Easing Back in to Eastern Ukraine

After a poor start and a delay because of a Geneva detour that isn't working, Ukraine is beginning to push out pro-Russian militias that are the cannon fodder of Russia's subliminal invasion of the east.

Let's hope this operation works better than the first effort that resulted in losing some of 25th Airborne Brigade's armored vehicles:

The Ukrainian Interior Ministry posted a statement saying "antiterrorist" operations in the Slovyansk region of Donetsk had cleared and destroyed three illegal armed checkpoints and killed five "terrorists." One Ukrainian counterterrorism troop was reportedly wounded.

I've seen pictures of BMD airborne vehicles, so this may mean that at least elements of the 25th are still intact, despite earlier reports that the unit would be disbanded because of those failures.

Putin is upset and warns he will react if the operations threaten ethnic Russians.

Which is interesting given that Russia defends its own troop concentrations as simply being within Russia where they can be deployed freely; and considering that Russia has in the past attacked the notion of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries to support human rights as nobody's business--bad precedent for a wannabe tsar, don't you know.

Anyway, let's hope the Ukrainians can move through with some skill to defeat the subliminal invasion with as low a level of force as possible. Pity we haven't sent "non-lethal" (really just "less lethal") weapons for the Ukrainians to use.

There Seems to Be Something Wrong With Our Bloody Bureaucracy Today

India's submarine fleet has been plagued by a poor procurement bureaucracy that contributed to the loss of two existing submarines and hinders the acquisition and production of new subs.

India's submarine fleet is flailing:

Indian investigators initially feared that key problems with the fires in both subs was poor Russian quality control. That proved not to be the case. The key causes in both accidents were poor Indian management of procurement and work done in India. While there have long been quality control problems with Russian built equipment, especially ships, armored vehicles, and aircraft, the Russians have made progress in dealing with these failings. The Kilo that was completely destroyed had returned from the Russian refurbishment eight months earlier and had successfully completed a three month shakedown cruise. All indications were that everything was in good order and there were no known problems with the crew or the boat. ...

The inefficient Indian military procurement bureaucracy is also under fire for not building new subs quickly enough. In 2005 India made a deal to buy six Franco-Spanish Scorpene subs. Nearly a decade later none of these boats is in service and the blame rests on the usual suspects (the procurement bureaucracy).

As the Indian naval command might say, "there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships bureaucracy today."

This was a luxury that India could afford when Pakistan was the primary threat. The China threat will be far less forgiving of India's bureaucracy if it comes to a fight.

The Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma Continues

Russia is warning that it will react if ethnic Russians are "attacked" by Ukrainians inside Ukraine even as Russia is upset that Ukraine is preventing military-age Russian men from entering Ukraine.

Once again, I ask, if Ukraine is such a dangerous place, why would Russia be interested in sending more potential victims to Ukraine?

Russia Has Displayed Zero Military Prowess Thus Far

Is the Red Army back? Who knows? We haven't seen it fight.

The claim that "Russia Displays a New Military Prowess in Ukraine’s East" is just ridiculous:

Western experts who have followed the success of Russian forces in carrying out President Vladimir V. Putin’s policy in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have come to a different conclusion about Russian military strategy. They see a military disparaged for its decline since the fall of the Soviet Union skillfully employing 21st-century tactics that combine cyberwarfare, an energetic information campaign and the use of highly trained special operation troops to seize the initiative from the West. ...

The dexterity with which the Russians have operated in Ukraine is a far cry from the bludgeoning artillery, airstrikes and surface-to-surface missiles used to retake Grozny, the Chechen capital, from Chechen separatists in 2000. In that conflict, the notion of avoiding collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure appeared to be alien.

Russian operations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine do not demonstrate a revived Russian military.

If I may point out the obvious, Russia has not conducted a military campaign thus far. They have carried out a very good special forces operation in Crimea that did not require the intervention of the Russian army's conventional units.

The Russians have arguably failed to do the same in eastern Ukraine, given that they have not been able to simulate an indigenous uprising and spare Moscow the need to order the troops in for an open invasion.

What cyberwarfare has been carried out? The example given was part of cutting of Ukrainian communications that included jamming and cutting cables. Nice. But nothing special.

The "energetic" information warfare has fooled only the Russian people themselves. Russia gained few votes in the UN General Assembly which voted against Russia on the issue of Crimea. Who thinks that even Crimea was an indigenous uprising against Ukraine?

And the special forces seized the initiative from the West? What does that even mean? "The West" wasn't in Crimea. And isn't in eastern Ukraine.

No, this assessment by an analyst quoted in the piece is far more accurate and contradicts the theme of the article:

“The operation reveals very little about the current condition of the Russian armed forces,” said Mr. McDermott. “Its real strength lay in covert action combined with sound intelligence concerning the weakness of the Kiev government and their will to respond militarily.”

Russia's operations don't even rise to the level of our special forces-led military campaign in Afghanistan in 2001. That involved kinetics and inter-service cooperation. That campaign was impressive, but didn't say a lot about our conventional ground forces. It said a lot about our special forces and CIA, our air power, the resilience of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, and the weakness of the Taliban in rallying Afghans.

What can the Russians really claim as a signal for their military's revival? They airlifted troops into their Sevastopol base and crossed the Kerch Strait? In the face of zero armed opposition.

I have strong doubts about whether the Russians could pull off an invasion of eastern Ukraine in the face of Ukrainian conventional and irregular resistance. The first 3-5 days might look okay. But the Russians will have too few troops to control too large an area in the face of resistance from within the area and troops harassing the Russians from free Ukraine territory.

We have not seen Russian military prowess and I don't think the Russians really want to start an actual war and risk the wholly unearned military reputation that so many seem intent on giving them.

Release the Kraken!

I'm glad that we've sent Vice President Biden to Ukraine to bolster their morale in the face of Russian threats. But make sure we are clear about what we will and won't do--and then stick to that.

Vice President Biden is in Ukraine voicing our support for Ukraine. Good.

But we must not encourage any belief in Kiev that our support means we would go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

One, as I've said, I don't like the idea of granting NATO protection to a non-NATO member now that it is under threat. Membership should have privileges.

If Ukraine survives this threat, I'm in favor of moving Ukraine towards NATO membership--which would require improving their military so they are not merely a consumer of NATO security. If Ukraine helps themself, we'll help, too.

To help Ukraine survive this crisis, I'd make sure the Ukrainians know that we will assist them with aid to resist the Russian subliminal invasion, resist a conventional invasion, resist a Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory, and resist Russia's conquest of Crimea.

Russia is already claiming we are pulling the strings in Ukraine, making us into the Big Bad:

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the state-controlled RT English language channel in an interview that Ukraine had chosen to relaunch military operations against separatists in the east during a visit to Kiev by US Vice President Joe Biden.

"This means we have no reason not to believe that the Americans are running the show in the most direct way," said Lavrov in an interview to be broadcast later in the day, excerpts of which were published by Russian news agencies.

Russia will display "evidence" of our operations in Ukraine regardless of what we do.

So why not up our game from MREs and helmets to include small arms, weapons, and other needed gear, as well as help in maintaining their Soviet- and Russian-designed major weapons systems, help with logistics, help with operational planning, help with training, and help with intelligence.

Restraint will not lessen Russian charges of interference, so let's make our assistance effective.

Well, It's Something

While we still have the problem of aggressive Chinese behavior, at least there is less chance that a war could be triggered when China doesn't decide to initiate a conflict.

We did something like this with the Soviets during the Cold War (when "chicken of the sea" games risked a shooting war):

China, the United States, Japan and more than a dozen other Asia-Pacific countries have signed a naval agreement aimed at ensuring miscommunication between ships at sea does not escalate into conflict.

The Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, which was agreed Tuesday in the eastern port city of Qingdao, would reduce the potential for "situations to arise that could lead to conflict in busy sea lanes", the state-run China Daily said.

So this is good.

Defending Ukraine

Britain's RUSI looks at the opposing forces who would fight for Ukraine.

Ukraine has moved some troops. To defend Kiev from thrusts from northeast or east, Ukraine has moved 30th and 72nd mechanized brigades and 95th airmobile brigade, plus their own Spetsnaz.

These are from the Kiev region 8th Corps.

Adding to this is the mobilized 169th training center, creating a weak mechanized division.

If I was in charge of the Russians, I would not invade to challenge these troops since they need to defend the capital regardless of where the Russians move.

Why stretch out scarce competent Russian forces to engage a force that otherwise won't intervene in other areas of the east?

Defending in the Donetsk region, the Ukrainians moved the 25th airborne brigade and possibly parts of 17th tank brigade.

These are part of Ukraine's 6th corps.

25th brigade was ordered disbanded, meaning there is little in the Donetsk region to resist the Russians.

Although this article notes Ukraine's 55th artillery brigade (6th Corps) moving towards Mariupol on the Sea of Azov near the Russian border, it needs to have combat units in front of it to support rather than being a unit to hold territory.

Another Ukrainian mechanized brigade is in the Kharkov area. It is not noted as moving, so I assume it is still there.

Facing Russia's forces in Crimea are parts of 17th tank brigade, 79th airmobile brigade, and parts of 28th mechanized brigade.

The tank and mechanized units are part of 6th Corps. The 79th is a non-corps unit that was already based in the region.

Watching Transdniestria are parts of 28th mechanized brigade (of 6th Corps) and elements of 80th airmobile regiment, which I think is a helicopter unit rather than a maneuver unit since it is not designated as a brigade. So this is a screen only. And it faces a tiny and likely poorly prepared Russian force there.

RUSI thinks 93rd mechanized brigade (6th Corps) may have been moved to the far eastern Luhansk region. This is also from 6th Corps.

One thing to notice is the complete lack of reference to any units of Ukraine's western-most 13th Corps.

Another thing to notice is that 6th Corps is the unit facing the Russians from Transdniestria to Crimea to eastern Ukraine where Russia's subliminal offensive is still underway despite the Geneva agreement. The crisis turns on this unit's performance.

Note too, that 8th Corps remains in place to defend Kiev.

So Ukraine's military is largely static, with 13th Corps out of the way, 8th Corps defending the capital, and 6th Corps with a large area of operation on its own to face the Russians.

A broad front Russian advance in the arc from Kiev to Crimea spreads out Russia's limited decent troops, requires the use of poorer quality troops, and engages more Ukrainian troops, increasing Russian casualties.

This is one reason, if I was in charge of a Russian military offensive, that I'd limit it to the east and possibly south. Every speculation I've had on Russian military actions targets 6th Corps. If I use low quality forces inside Russia and Belarus, their presence alone pins most of the Ukrainian military in place rather than being free to move to the theater of conflict. And Russian air supremacy should mean that units that try to move long distance to reinforce that theater should be savaged by air attacks. That theater could just be eastern Ukraine, that region plus the south between Russia and Crimea, or even an operation that aims for that span of territory plus Odessa and a link up with Transndiestria. All of that is covered by 6th Corps.

Note, also, that the RUSI report says that Ukraine's armament plants that Russia needs for their weapons are in the south and east, creating an incentive to go fairly big.

The report also notes the intake of new recruits and discharge of more experienced conscripts that is going on now will wrap up by mid-July, which will reduce Russia's readiness to invade until the new troops are trained. This time frame is longer than I'd read earlier.

Ukraine's 6th Corps could use reinforcements. A brigade or two plus helicopter units stripped from 8th and 13th Corps would be useful, plus Ukraine's surface-to-surface missile units in order to threaten Russia's naval base at Sevastopol. New National Guard units could replace some of the transferred units and guard cities and static positions. Newly mobilized units could be sent to garrison static points in the east, as well, freeing up maneuver units of the active force for operations against an invasion as these static forces hopefully soak up Russian units that engage them.

And 13th Corps should have plans to seize Transdniestria.

Anyway, this is the best overview I've seen of what the Ukrainians are doing. They're outgunned and stretched out, meaning they'll be outnumbered at the points of contact. As I've noted before, Ukraine needs to inflict casualties and avoid defeat of their mobile army.

Unscientific Socialism

So in addition to making a morally repulsive claim that income inequality reduction was a bright spot of two world wars and a global depression, the great left-wing hope who tries to make the case against capitalism and for socialism isn't very good at the "scientific" part of his pretense:

There's a persistent tension between the limits of the data he presents and the grandiosity of the conclusions he draws. At times this borders on schizophrenia. In introducing each set of data, he's all caution and modesty, as he should be, because measurement problems arise at every stage. Almost in the next paragraph, he states a conclusion that goes beyond what the data would support even if it were unimpeachable.

This tendency is apparent all through the book, but most marked at the end, when he sums up his findings about "the central contradiction of capitalism[.]" ...

Every claim in that dramatic summing up [Note: Which I skipped for brevity] is either unsupported or contradicted by Piketty's own data and analysis. (I'm not counting the unintelligible. The past devours the future?)

I suspect that a lot of people will migrate away from "climate change" to "income inequality" as the so-called consensus on the former model falters. And funny enough, the policies they will advocate to combat the latter (complete with its own mathematical model!) will be remarkably similar to what they want to combat the former.

Two Problems With the Kerry-Lavrov Deal

Assad killed all but a small percentage of his victims with non-chemical weapons. As we ship out the arsenal of chemical weapons that Assad declared, we find two main problems with this so-called diplomatic achievement.

One, Assad has continued to kill. Assad is the problem rather than any particular weapon used to kill.

Two, Assad can just use chemical weapons that weren't part of his declared arsenal:

Syria has vowed to hand over or destroy its entire arsenal by the end of this week, but still has roughly 14 percent of the chemicals it declared to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

In addition, chlorine gas that was never included on the list submitted to the OPCW is now allegedly being used on the battlefield, leading some countries to consider requesting an investigation, possibly through the United Nations.

Attacks this month in several areas of the country share characteristics that have led analysts to believe that there is a coordinated chlorine campaign, with growing evidence that it is the government side dropping the bombs.

Assad's arsenal was declared, secured, and is in the process of being shipped out. But still Assad manages a chemical weapons attack.

Remember that Saddam had far more deadly raw materials on hand when we overthrew his regime, yet anti-war activists still judge that we invaded Iraq over a mistake (or even more bizarrely, a "lie" that even Democrats familiar with Clinton-era intelligence believed true).

Assad is the weapon of mass destruction. Deals designed to limit what weapons he can use to kill just tests his ingenuity without slowing down the rate of killing.

This is "smart" diplomacy, of course.

Plausible Deniability

So we'll leave just enough troops in Afghanistan to supply a really good massacre if things go bad.

Ignoring the lessons of the total withdrawal from Iraq about 2-1/2 years ago--and add the lesson that nearly 60 years after World War II the Europeans are unable to defend themselves without our help, the Obama administration will slash the amount of troops we will keep in Afghanistan after this year:

The decision to consider a small force, possibly less than 5,000 U.S. troops, reflects a belief among White House officials that Afghan security forces have evolved into a robust enough force to contain a still-potent Taliban-led insurgency. The small U.S. force that would remain could focus on counter-terrorism or training operations.

I think even a bit more than 10,000--which had been the number tossed around--is insufficient for the first years. I'd like a complete infantry brigade on the ground to hold a "base star" as a hard target, backed by artillery and air power, if things go really bad and we need a place where Americans and other Western troops can seek refuge should a wave of Islamist rage sweeps across the place.

Five thousand is just enough to provide the raw material for a really good massacre body count without being enough to defend itself.

I thought ten thousand was a number designed to provide an excuse that the Obama administration tried to win. Five thousand doesn't even provide plausible deniability that they don't care about winning the "good" war.

UPDATE: Thanks to Pseudo-Polymath for the link.

I'm a Denier, Too

Science is not defended by casting out the unbelievers. But that is how the "consensus" on climate change is defended.

One "denier" discusses the state of making consensus on climate change:

In time, scientific controversies get resolved, often by the emergence of new kinds of evidence that no one originally imagined. Views that are maintained, to some degree, by a wall of artificial "consensus" die hard. That, of course, was one of the lessons of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which inaugurated the long vogue for the word "paradigm" to describe a broadly accepted theory. Kuhn's work has often served as a warrant for those who see science as a social project amenable to political manipulation rather than an intellectual endeavor with strict standards of evidence and built-in mechanisms for correcting mistakes.

Thus when the "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) folks insist that they command a "consensus" of climate scientists, they fully understand that they are engaged in a political act. They intend to summon the social and political dynamics that will create a "consensus," by defining the skeptics as a disreputable minority that need not even be counted. It is a big gamble since a substantial number of the skeptics are themselves well-established and highly respected scientists, such as MIT's Richard Lindzen, Princeton's Will Happer, and Institute of Advanced Studies' Freeman Dyson. But conjuring a new "paradigm" out of highly ambiguous data run through simulation computer models is tricky business and isn't likely to produce a "consensus" all on its own. What's needed is the stamp of authority. And if that doesn't work, just keep stamping. Or stomping.

Interestingly enough, he discusses the consensus on Clovis first in the field of anthropolby that was not overturned until 1999. I recall a co-worker in 1991 who was a grad student in the archeology field who, with some annoyance, described a Clovis mafia that stamped out any evidence--and there was evidence that should not have been ignored--that there were pre-Clovis sites in the Americas to end that consensus. As a new man in the field, what was he to do? Risk career by defying the consensus? Or go along.

I moved on in work, so I don't know what he did. If he was smart, he'd have kept his head down to pay student debt and provide for his family. Attacking the consensus at the edges to chip away at it would have been the best he could do under the circumstances.

But the lesson was never lost on me. Evidence should matter. But even scientists are people with egos, interests outside their field of expertise that they promote using their credentials to promote, financial incentives, and the need to go with the herd that affect their judgments.

And after a decade and a half of flat global temperatures despite the predictions of models that purported to generate data of future climate and activists who drew dire conclusions from that so-called evidence, the evidence may yet lead to a tipping point where those who deny climate consensus is science will prevail.

Then, when the religious fanatics who believe evidence must be massaged to "save the planet" no longer have the weight of societal disapproval at their backs to malign those who want science, maybe we can actually discuss the science of how the climate continues to change, what role mankind has in it, what the effects might be, and what we can do to mitigate the changes that have gone on before we burned fossil fuels and will continue after we no longer burn them for our energy needs.

Crouching Paper Tiger, Hidden Dragon

China's leaders worry their modernized military could be crippled by unmodernized thinking, even as that military may be unable to directly protect the Chinese Communist Party from internal threats, leading China to seek internal security via military success abroad.

The Chinese are drawing lessons from the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895):

To commemorate the 120th anniversary of the war, Xinhua published a special supplement to its Reference News newspaper. The supplement consisted of 30 articles by members of the People’s Liberation Army “analyzing what China can learn from its defeat” in the Sino-Japanese war. Summing up the articles, Xinhua said that “the roots of China’s defeat lay not on military reasons, but the outdated and corrupt state system, as well as the ignorance of maritime strategy.” This conclusion has obvious modern-day applications, as China’s leadership is currently emphasizing both reform and a new focus on China’s navy.

The PLA authors laid the bulk of the blame for China’s defeat on the Qing dynasty’s failure to effectively modernize. “Japan’s victory proved that its westernization drive, the Meiji Restoration, was the right path, despite its militarist tendency,” Xinhua summarized. Political commissar of China’s National Defense University Liu Yazhou compared Japan’s reforms to China’s: “One made reforms from its mind, while another only made changes on the surface.”

The Chinese have increased their power greatly over the last 20 years. Back then, China could hardly even find American ships operating off of the coast of China let alone keep us away with anti-access weapons.

But China's military is not as strong as it appears. They may be able to pick off smaller targets by achieving surprise while potential allies of the victim are too far away to help, but China should not count on defeating Japan even if we don't directly intervene.

Japan is modern to the core while China is modern on the surface while less so in the mind. That could be a fatal weakness if China wants to wage a short and glorious war to regain the title of "big brother" in the Japan-China rivalry.

Meanwhile, China continues their effort to define threats to the Chinese Communist Party as a continuum of threats from internal to external:

Beijing recently issued its broadest definition of “national security” — including virtually all aspects of the communist state’s daily routine and giving new meaning to China as a “national security state.”

Billed as the “National Security Path with Chinese Characteristics,” the new definition was announced by Supreme Leader Xi Jinping on April 15 at the first plenary meeting of the newly created, all-powerful National Security Commission.

It is significantly different from other conventional definitions of “national security” around the world in its comprehensive coverage and its dual emphasis on external and internal security.

I wrote about this new body earlier:

China is not America. Foreign policy does not stop at the water's edge in China. No, everything is about politics in China--in particular the continued absolute control of China by the Chinese Communist Party.

Trying to determine whether the new NSC will focus on domestic or foreign policy is projecting a Western governmental model of separate domestic and foreign policies on to what is simply a Chinese communist model of how internal security is protected[.] ...

The focus of this new body is clearly the primacy of the Chinese Communist Party and the consolidation of Xi Jinping's power over the party. Some threats to party control may be more equal than others, but they are all threats whether they come from Chinese or foreigners.

There is no water's edge when it comes to this ultimate core interest.

Lacking ideological legitimacy, the Chinese Communist Party increasingly relies on xenophobic nationalism to justify their monopoly on power. This merging of domestic and foreign policy areas of policy runs the risk that a crisis in one area can quickly become a threat in the other area.

While other countries can fall prey to the allure of suppressing internal unrest with foreign threats, China has institutionalized this way of thinking. This is a dangerous way for China to look at the world. It will be even more dangerous if we try to think that Chines politics stops at the water's edge.

Yeah, A Soil Pollution Plan Will Do the Trick

Are we sure the Chinese rulers are reasonably enlightened green autocrats?

Because this sounds kind of bad:

Almost a fifth of China's soil is contaminated, an official study released by the government has shown.

Conducted between 2005-2013, it found that 16.1% of China's soil and 19.4% of its arable land showed contamination.

The report, by the Environmental Protection Ministry, named cadmium, nickel and arsenic as top pollutants.

There is growing concern, both from the government and the public, that China's rapid industrialisation is causing irreparable damage to its environment.

But I heard once that the Chinese rulers banned plastic grocery bags. So, you know, it's cool.

Tip to Mad Minerva.

I Was, Perhaps, Unclear

When I set up a baking station for Lamb, I was expecting a steady flow of baked goods. I should have expressed my expectations more clearly.

I thought I was in good shape with this project. So when Lamb wanted to bake after school today since she had no homework, I said sure. She wanted to bake for one of her after school clubs. She wanted to use the lemon bar mix I had. Sadly, the mix was made with machinery that came in contact with tree nuts.

So, no go on that.

But I had cake mix. So Lamb baked cupcakes and made some vanilla buttercream icing. We got 19 cupcakes out of the mix. And we had to use some ready-made chocolate icing to finish the icing job--there was a lot of wastage with the icing bag using a decorative tip.

Seventeen go to the school tomorrow. Lamb got one for later in the week. And I ate one for dessert after dinner today.

Just one. It was moist and tasty.

On the bright side, I imagine I'll get all of the lemon bars when those are made.

UPDATE: Lamb was pleased that the cupcakes were a hit with her classmates. She was worried we didn't have enough, but not everyone was there. So some got more than one. And I even got another one.

Even Lamb was pleased they were good. She didn't have one when we baked them, so as the baker she was happy it tasted good. Good for her.

Now we just have to make sure cookies get out faster when we bake them. I'm thinking a timer is in order. Or just use the alarm on my phone. I'll have to check the timer on my stove to see if that still works.

There is Another

Strategypage has a good post on four empires from the past making trouble in the 21st century. They forgot one empire.

This is pretty interesting:

The defining characteristic of the early 21st century can best be described as; “The Empires Strike Back.” This is all about the four empires (Russian, Chinese, Iranian and the Islamic Caliphate) that are trying to reconstitute themselves and causing trouble for each other and the rest of the world in the process. ...

Another problem with all these imperial wannabes is that cultural diversity has long been a source of internal problems and trying to absorb more minorities is a sure recipe for eventual failure.

It's a good reminder for those eager to blame America for the actions of those following scripts written long before we were a nation.

But the list of empires trying to form leaves out one that I worry about--the European Union.

Granted, the post was about former empires trying to reform. So that doesn't include the EU which is trying to establish an empire by smothering rule-making authority and a common currency where other Europeans tried by force to unite Europe. But it is an empire of diverse ethnicities trying to form and which will harm the world if actually formed:

I am no fan of the European Union proto-dictatorship project. I think it will be a disaster for the United States and lead to the loss of democracy in Europe. Europe will become a Soviet Union Lite that will be neutral at best, selling arms to our enemies; or hostile, ending a century of our policy that has prevented an opponent from organizing the continent's resources against us.

And that cultural diversity is a means to creating that empire:

Why should the Brussels bureaucrats care if they ignore Belgians or Flemish and Walloons? Hell, the more the merrier. If larger states have difficulty moving the central proto-state, how will little specks on the map have any impact at all? Only the nation-states smart enough not to subdivide will retain any influence at all. But they will likely be swamped by population numbers. And who will be smart enough to resist the lure of their own flag!

There could be a Flemish Oblast and a Walloon Oblast to join with scores of other administrative entities.

This is classic divide and conquer.

Consider this incentive to divide a feature of the European Union rather than a bug. The Brussels transnational elites will laugh all the way to their new undemocratic empire while the silly people atomize their once-influential nation-states into little ethnic theme parks.

Let the people have their postage stamps and flags, the EU overlords likely think! The power will lie in Brussels, and who will be large enough to stop them?

A mature EU empire will not be good for the West. If you think a unified Europe will be better able to resist Russia, guess again. The EU's military power will be required to focus inward to keep the empire of cultural diversity together under Brussels' control rather than defending the exterior borders.

We aren't there yet, fortunately. Which is why even this proto-autocracy has an appeal to Ukraine when the alternative is the Russian Empire.

Guam Scaled Back

Our planned redeployment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam will be changed to reduce the number of Marines stationed on Guam.

Guam won't host as many Marines or dependents:

Under the new plan, 5,000 Marines and 1,300 dependents would move to Guam from Okinawa, Japan. The old plan included 8,600 Marines and 9,000 dependents.

The leaner buildup stems from a revised agreement between the U.S. and Japan in 2012. Some of the Marines will go to Australia and Hawaii instead of Guam.

Am I safe in assuming that the reduction is based on leaving more Marine air units on Okinawa and sending the rest elsewhere? I draw this conclusion from the fact that we've been in long discussions with Japan on a moving an air base on Okinawa and from assuming that an air unit of older pilots and support personnel would have more dependents than a Marine ground combat unit with lots of young privates.

Some of the Marines who won't be based on Guam will be used for the Australia deployment slowly being increased (up to a battalion, in time)--so does this mean that Marines already scheduled to go there will get air support?--and others will go back to Hawaii.

I hate news stories that simply report numbers. I'd rather read about specific units. But that rarely happens in the news since units are a meaningless description for most casual readers.

Obama's Hideaway

President Obama continues to refuse to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil to our refineries. This is just one pipeline that we need. New oil is coming without the pipelines. It's just more costly and not as safe. But as our White House knows, it is better to look green than to be green.

The Obama administration's ability to dodge making a decision over the Keystone XL pipeline project is just amazing.

New oil resources are coming to American refineries without new pipelines--and lets not forget the Canadian pipeline that the Obama administration has yet again delayed to keep radical environmentalists on board through the fall elections--via trains:

Train crashes are already destructive enough to warrant their own idiom, but when oil is involved, the risks to health and environment are compounded. Complicating the matter further, the crude being transported is of a particularly explosive variety. ...

Of course, there is an alternative: build out our nation’s already extensive oil pipeline network. Pipelines are ultimately the most efficient way to bring hydrocarbons from large fields to large refineries, and they’re also safer than transporting crude by rail or truck.

As the shale revolution continues to yield millions of barrels of tight oil, it makes sense from both cost and safety perspectives to expand and extend our pipelines. That includes the Keystone XL pipeline.

For the biggest names among the wealthy money sources for the Democratic Party who believe it is better to look green than to be green, President Obama's stance on Keystone XL looks marvelous.



And you know who you are.

Remembering NATO's Purpose

Poland's defense minister reminds us of why NATO exists:

“The idea until recently was that there were no more threats in Europe and no need for a U.S. presence in Europe any more,” Siemoniak said, speaking through an interpreter. “Events show that what is needed is a re-pivot, and that Europe was safe and secure because America was in Europe.”

Why yes. Russia's revival as a self-proclaimed foe of the West which has added Crimea to their territorial holdings and still hopes for more of Ukraine does show us we still need to hold our gains in Europe after two world wars and a Cold War in the 20th century.

As an aside, is it really so outrageous that we'd need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to defend our gains in those places? Really?

But I digress (as I can).

I haven't been in the camp that wants NATO to reform into an arm of power projection at our side as the European militaries decline. If Europe is really concerned about their military power, I had suggestions:

Europe could start by eliminating their ambitions to have an EU military force separate from NATO. After that, I just want Europe to be able to defend themselves, be capable of handling problems within a thousand miles of their border, and be able to contribute small contingents of air, naval, and especially ground forces trained and equipped to operate under one of our headquarters for more distant missions[.]

For allies in missions abroad, I'm satisfied to have NATO acting as an institution that aids in joint training and interoperability so that when willing allies within NATO want to join us in a fight outside of NATO's command structure, we can smoothly integrate our forces for the mission.

But defending Europe is not an obsolete mission. The Russians are not capable of marching across Europe right now to park their tanks on the Rhine River. But do we really want to wait to react until the situation is that bad?

Easter Incident

Russia claims that shadowy Ukrainian fascists attacked a pro-Russian road block near Slavyansk in eastern Ukraine. I'm guessing Russia's fingerprints are on this.

Russia doesn't seem too upset that unrest is still going on in eastern Ukraine, given that they haven't reacted to the fact that pro-Russian mobs still occupy government buildings and man road blocks in eastern Ukraine:

At least two people were killed in a gunfight early on Sunday near a Ukrainian city controlled by pro-Russian separatists, shaking an already fragile international accord that was designed to avert a wider conflict.

After the deaths, Russia questioned whether Ukraine's Western-backed government was complying with the agreement, brokered last week in Geneva, to end a crisis that has made Russia's ties with the West more fraught than at any time since the Cold War.

The separatists said gunmen from Ukraine's Right Sector nationalist group had attacked them. The Right Sector denied any role, saying Russian special forces were behind the clash.

A pro-Russian masked witness described the attack:

People jumped out of Jeeps and started shooting at us. They threw stun grenades. Our people started running in various directions as somebody shouted 'Down!'. A sniper was shooting those who tried to run into the village. The first who ran was killed by a sniper right away, then there was a second dead. There was another man who wouldn't get up, he was just lying there."

Stun grenades? Why would murderous Nazi gangsters use stun grenades rather than fragmentation grenades? The former are useful to stun people when you want to keep them from resisting while you identify threats from non-threats. Like when entering a building where civilians might be mixed with combatants.

If your have the element of surprise, you throw actual exploding grenades to kill enemies while they are least able to resist and seek cover.

But it could have been Ukrainians opposed to Russia's subliminal invasion of eastern Ukraine. Maybe the local attackers thought they brought real grenades. Maybe they really didn't want a large body count and just intended to send a message. Remember, pro-Russian separatists are refusing to stand down as they are supposed to do after the Geneva agreement was signed. The Ukrainians are defending their country, aren't they?

And it could have been Spetsnaz posing as Ukrainian nationalists who egged on the attack by locals. Perhaps the Russian special forces provided stun grenades to lower the body count of the pro-Russians and allow the road block defenders the chance to resist. The attackers might not have known they were given stun grenades.

Given Russian failure to get the Spetsnaz-organized mobs to stand down and given Russian eagerness to threaten consequences, this certainly does sound more like a Spetsnaz operation than a gang of bloodthirsty Nazis risen from Hitler's bunker to threaten holy Mother Russia in the 21st century--if I had to choose from only those competing narratives.

Although an actual pure Spetsnaz operation to kill would not have roared up to the road block to attack--everyone would be dead at the end of a pure Spetsnaz operation that dealt out death from the silent black night around the road block before any of the defenders could react.

So I'm going to go with the Spetsnaz priming both sides to get the chaos that Putin craves in eastern Ukraine--don't stand down the pro-Russian militias and encourage local Ukrainians to attack the pro-Russian militias.

The Ukraine crisis really isn't over. Remember that based on Russia's intake of new recruits and discharge of soldiers completing their term of service, we're at that beginning of a window of opportunity for Russia to invade with the maximum number of reasonably trained troops:

If Putin decides to send in his troops, he has a narrow window in which to act," Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer writes in "Foreign Policy," citing the need to seize on current troop readiness before Russia's spring draft brings in a wave of unseasoned conscripts. "The window of opportunity for an invasion will open during the first weeks of April and close somewhere around the middle of May."

If we want the crisis to end, we need to help Ukraine mount a credible resistance to a Russian invasion. I hope we are doing more behind the scenes than just sending MREs and water purifiers, and other such nonlethal help that is as much use to the Ukrainian Boy Scouts as their army.

And even if the negotiations end the crisis, the Russians will be back one day to have another go at taking more of Ukraine.

UPDATE: Have no doubt that the Russians are still stirring up Ukraine:

For two weeks, the mysteriously well-armed, professional gunmen known as “green men” have seized Ukrainian government sites in town after town, igniting a brush fire of separatist unrest across eastern Ukraine. Strenuous denials from the Kremlin have closely followed each accusation by Ukrainian officials that the world was witnessing a stealthy invasion by Russian forces. ...

“There has been broad unity in the international community about the connection between Russia and some of the armed militants in eastern Ukraine, and the photos presented by the Ukrainians last week only further confirm this, which is why U.S. officials have continued to make that case,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said Sunday.

The question of Russia’s role in eastern Ukraine has a critical bearing on the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva among Russian, Ukrainian, American and European diplomats to ease the crisis. American officials have said that Russia would be held responsible for ensuring that the Ukrainian government buildings were vacated, and that it could face new sanctions if the terms were not met.

The Russians sign an agreement to end the crisis. But they refuse to stand down the city occupations that they carried out, and blame Ukraine for failing to abide by the agreement.

But let's remember that Russia has already failed to abide by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

UPDATE: SACEUR notes, among other things, the use of stun grenades in building assaults as a sign of Spetsnaz activity.

Cause and Effect

Foreign jihadi numbers in Syria are way up.

CENTCOM commander, General Austin, said of the foreign jihadis in Syria:

“You know, when I took command about a year ago, we were talking about 800 to 1,000 foreign fighters being in that country,” he said. Now, the intelligence community says it’s 7,000 to 8,000, which means it’s grown by orders of magnitude within one year.”

I'd just like to note that during the Iraq War, opponents of the war said that the only reason (far fewer) foreign jihadis entered Iraq was because we were a magnet and provocation. If only we left, Iraqis would sort things out by themselves.

We aren't in Syria, of course.

Oh, and in Iraq, jihadis are running loose in Anbar province and still holding cities and towns.

We aren't in Iraq, now, of course.