered a problem in its propulsion plant last month as the ship was on its way home from deployment. But Navy officials say they do not think the mishap was due to the same combining gear issue that has hobbled other Freedom-class LCS in recent years.

Oh, good! A completely new engine problem! What a relief.

The ship is only four years old.

I thought the concept of building a ship with lots of room for equipment and weapons housed in shipping containers that could be rapidly changed was a great concept. It eventually inspired my idea for Modularized Auxiliary Cruisers, which eventually got published in Military Review with a different emphasis.

Aside from failures in shipbuilding, the idea that the expensive and large ship should operate in the littorals close to shore was dangerous nonsense (nor was it the only victim of such thinking).

So the Navy added the LCS to its list of naval power failures. The shortcomings are depressing.

I had hoped that maybe the decommissioning of the class would allow the Navy to experiment with armed transports for Marine Littoral Regiment teams spread around the western Pacific to hammer the Chinese navy.

But we can hardly risk the Marine-laden LCS sailing alone and breaking down within PLAN missile range, can we? Just float around until an ocean-going tug can show up, eh?

Perhaps the best service the LCS can provide is to teach the Navy how modern anti-ship weapons damage ships in the real world.

Behold the SINKEX class.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

How Lucky is America?

The news lately from the Pact of Steal is interesting. How lucky is America's foreign policy?

China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran threaten the global system underwritten by America and its allies that has resulted in historically unprecedented prosperity. But they have visible problems.

CHINA: Unrest over China's Covid-19 response has been directed at Xi Jinping:

Protesters pushed to the brink by China's strict COVID measures in Shanghai called for the removal of the country's all-powerful leader and clashed with police Sunday as crowds took to the streets in several cities in an astounding challenge to the government.

So ... how much does Xi know about what is going on? At the moment of his triumph, does Xi face interesting times? Although contrary to the AP report, "mass incidents" aren't rare in China. The news may be just the usual churn that we notice now. Still, it is a lot of anger focused on Xi and his CCP. If the many protests really are commonly focused on Xi and the system itself, that is new.

We'll see if the People's Armed Police is sent in.

NORTH KOREA: And he's handsome and witty, as well!

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his country's intends to have the world's most powerful nuclear force as he promoted dozens of military officers involved in the recent launch of a new ballistic missile, state media reported on Sunday.

North Korea can't afford that nuclear force. And trying is undermining his conventional military and security forces that keep him in power, even as his people starve, sicken, and die. 

RUSSIA: Putin's body count of Russian lives extends beyond battlefield deaths:

Over five million Russians have permanently left Russia since Vladimir Putin took power in 1999. The exodus accelerated when he made his rule legally permanent in 2020. In 2022 Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, the first of several conquests he proclaimed necessary for Russian survival. This is not working out well because increased internal repression and external violence have crippled the economy (fewer jobs) while forcing men into the army to fight in Ukraine have led to still more Russians leaving Russia. The departures are substantial and continually reduce the population and percentage of the population that is Russian.

3-D chess player, indeed.

IRAN: good: 

The U.S., its allies and individuals across the globe are struggling to support protesters in Iran in what observers say is a make-or-break moment that could tip the scales for regime change in Tehran. 

President Biden said in early November that "we’re gonna free Iran. They’re gonna free themselves pretty soon." 

Although I'm so old I remember when regime change was horrible and Democrats screamed "hands off Iran". And I suspect Biden really wants to save the mullah regime despite the words that come out of his mouth.

Still, three aces is pretty good. Even a pair is nice. How lucky is America?

UPDATE: The question is asked:

China’s cities are filling up with large, loud, and surprisingly defiant public protests against the country’s draconian “zero Covid” policies. It raises the question of whether Xi Jinping and the yes-men around him are so stubborn and so obsessed with never admitting error that they’re almost self-destructive, and whether the U.S. and the world are dealing with a rising autocracy that is powerful but dumb.

I suspect that rather than being dumb or just stubborn, the rulers don't know what is happening outside of their bubble. But they think they know what is going on. As I noted in the original post, the mountains are high and the emperor is far. 

UPDATE: So far no PAP needed: 

China’s vast security apparatus has moved swiftly to smother mass protests that swept the country, with police patrolling streets, checking cell phones and even calling some demonstrators to warn them against a repeat.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

When the Winter War of 2022 Diverges

At some point the West's objectives will diverge from Ukraine's.

When Russia invaded, the West and Ukraine were united in keeping Russia from conquering Ukraine.

When Russia failed to conquer Ukraine, the West and Ukraine were united in pushing the Russians back.

But eventually, the West will have a different objective than Ukraine. There are signs of division in support for Ukraine as diplomacy is weighed against liberation from Russian conquest.

When Ukraine has at least gotten back the territory Russia conquered in 2022, Ukraine will likely want everything lost since 2014. Depending on the price in lives and money. I don't blame them. But we're not Ukraine. Weather--specifically, the mud--is slowing operations to a crawl until the ground freezes. So Ukraine hasn't gotten to the point of choosing what territory is worth more sacrifice.

The West has to balance pushing Russia back more than the minimum needed against the danger of Russia disintegrating under the impact of complete defeat.

Russia has nukes and we don't want them loose on the world market or used in a brutal internal war.

Nor does the West want China to pick up pieces of Russia in the Far East and replace Russian influence in Central Asia.

Remember, too, America has long reined in allies to keep them from dragging us into unwanted wars. Allies reliant on America for ammunition is a feature rather than a bug. 

We want Russia as far east as possible. We should want Ukraine safe from future Russian invasion. But we want a functioning and cooperative Russia east of whatever line that is to face China--not a fragmented remnant of the Sick Man of Eurasia. America may need to insist at some point that Ukraine has won enough.

Ukraine won't like it--or will blame America while secretly being relieved to be restrained. Europe may not like it. But America will insist and ultimately, because of our crucial role in arming and sustaining Ukraine's war effort, we won't be denied.

We aren't at the point of diverging objectives. But we need to be prepared to assert America's national interest when it no longer matches Ukraine's--or Europe's. 

UPDATE: It is interesting that ISW writes that Russia is deploying well east of the Dnieper River in Kherson province. ISW judges that Russia believes it can't hold the river line--or even the Kinburn Spit--and that Ukraine can cross the river and push southeast. 

ISW offers no opinion on whether Ukraine can do that or intends to do that. 

Also, Russian fortifications in the region are based on road networks, leaving them vulnerable to cross-country outflanking.

My initial early war thinking about a counteroffensive from this direction was that Ukraine would push to the river and cross the river in stride before the Russians could reset on the eastern side.

Since then I've been pondering limited amphibious and air mobile operations to pry the Russians loose from the river line.

But if Ukrainian fires can keep the Russian back, Ukraine has river-crossing options. If bridges can be built, repaired, and defended to let heavy forces cross and establish supply lines.

A drive south from Zaporizhia toward Melitopol should still be the main effort. But the Kherson front could be a supporting effort that exploits a Russian need to focus on the Zaporizhia thrust.

In the east, Russian forces continue to claw forward in Donetsk while Ukraine batters at the Russian lines further north.

UPDATE (Tuesday): I'll just note that while the ground freezing in Ukraine will restore movement, that's not the end of the story. In 1941 the Germans rejoiced when the frozen ground allowed their armies to advance again after the mud. But eventually the temperatures got low enough as winter progressed to cripple German military operations. Still, I assume that the Ukrainians who live with that weather are better prepared than the invading Germans were then. We'll see how prepared the Russian invaders are.

UPDATE: I admit that I worry about this possibility:

540,000 Russian combat forces are assembled in Southern Ukraine, Western Russia, and Belarus. The numbers continue to grow, but the numbers already include 1,000 rocket artillery systems, thousands of tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, plus 5,000 armored fighting vehicles, including at least 1,500 tanks, hundreds of manned fixed-wing attack aircraft, helicopters, and bombers.

If this force exists, it would be a powerful offensive force. Especially if those not holding the line are committed to the northeast for a new offensive against Kiev where Ukrainian forces are thin on the ground. But I've seen nothing even hinting at this.

But again, I've worried that we don't see such a preparation for a new Russian offensive. And I worry that we are giving Russia too little credit after giving them way too much before the war.

But it has long seemed to me that the author is ... a bit off ... away from his admittedly impressive combat record.

UPDATE: A counterpoint that Russia is losing. I tend to agree with this view. But Ukraine hasn't made the progress I thought they would by now. So I worry that Russia can build a new army with reasonable training and equipment to reopen a dormant front while the depleted invasion army and ill-trained "reservists" die to keep most of the Ukrainian army pinned in place from Kharkov to Kherson.

UPDATE (Friday): Do the Russians anticipate Ukrainian offensives from those directions?

Russian forces are holding reserves in Crimea to support defensive operations in Zaporizhia Oblast and on the east bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast.

UPDATE: If Ukraine is building up trained units as more and more Russian units are ill-trained and poorly equipped, eventually a Ukrainian offensive will collapse a lot of the Russian invaders. 

Even as I worry that Russia many mass enough sufficiently trained and equipped troops to launch a big new offensive, I know it is more likely to turn out poorly for the Russians even if the Ukrainians face the attack with a much smaller--but superior quality--force. 

UPDATE (Saturday): Yes, a ceasefire with Russia still holding too much Ukrainian territory would be a terrible error.

UPDATE: I'd noticed that Ukrainian strikes in this region seemed to be more intense: "Ukrainian forces continued to strike Russian forces in rear areas of Zaporizhia Oblast along critical logistics lines that could impact their ability to hold or equip defensive lines." Does this telegraph an offensive here?

UPDATE: Okay: "Ukrainian forces reportedly reached the east (left) bank of the Dnipro River across from Kherson City." Putting a small number of troops on the east bank in a region largely abandoned by Russia is not a big deal. Get back to me when Ukraine has some bridges in place.

NOTE: ISW war updates continue here.

Weekend Data Dump

Crime denier. Stupid peasant! Why doesn't she work from home on her laptop? Tip to Instapundit.

China continues to make progress toward stealth fighters. 

Russia lags in drone design and use; while America's wartime experience using them erodes from lack of peacetime practice.

The tricky problem of refusing to feed the bear with its head through your car window.

Media scrutiny can never pierce woke armor. Tip to Instapundit.

Ukraine will investigate a charge that its troops killed Russian troops trying to surrender. If true, it's worse than a crime. It's a mistake. Of course, the Russians have high incentive to convince their shaky troops that surrender is a bad idea.

Well, the Kavanaugh hearings and coverage were the events that led me to refuse to vote for any Democrat ever, even in local elections: "Apparently suppressing exculpatory facts in a high-profile confirmation hearing is not considered malpractice by current journalistic standards." Via Instapundit.

A Navy Taiwan Strait transit.

Question: How do the Marines get these small boats to rivers and coastal regions across the vast Pacific? Just asking for a friend.

Killers: "Iran, already one of the world's most prolific users of the death penalty, is planning to use capital punishment as a means to quell the protest movement by spreading a climate of fear in the population, activists warn." Thankfully, Allah is on their side.

Iran bombards Iraq's Kurdish region in an effort to export the causes of Iran's proto-revolution.

I hope it is just an image problem. But I fear the Army's effort to reach out to Gen Z will further alienate the traditional recruiting base and fail to attract the recruits the Army shouldn't even want. And maybe--and I'm just spitballing here--Army recruiting woes aren't an image problem.

After years of progressives saying during Bush 43's tenure that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism" and the elevation of dissent to holy Resistance when Trump was president, I'm having trouble adapting to the whole "deviating even a smidgen from progressive politics is treason" thing. Which exceeds even the Obama era "dissent is racist" line of attack.

If our woke institutions of higher education and teacher union schools where education goes to die don't use standardized tests, we can't possibly know precisely how much they suck.

This seems dangerous for our health. Tip to Instapundit.

The diabolical plan to turn young women into Republican warriors continues. Tip to Instapundit.

It's a sweet scam. Mistress Woke will put you in your worthless place for only $5,000 and a nice meal. Even the woke white are irredeemably deplorable now. Tip to Instapundit.

The Chinese coast guard took apparent Chinese rocket debris from the Philippines' navy, which was towing it. I imagine America will get a positive response from our request to expand our military presence there.

M-113 armored personnel carriers are in no way "tank-like". And Texas will send just 10 to the Mexican border. Also, given the horror that Martha's Vinyard displayed to one bus of migrants, is it really "legally dubious" to describe the open border flooded with illegal migrants as an "invasion" to justify sending the Texas National Guard to protect the border? History begs to differ. 

Crime isn't that bad! Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Via Instapundit.

Honestly, our elites give off such a "the peasants are revolting" vibe that the study is pretty unneeded, no?

Iraq needs more rule of law. I've harped on that since before the surge worked, as a long-term objective. That said, America needs more rule of law these days, too.

Long after we fought counter-insurgencies we have a cheaper-to-operate COIN plane. If we were still helping the Afghanistan security forces battle jihadis, the OA-1K would be nice. Maybe AFRICOM will find a use.

NATO is still ramping up capacity to defend new NATO states. And as I've noted before, Europe should upgrade the Baltic states railroads away from Russian-gauge rails. That would speed NATO reinforcements and--as we've seen is important--slow down Russia's ability to supply advancing troops.

Houthi rebels Iran attacked a ship with drones at an oil terminal in Yemen.

Huh: "FBI Director Christopher Wray told the [House Homeland Security Committee] that his agency 'remains concerned about the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan,' and noted that the intent of foreign terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and ISIS and their affiliates around the world is to 'carry out or inspire large-scale attacks in the United States.'"

 

Huh: "Afghanistan's Taliban rulers said over the weekend that 10 women and 11 men were lashed for crimes of theft, adultery and running away from their homes." This will never get old:

 

Huh: "The Iranian regime has adopted what increasingly resembles a counter-insurgency approach rather than a counter-protest one to manage the ongoing unrest." And: "Growing government violence against the demonstrators creates more foreign support for the demonstrators. ... The IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) in some parts of the country are treating the protesters as active revolutionaries. ... The IRGC appears to ignore the fact that killing civilians turns protesters into rebels." The widespread but splintered opposition has no unified vision of a replacement to the mullah regime.

The Navy's SSN force is practicing to defeat new Chinese and Russian subs, including Aggressor Squadron (AGGRON) training. Also: "The navy is reviving production of the Mk 48 torpedo carried by American subs. No new Mk 48s have been manufactured since 1996." These are the heavy ones.

Isolationist conservatives repeatedly complain that we back unreliable allies who can't fight. But these conservatives oppose helping Ukraine defeat Russia? "What we’re witnessing is, in short, the least expensive generational kneecapping of a geopolitical rival in world history." When you start to kneecap a geopolitical rival, kneecap a geopolitical rival, eh?

Ukraine lives or dies on its ground forces and ability to nullify Russian aero-missile power over Ukraine. Improving Ukraine's naval power is a luxury item under the circumstances, in my opinion.

This seems prudent: "Bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate would grant the Pentagon wartime procurement powers, allowing it to use multiyear contracts to buy massive amounts of high-priority munitions to help Ukraine fight Russia and refill U.S. stockpiles."

A Belarus general warned that a wider war could break out in Europe. Seriously? Russia is having difficulties gaining ground in Donetsk against Ukraine. But somehow we need to worry Russia will expand the war to all of Europe? Get away from me kid, you bother me. Although I admit I worry that Putin will threaten Lukashenko with death if he doesn't throw the crappy but still fresh Belarusian army into the war.

Next winter, people will freeze and go hungry from lack of energy. You'd think leaders here would expand energy production to prevent that prediction. But no, they prefer to act on false predictions of climate doom at the end of this century. Tip to Instapundit.

My view was that if someone wants to bug my home, they'll have to work for it rather than convince me to buy and install the listening device. Tip to Instapundit.

Watch your assumptions: "U.S. Navy aircraft carriers George H.W. Bush and Gerald R. Ford are teaming up with three other allied aircraft carriers in U.S. 6th Fleet this month to bolster interoperability between NATO allies." One, the carriers aren't operating together. And two--and this is a reminder to those old enough to really remember the Cold War--6th Fleet covers all European waters and is no longer our Mediterranean armada. And no longer an armada.

China has a "very deliberate timeline" to take Taiwan? Well, if so ... what is it? 

Ukraine could win a war of attrition with Russia. As the author says, Russia's much larger population doesn't impact the outcome directly at its advantage ratio. And Western industrial capacity outweighs Russia's, as I also noted. That author thinks Ukraine is better able to keep fighting despite casualties and equipment losses.

Private foreign policy: "Volunteers with Be A Hero UA, a Polish charity organization, pack Jeeps and other SUVs earmarked for the front lines with essentials for civilians and soldiers: food, clothes, first-aid kits, tires, generators [and other items.]" What happens when that private foreign policy contradicts the state's policy? Now this network is supporting Ukraine. Where does this phenomenon go next?

Dilemma: "Top defense officials in Europe say arms shortages among Ukraine’s Western allies are forcing difficult conversations about how to balance support for Ukraine with concerns Russia may target them next." One, defeat Russia now and there will be no threat for a long time. Two, start producing more arms.

Germany will station air defense missiles in Poland.

The United States Army wants to expand activities in the Philippines and Indonesia.

Let's see. Democrats claim Republicans--who will control the House in January 2023 and won't get any legislation passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate let alone signed by Biden--are only interested in investigating Democrats rather than solving problems. These are the Democrats who controlled Congress and the White house but focused on impeachment, fake Russia collusion, fake threats to democracy, and J6 show trials. And here we are with war in Europe, a dangerous China, Iran, North Korea, Covid lockdown effects, Fentanyl, supply chain problems, the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan, energy shortages, a wide open border, and inflation. Great focus, guys. But hey, the media covers for Democrats. So they have a shot at this strategy.

Meanwhile in the UN seat called "Libya".

Mega-sniper. 

Germany's post-Russian invasion of Ukraine foreign policy in danger of backsliding. Germany needs a few more whacks with the clue bat.

Progressives don't vote as if Black lives matter to them.

I'm just going to say that I don't believe a killer with non-binary "they/them" pronouns means all non-binary people are potential mass murderers. Tip to Instapundit.

I'm far more likely to think elite stupidity rather than conspiracy is a cause of problems. Tip to Instapundit.

Ending the delusions of the Master Race Energy. Via Instapundit.

Are Iranian regime concessions too little and too late at this point? "Regime officials close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have expressed openness to political reform to placate protesters, although it is unlikely that any such reform would fundamentally change the regime’s behavior or nature."

More American military aid to Ukraine. Mostly ammunition plus 250 light vehicles. Most interesting was the "additional ammunition" for HIMARS. Is that an additional type of ammo (ATACMS?) or additional amounts of what we've already sent?

Chest beating and flinging poo ... in space!

Extraordinary efforts to keep the sea-based nuclear deterrent working.

Woke military leadership won't defend America.

Marines must fight for space? Get back to me when we have SMOD.

America and Russia can't stop Turkey from invading Syria to go after Turkey's Kurdish separatists. I'm so old I remember when the media went insane accusing Trump of failing to go to war with Turkey to protect the Kurds. But now the media explains the nuance of the situation.

State legislatures and courts continue to sort out the state-by-state landscape for abortion laws. I still think the means of abortion now (drugs rather than surgical) makes even the state laws much less relevant to what will happen. For good or ill, depending on your view, technology is making this an issue difficult to prohibit, in many ways.

So very close to--but not quite--democracy. Will there be a court challenge to ranked-choice voting based on "one person, one (unitary) vote" considerations? I'm no lawyer, of course. And don't pretend to be. Tip to Instapundit.

The Political Petroleum Reserve is down to 1984 levels. But might go up as it is repurposed after the election back to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Tip to Instapundit.

Some people aren't happy with the body bags coming back to Russia: "Desperate to rescue their sons and husbands from the front lines in Ukraine, Russian women are putting pressure on the Kremlin in the latest sign of the spreading discontent caused by the war." It may not be fully anti-war, but it's good enough for anti-government work. Perhaps what I expected is just taking longer. To be fair, Putin started the war expecting minimal casualties.

This is why I get annoyed at most sniper scenes on TV shows with barrels sticking out of windows:

Not that I was more than a REMF in uniform. But just saying.

The head of the Czech army calls for the country's largest ever rearmament.

"Promoting U.S. interests" seems like a good thing. Nothing in the article claim the information provided was false.

Apparently this new Polish IFV is good. But I cringe at the large flat front. I assume it doesn't have Abrams levels of depleted uranium armor to make the flat slab less scary. Sloped armor, anyone?

Reinforcing Taiwan under attack would be harder and insufficient: "Taiwan would need to have in place the weapons, systems and trained forces to hold off the invasion long enough for the United States to overcome a blockade of the island to come to its aid[.]" Would aid include American ground forces?

This is interesting: "Around 5,000 Ukrainian troops have already been through a grueling three-to-five-week training program designed to give them a crash course in the basics of modern combat. ... They are taught stripped-down infantry tactics with a focus on 'survivability and lethality,' as one trainer put it." Even five weeks is brief. I recall in basic training that our drill sergeants told us that in war we'd have stripped down combat-focused basic training (skip the banking lectures and drill and ceremony) in the day with our MOS schools at night to contract the time needed to send us to units. Is this what is happening?

Morons ... in space!

Yes: "The intense firefight over Ukraine has the Pentagon rethinking its weapons stockpiles. If another major war broke out today, would the United States have enough ammunition to fight?" This war is a practice run for the big one. Let's not blow this warning.

Ukraine experiencing large blackouts during Russia's assaults on Ukraine's utilities.

Britain is sending more weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. Including 3 Sea King helicopters, the first manned aircraft Britain has sent. Is sending this type indicating they are intended for use in the Black Sea littorals?

Please note that telling a woman to "calm down" is sexist.

Huh: "The EU is in emergency mode and is readying a big subsidy push to prevent European industry from being wiped out by American rivals, two senior EU officials told POLITICO." A trade war with America? I was assured that the trans-Atlantic rift was caused by the Bad Orange Man.

The British are replacing Harpoon anti-ship missiles with Norway's Naval Strike Missile. Does this open up the dispatch of older Harpoons to Ukraine?

Maybe: "The Navy’s strategy to dispose of older vessels and make way for a larger, more lethal fleet is unrealistic and could even hamper its response capability in a protracted confrontation with China, naval analysts say." But if the threat is a decade away, it is risky to shift money from shipbuilding to keeping ships and subs that must be retired in a decade. And more anti-ship missiles now is one way to reduce the short-term risk. And if numbers are needed quickly ...  I don't know what the true risk is.

Happy Thanksmeming!

Are we on the cusp of orbital manufacturing? A new industrial revolution? Via Instapundit.

A-hole. I was prepared to see his comment was taken out of context. But no, it was not. And it isn't even a very tasty omelet.

Federal power grabbed during Covid just generates the lust for more power: "Despite his constant prattle about saving our democracy, Biden seems to think he’s running an authoritarian police state." Tip to Instapundit.

Undermining classroom discipline will condemn to a life of poverty the students who can't afford to go to private schools where classrooms are orderly and focused on educating the children. Via Instapundit.

Strategery: "Most nations consider the IEA a Pakistan-backed Islamic terror group that took control of the government with the additional help of Afghan drug cartels. Few nations are willing to provide foreign aid and the most common criticisms are about IEA providing sanctuary for Islamic terrorists, drug cartels and all manner of outlaws." There is resistance to the Taliban government.

The NGO hybrid war on Italy.

China loves Cuba. Almost as much as Western progressives love Cuba.

Would China's conquest of Taiwan be a Pyrrhic victory? Well, what's your time scale for judging victory? Does China define victory the same way as the West does? And even if in the short run it is a Pyrrhic victory for China, it would absolutely be a catastrophic defeat for the Taiwanese. And a defeat for America and its allies. Stop trying to set the terms of the policy debate by saying Taiwan's defeat wouldn't be so bad, really. And I make this caution notwithstanding this disclaimer: "This exercise is not intended to suggest that losing Taiwan to the PRC would be a positive outcome for Washington." Let's focus on how we can win.

Bribery. Via Instapundit.

Iran's Houthi proxy mine interdiction campaign in the Red Sea. This is a longstanding Iranian objective as Gulf Arab states try to escape the Strait of Hormuz oil export chokepoint. 

Heh:

 

Okay, now I'm not laughing:

I was assured that Biden would restore our international stature and relations abroad. Tip to Instapundit.

Strategery: "European officials are scrambling to help Ukraine stay warm and keep functioning through the bitter winter months, pledging Friday to send more support that will mitigate the Russian military’s efforts to turn off the heat and lights." The funny thing is that Europe is less able to support Ukraine's military. Russia, by diverting military resources from military targets to attack Ukraine's civilians, gives European states a chance to step up their support for Ukraine.

Interesting: "Russia is likely removing nuclear warheads from ageing nuclear cruise missiles and firing unarmed munitions at Ukraine[.]" The nuclear warheads probably didn't work, anyway. Other thoughts on Russia's focus on civilian targets.

Essentially this is putting our troops in Syria at risk as a form of pressure on America to help: "The commander of the main U.S.-backed Kurdish-led force in Syria said Saturday they have halted operations against the Islamic State group due to Turkish attacks on northern Syria over the past week."

Does the Marine Littoral Regiment need its own vertical lift aviation to succeed? I am worried about the barge with pretensions that is supposed to move Marines across beaches. 

I noticed a warning I gave 14 years ago: "And if anyone thinks that it is wise to count on Russian help for energy security, spend a week during the winter in Berlin." The Germans didn't heed the warning and are about to get that winter. Fingers crossed that the blue ice bat works. Although apparently, the relationship discussed is stronger in North America than Europe. But we need the clue bat, too.

Are Taiwan's people as resolute in the face of China's threats as the conventional wisdom holds? "Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen resigned as head of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party following local election losses on Saturday in which voters chose the opposition Nationalist party in several major races across the self-ruled island." Or is this just a matter of local concerns?

I'm sorry, but the Nazis ruined your symbol forever. Resign yourself to this fact. Maybe adopt the "okay" symbol.

Cool! America intervening in the internal affairs of other countries is okey dokey! Gosh it's great to be a Democrat with power!

Attrition: "One-third of the roughly 350 Western-made howitzers donated to Kyiv are out of action at any given time, according to U.S. defense officials and others familiar with Ukraine’s defense needs." This isn't as bad as it seems. The artillery is being rotated to Poland for replacing barrels and other repairs. This is normal. 

That sucks: "Jihadists aligned with the Islamic State group are advancing in northeastern Mali, prompting terrified citizens to flee their homes, sources there say." The reform-resistant government chose Russia over France to control the jihadis. I don't think Russia wants stability on the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

And Now For Something Completely Different

I never knew there'd come a day, when I'd be saying to you, don't let this good meme slip away. Now that we know that it's true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dig deep in your memory for this one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a rerun in honor of the holiday.

 

 

 

 

The Pre-West Generation of Military Power Rises in Russia

Is Russia restoring a centuries-old practice long discarded of private military power existing outside of state control? Will this end up destroying the rump Russian empire that Putin has wanted to expand?

The Wagner Group is getting weird. It's rather amazing that Russia is subcontracting their only active offensive sector to Wagner: 

Russian mobilization efforts are channeling mobilized Russian personnel to the Wagner Group, indicating the increasing importance of Wagner to Russian combat capabilities.

And this is on top of Wagner's ability to recruit from prisons for the cannon fodder it needs.

It has the most active sector of Russia's front line, with the only sustained--if bloody and crawling--Russian offensive effort. 

And it is building its own defensive lines behind the lines apart from Russian orders, recruiting outside of the Russian recruitment system, establishing militias in Russian territory bordering Ukraine, reaching into the civilian sector, boasting of past interference in America's elections, and defying the authority of the Russian  and local governments.

Wagner even brutally and publicly killed one of its recruits who had surrendered to the Ukrainians, claiming this was a lesson to traitors. It is unclear how the man was back in Wagner's custody. This murder outside of the Russian justice system--with the Russian government saying the killing was none of its business--is just astounding, no? Please note:

Wagner Group financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin continues to establish himself as a highly independent, Stalinist warlord in Russia, becoming a prominent figure within the nationalist pro-war community.

At some point Wagner may have the power to resist rather than assist Putin:

Russian opposition media outlet Meduza reported on November 16 that two sources close to the Kremlin stated that Prigozhin is thinking about creating a “conservative movement” that may become a political party.

He may not be the first. But don't be surprised if Prigozhin falls down a flight of stairs or out of a window before then.

We've certainly seen Russia recruiting abroad and even internally outside of the normal military structure of Russia. As this article notes:

Soufan Center, a nonprofit global-security research group, says that “the battlefield in Ukraine is incredibly complex, with a range of violent non-state actors—private military contractors, foreign fighters, volunteers, mercenaries, extremists, and terrorist groups—all in the mix.”

But while Ukraine's use of foreign mercenaries/volunteers is apparently going down (I recently advocated that path to jump start an increase Ukraine's air power), that is not the case for Russia. Note: 

The popularity of Wagner Group forces may have inspired the creation of further private military companies (PMCs) for use in the war in Ukraine. Odesa Oblast Administration Spokesperson Serhiy Bratchuk claimed that Russian officials are planning the creation of an “Orthodox PMC” under the Russian Orthodox Church on November 12.[59] Private military companies are illegal in Russia.

Fascinating.  

I'd noted long ago the re-rise of privatized military power in the West and as Islamist jihadis. Non-government military power was once much more common. 

On vacation I read a fascinating book (Mercenaries, Pirates, & Sovereigns by Janice Thomson ) about how Western states monopolized military power for inter-state wars only fairly recently in the last century or so. Privateers and private or state army units bought and sold by rulers to increase their military might were ended. Companies acted as nations and waged war. Indeed, even the once common practice of recruiting globally for your armies and fleets has declined to virtually nil.

America's reliance on in-house government assets since World War II changed after the Cold War, first with logistics and then, during the war on terror, with private military companies taking on training and even some combat duties to protect bases.

I worried that an America failure to prosecute the war on terror would lead to private groups rising up as vigilantes rise up when police protection fails:

Private entities, unhappy with the protection of the state, will fight for their own objectives which may not--and most likely won't--match our national objectives for very long.

Vigilantes arise anywhere when the authorities fail to provide security or justice. If lawfare undermines our government's ability to defend our society from our enemies, private military groups will wage war on the jihadis--or even against Islam in general. As Wretchard notes, if WMD attacks on our cities are a threat from small groups of Islamist fanatics, Mecca is under threat of the same if those under attack by Islamic thugs--Christians, Hindus, Jews, or whoever--decide to fight fire with nuclear fire and go to the perceived source of the problem.

In many ways, our state-centric views hobble our efforts against non-state actors who may wield destructive power hitherto reserved to states. But our state-centric system is not all bad. If freebooters join our Long War, and the system of Westphalia is breaking down and private military entities return, we might want to remember the impact of religion and private military forces on Europe in another long war--the Thirty Years War.

That war's horrible events led to our Westphalian system which we may be seeing broken up in our era.

But my vigilante worries didn't become real. And the West kept its private military contractors under control. There were no private conventional military units used in combat.

Is Russia's rejection of the West having as one consequence a willingness to resort to non-state military power in Russia to reverse battlefield defeats? Russia has used such power abroad through Wagner. But now a losing war effort on its very border is pushing Putin to expand this source of military power into Russia itself. Where does this end? 

Russia as a country has ground force split among an army, airborne forces, the Interior Ministry, and Putin's National Guard. 

Russia already had--since 2014--separate Donetsk and Luhansk combat formation under Russian control. Now we see regional units being formed all across Russia proper. Units the regional governments must pay for. Units relying on bonus payments that make those troops better compensated than regulars. And with locals providing equipment, better equipped than federal conscripts. We see Wagner growing in power. We see religious units being formed. First Chechen and now the Orthodox Church. And Russia has brought in the notion that Russia is literally fighting Satan in Ukraine.

Can Moscow herd these kittens?

Russian forces operating in Donetsk Oblast include conventional units of the regular Russian Armed Forces, mobilized servicemen, Wagner Private Military Company troops, BARS (Russian volunteer reserve) formations, militia units from the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, soldiers from Ramzan Kadyrov’s Chechen units, and volunteer battalions.[16] This bizarre congeries of combat forces will have considerably less effective combat power than would a grouping of regular units of similar size.

Russia's imperial army is built to be fractured: 

The lack of structure inherent in the combination of DNR forces, LNR forces, Russian contract servicemembers, Russian regional volunteer servicemembers, Russian mobilized servicemembers, and Wagner Group Private Military Company (PMC) forces creates an environment that fosters intra-force conflict.

If they can't be made to fight together against a foreign enemy, would they one day turn on each other?

And has Putin preserved his National Guard to be the strongest force standing in such a conflict, even as the army and airborne forces are being bled? Although would it remain loyal after this war has eroded their morale and confidence in him?

Will the result be a Thirty Years War fought across Russia? A country with nukes? Will demobilized veterans of Ukraine's military and foreign volunteers offer their services to Russian factions? Will foreign private entities--religions, ethnic groups, companies, and ad hoc groups--finance or even carry out military operations via privatized military operations? Will foreign countries be pulled covertly or overtly in to stabilize portions of Russia or to secure nuclear weapons and research facilities? 

And will the eventual end re-strengthen the Westphalian state-centric system or codify its loss of dominance?

I want to defeat Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But never say things can't possibly get worse. In different ways, of course. Putin remains the ruler of the Sick, Angry Man of Europe.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Imperial Frontier Rejects Russian Control

While Russia has tunnel vision trying to batter forward in Ukraine's Donbas with a disintegrating army, Russia is losing its influence in its former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

Collateral damage: 

A major casualty of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine has been its weakening position and leverage in Central Asia.

This loss of influence in Central Asia is a real problem for Russia in contrast to the fantasy of a NATO threat:

Russia's pointless hostility toward NATO and its failed war in Ukraine are tying Russia down in the West needlessly.

One day China will eject Russian influence in Central Asia if Russia doesn't stop angering and alienating the West, making it impossible for Russia to pivot to Asia.

Strategery.

I used to ask if anybody would tell Putin he's effing up royally. Now I wonder if he will simply be punished for effing up royally.  

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Tanks For the Memories?

Is the main battle tank finally more effort than it is worth? I'm unwilling to conclude that based on Russia's poor tactics with vulnerable tanks carrying out a horrible invasion plan. But I'm now willing to be open to the possibility that the day is arriving. 

The Army has wasted a lot of time and effort trying to replace the Abrams. So far nothing has been able to replace the tank's combination of protection, firepower, and mobility on the battlefield. It seems like the Army will again take a stab at replacing the tank. I wrote recently that it is likely futile. 

I've defended the value of tanks for many decades despite repeated claims that they are vulnerable, and so obsolete. Thus far, the tank has endured despite those claims of obsolescence. They are mobile, protected, firepower and I don't see a replacement for that battlefield requirement yet. But weapons that can destroy tanks are proliferating under a thickening surveillance net. And protecting the tanks is more expensive than the threats that kill them. I'm starting to have doubts about the cost effectiveness of the main battle tank.

I've long concluded that aircraft carrier cost to build, defend, and operate them has exceeded its value for sea control missions. 

And I've even admitted--in print--that low-flying expensive aircraft providing direct support to ground combat units is too dangerous with modern air defenses:

The Air Force is right that close air support for ground troops in a high-threat air defense environment cannot be achieved at low altitudes at an acceptable price in planes, crews and mission failures.

My main issue with efforts to kill the A-10 has been whether the Air Force is willing to dedicate resources to close air support--not necessarily the plane or method itself.

But I digress. 

No weapon system lasts forever. We can't let emotional attachment to the platform, sunk costs, or our past positions drive weapons policy.

I do admit that current tanks may not be appropriate as the threat increases in the future. I thought we might need a much cheaper tank--a New Sherman. But the future seems uncertain to me:

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.

Or will tanks survive in any form? But if not, what will provide mobile protected firepower to enable maneuver on the battlefield? Can we?

And against an enemy with robotic scouts too, can the primary manned combat vehicles take the enemy scouts out? Or will our scouts have to up-armor and up-arm to outfight the enemy scouts? That has been the lesson of light manned recon units when tested in combat. Will that scout arms race undermine the possible theory of cheap and expendable drone scouts? Where is the cross-over point for spending money on upgrading drones versus mass-producing them?

But with enemy heavy forces trying to do the same thing with detecting and killing enemies at longer ranges, how do our many light infantry forces survive in that kind of battlefield sensor-rich environment without the protection the armored forces will have?

Unprotected people and lightly or unprotected vehicles already seem like dead men walking to me.

I've warned that in a long war, expensive weapons and ammo will run out. And that any operational approach that relies on those now-nearly extinct weapons dies with them. Is hoping to win before the high-tech stuff is gone a fool's errand?

But maybe the cost of protecting, deploying, and sustaining in combat these behemoths is something that America is uniquely able to do, getting battlefield results that justify the high cost.

Still, I'm more open to the idea that we are seeing the extinction of the main battle tank. Maybe survivability simply cannot apply to any vehicle that uses direct fire to destroy enemies, putting them in danger from enemy direct fire or observation that calls in precision indirect fire. 

Maybe we have to simply accept that narrow reality and move on without shoving money at the survivability problem that just drives up weight and costs.

Perhaps in this environment infantry regains its past dominance.  When I wrote in Military Review when I dismissed two decades ago the Army effort to replace the tank (starting on p. 28), I took a side trip into the infantry carrier version of a replacement and addressed infantry usage:

Compensating for reduced numbers, Land Warrior project-derived systems will digitize even walking infantry. Individual soldiers will be lethal, in constant communication, and exploit real-time intelligence. Each soldier will have more sur­vivability than current equipment allows. Infantry soldiers may even look forward to personal elec­tronic shields that disarm incoming rounds by dis­abling their proximity fuses. Dismounts may fight with flying or crawling robots that will see and kill for the soldiers.

Basically, I felt that small numbers of infantry more spread out to protect them would be compensated by greater lethality at longer ranges for each individual soldier. After all, precision is getting cheaper and smaller, spreading down even to infantry personal weapons. We have to adapt to that, too, as I addressed on the Naval Institute Blog. Land Warrior with its sci fi feel didn't pan out as a whole, but components have made it into the field.

But the dominance of firepower-wielding infantry is a recipe for battlefield stalemate, isn't it? How does infantry advance in the face of enemy infantry wielding similar networked firepower? The infantry may have lots of firepower. And it may have "protection" from dispersal and digging in. But where is the mobility? 

Hell, the Army's new light tank, the MPF, might be the basic design for a New Sherman tank despite my deep worries about its survivability. The gun is too small to kill enemy tanks from the front. But maybe that's fine. Maybe that hypothetical inexpensive, mass-produced New Sherman avoids direct fire. Perhaps it must be a missile shooter and sensor in a network that uses and calls in indirect fire. Including disposable boxes of missiles. And the New Sherman's 105mm main gun is its direct fire last-ditch self-protection option when it advances against weakened enemies or when the enemy advances through the friendly firepower.

But before I really look for a replacement for the main battle tank to provide mobile, protected, firepower--or even its abandonment in favor of infantry--I'd like to see how Ukraine uses its tanks on offensive to see if the failures are due to Russian training, tank design, tactical failure, and operational weaknesses rather than a crucial flaw in tanks themselves. 

And even then, I'd want to study and wargame the issue. A couple Balkan wars on the eve of World War I seemingly taught the lesson that mobile warfare was still a thing. On the Western front, at least, that lesson would be dead wrong--with massive casualties to prove it.

We have much to ponder. I don't want to cling to the main battle tank from inertia. But I don't want to kill a useful system to seem trendy. And in an age of peer competition we must get it right.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Terrorist Sortie Rate

Terrorists don't seem to have a high sortie rate.

Interesting: 

An analysis of post-World War II terrorism confirms that terror attacks depend on support staff to succeed, and that most terrorist cells, after their first few attacks, can carry out one or more a month. Oddly enough, most groups do not carry out more than a hundred attacks before they are destroyed or disbanded. To stop these groups from getting anywhere near a hundred attacks, you want to find them early, ideally, before they carry out their first attack. On average, you have about six months between the first attack and the second. That's when you have your best opportunity to take down the cell, and put their leaders and technical staff out of action.

The rate of attacks is what I'm most interested in. 

I tried to figure out insurgent numbers during the Iraq War. See here (it's a huge recovered "post" so go to '"Insurgent Effectiveness" (Posted September 14, 2004)), here, here, and here. This was back-of-the-envelope stuff and not rigorous analysis. In that first post I took a stab at insurgent "effectiveness" as part of it.

During the Iraq War insurgencies I assumed a much higher rate of attacks, when I was trying to estimate how many insurgents we were facing. Although to the best of my memory I never ventured into using the assumed number of attacks per cell to estimate insurgent strength.

The average size of the groups is also important. As is the breakdown of full-time versus part-time insurgents. Full-time insurgents tend to be 10% of the insurgency, I think.

One thing I was partly wrong on was the idea that killing insurgents wasn't nearly as important as choking off the source of replacements. Killing the existing insurgents is actually important, but the key is killing the existing technical staff. They can't be replaced nearly as easily as mere trigger pullers.

But the next time I have to judge an insurgency's strength, I have the attacks-per-month estimate to work with.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

When It is All Quiet On the Winter War of 2022 Front

Will Russia's ground forces break under the strains of defeat, retreat, and death? But can Putin make peace if he loses everything he's gained? I think Ukraine may want to consider selling Crimea to Russia as a part of a peace plan that gets Russia to evacuate all the rest of Ukraine's territory lost since 2014.

Ukraine has occupied all the territory on the west side of the Dnieper River after Russia successfully retreated across the river. Russia's army is getting wrecked in this war and despite continuing to attack in the east, it isn't even holding its ground. The war goes on:

Guessing that the fighting will shift to Ukrainian offensives down the roads south from Zaporizhzhia to Melitopol and Berdyansk. This area has been quiet for most of this war. Ukraine will also probably renew offensives between Svatove to Kreminna or to the north of Svatove for the sake of trying to reclaim Lugansk. Meanwhile Russia seems determined to keep attacking along the line between Pavlivka and Bakhmut, which they have been doing for a while.

At some point the Russians may break, the Russians will be clearly defeated, and a peace treaty may be possible. Until Russia is defeated, a ceasefire that leaves Russia controlling key Ukrainian territory is just a pause for Russia to gear up for another offensive. Will Ukrainians want to die to get every piece of Ukraine back regardless of the cost or the problems such an outcome could provide?

While Crimea is part of Ukraine--given to Ukraine by Stalin, verified by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and ratified by the Budapest Memorandum--which Russia signed--in 1994 that guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity--that doesn't mean Ukraine must hold that territory if it interferes with a lasting peace.

I'd suggested early that Ukraine put financial pressure on Russia by declaring that Russia was renting Ukraine and that late fees were piling up.

With calls for Russia to pay reparations to Ukraine for the death and destruction of the invasion, Russia is going to resist ending the war. Russia will want something to hang a shred of dignity on.

But that Russian reaction risks bigger disaster for Russia. And frankly, I think Russia fragmenting would be a gift to China.

Ukraine may want to sell Russia the entire Crimean peninsula to avoid future problems for Ukraine and the world.

Ukraine should get clear use of the Sea of Azov, but otherwise the peninsula has too many pro-Russian people, which just gives Russia people to exploit within Ukraine if Crimea is returned to Ukraine.

Russian reparations would essentially be disguised as back rent and the purchase price for Crimea.

Western investment in Russia after the war would look like a victory for Russia, but could truthfully be sold in the West as a way to make sure Russia can pay the price for Crimea. But part of the purpose would be to keep the nuclear-armed Sick, Angry Man of Eurasia from breaking up.

Residents of Crimea should have the option of remaining in Crimea or going to Ukraine. Residents of Russian-occupied Donbas surrendered back to Ukraine should have the option of going to Russia. Proceeds from the sale of Crimea would pay for the relocations. This would have the effect of reducing the number of pro-Russian people left inside Ukraine while helping pro-Ukraine people escape Russian rule.

Ukraine could heavily fortify the isthmus at the neck and the road into southern Ukraine further east.

America could provide ATACMS to Ukraine to provide Ukraine with a Sword of Damocles hanging over the Russian fleet's head. Perhaps most of the missiles could be held in Poland under joint NATO-Ukrainian guard, to be released to Ukraine if Russia gets aggressive.

Putin could proclaim the war a glorious success to get Western approval of the return of Crimea. Everyone would know it is a false claim. But inside Russia who will say the tsar has no clothes? While Ukraine would avoid a Trojan Horse of a pro-Russian region being brought into Ukraine.

Perhaps this won't make sense under future circumstances. But we need to be open to changing circumstances requiring an adjustment of our policies. Just a thought trying to end this war with Ukrainian victory without planting the seeds for a future war. It's up to Ukraine, of course. Although Ukraine might find it loses Western support if Ukraine wants to wage war until it can get a bridge too far at the eastern edge of Crimea.

[But at some level I worry that Russia is quietly building up a new offensive force even as it sends cannon fodder to die--and fix Ukraine's attention--in the Donbas. Could Russia reopen the northern front with new units? And this time plow their way to Kiev behind heavy firepower? I try not to take things for granted. I don't assume the Russians are incapable of learning.]

UPDATE: Thinking about conditions for future negotiations:

Ukraine has given the supposedly mighty Russian military machine a sustained clobbering; instead of occupying Kiev and the whole of Ukraine, Russia has been driven back east. It is clearly never going to achieve the objectives that underlay the intervention in February. But it is unlikely to be driven much further east, and it is inconceivable that it will give up Crimea.

Okay, I'll say it. I don't think that word "inconceivable" means what you think it means. On the other hand, I don't rule out that Russia could scrape up the forces to inflict a defeat on the tired and stretched Ukrainian ground forces.

Victory for Ukraine is not assured and it is too early to start thinking of calibrating our help to Ukraine in order to compel Ukraine to negotiate a peace that gives Russia way too much as a reward for aggression.

The West's job is not to provide Putin with job security. But we do need to think about how peace might look on the ground. 

UPDATE: Ukraine could not easily liberate Crimea from Russia? Depends on how good Russian morale is when Ukrainian forces approach the isthmus to Crimea. I've assumed that if Ukraine gets near it will seal off the isthmus and focus on the north shore of the Sea of Azov. But I don't rule out a thunder run south to exploit Russian confusion and demoralization.

UPDATE: Interesting:

A Ukrainian official acknowledged on November 21 that Ukrainian forces are conducting a military operation on the Kinburn Spit, a location which would allow Ukrainian forces to better conduct potential operations on the left (east) bank in Kherson Oblast.

UPDATE (Tuesday): It doesn't look like the Kinburn Spit is useful to Ukraine for more than static recon or firing positions. I didn't think Ukraine could supply across the water a major thrust from there. But apparently the terrain is completely incapable of handling vehicular traffic even if the logistics weren't a problem. 

UPDATE (Wednesday): I remain worried that Russia's attacks in the Donbas are intended to pin Ukraine's army in place while the Russians build a new army to reopen the now-dormant northern front to capture Kiev. I don't know if the plan can work. Or that it would be decisive. But I worry that Russia's army isn't as close to breaking as I hope. And that the continued Russian attacks aren't as pointless as they seem.

Is Russia's apparent ploy to make it look like Ukraine is attacking into Russia telegraphing a Russian northern offensive "in response"? Is this linked to earlier reports that Russia was planning to fake a Ukrainian attack on Belarus part of drawing Belarus into the war?

UPDATE (Thursday): According to the British, the Ukraine's should keep the initiative over the winter and can do it: "'They have 300,000 pieces of arctic warfare kit, from the international community'—a crucial requirement for any winter offensive." 

UPDATE: This implies no offensive planned from the Kinburn Spit. It is defensive in nature to protect Ukrainian position north:

After forcing Russian troops to retreat from the city of Kherson two weeks ago, Ukrainian special forces are now battling the Russians on the islands and in marshes to the southwest, trying to push them out of a strategically vital peninsula at the mouth of the Dnipro River where it meets the Black Sea.

Special forces certainly implies no conventional advance out of the peninsula. And as I noted, it could provide bases to harass the Russians and interdict supply lines with fires. 

UPDATE (Sunday): Yeah: "Estonia's Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur does not believe that Russia has been critically weakened, even after nine months of war in Ukraine." Russia is still fighting hard in the Donbas. And Russia conducted a good withdrawal from the western bank of the Dnieper River in Kherson. Russia has shown weaknesses. But unless Ukraine hits the Russians hard the Russians may muddle on.

NOTE: ISW updates on the war continue here.