Pining For the Fjords

Does the Navy have a lot of geographic concealment already in place to operate within China's anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) envelope?

Hey! 

The Tomahawk has long enough range to where it can be fired from within the complex littoral geography of the Japanese and Philippine home islands and into a variety of Indo-Pacific maritime spaces. This could allow U.S. forces to circumvent maritime buffers or fire upon them from their littoral margins, which are mostly allied territories. This concept is somewhat similar to the Cold War-era concept of hiding carriers within Norwegian Fjords to launch strikes against the Soviets. 

My old notion does have a basis in fact.

I have on the shelves [a book] about how NATO planned to use the shield of Norway's mountains to operate aircraft carriers in Norwegian waters closer to the Soviet bases on the Kola Peninsula where we could hit the Soviet military units at home and strike Soviet amphibious assets trying to outflank NATO land defenses in northern Norway.

After Norway started to feel out on a limb in the late 1970s as Soviet power pushed NATO's forward line of defense back to the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap well south of Norway, demonstrating that we could include Norway in our defensive perimeter was important.

So it occurred to me that maybe our Navy could operate closer to China behind the shield of Taiwan's mountains, which conveniently loom over the eastern coast the length of Taiwan.

I wondered if even carriers could gain protection. Although I wondered if missile sensors had gotten good enough to see through the ground clutter.

But this might actually be an option across a wider area extending to Japanese and Filipino territorial waters.

Add in missile reflectors in the general neighborhood to decoy missiles away, and the sanctuaries might be numerous enough to really confuse China's kill chains.

UPDATE: The pining is real:

Russia's Embassy in Norway on Tuesday harshly criticized a planned visit by a U.S. aircraft carrier to Oslo as an "illogical and harmful" show of force.

UPDATE: Ah, my fjords defense for carriers may work for long-range anti-ship missiles but gravity bombs defeat that obstacle. Is the new concept just a repeat with nothing new to recommend it? 

So I retract my suggestion. If the suggestion has a major flaw back then it is flawed now.

Also from that initial post, the Navy has been reticent to admit carriers can even be damaged. I've never fallen for that delusion.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Tests Russian Resolve

I heard an analyst say that Russia isn't intending to achieve a battlefield victory to win the war. That Russia is choosing to wage a war of attrition to grind down Ukraine with Russia's larger size. I disagree that Russia chose this path. 

Russia chose to carry out a rapid regime change with a virtual military parade into Ukraine's cities. That failed. 

Then Russia chose to wage a narrow military offensive in the Donbas. That failed. 

Now Russia is on Plan C--long attrition. 

Maybe that works. But attrition is more complicated than simply saying Russia is much bigger and has the advantage. Maybe, I observed, Russia will have to go to Plan D: 

People like to say Russia can't afford to end the war without victory. So we should just let Ukraine die. At the moment Russia can't admit defeat. But at some point if Russia continues screwing the pooch, ending the war with retreat may seem like the best outcome Russia can get.

What is Putin's calculation now? Is clinging to Ukrainian territory at this price worth it? Or is that level of sacrifice finally dangerous to Russia or to himself? Will battlefield defeats and retreats in Ukraine's counteroffensive be too much to bear? Will fighting on seem too risky?

Lord knows I wrongly thought a far lower price was too much to ask of the Russian people.

But those who think Putin can't afford to admit defeat and so must continue to fight make a mistake in logic on the first part of that equation. That is, all Putin has to do to end the war is refuse to admit defeat. Indeed, go all in on spinning reality:

Putin is creating a narrative in which for all intents and purposes his “special military operation” in Ukraine never happened, and instead, NATO took up arms against poor, innocent Russia which, heroically and against all odds, repulsed the Western attack without losing any territory whatsoever. By this reckoning, Russia wins a great victory even if the Ukraine-Russian border remains pretty much as it was before the shooting started.

China did this after invading Vietnam in 1979, pulling its bloodied and stymied army out after claiming it had taught Vietnam a lesson against defying China. 

If Putin can't afford to end the war against Ukraine without victory, he can simply claim victory by saying Russia's glorious military under Putin's leadership made Ukraine a desert by battering Ukraine into perpetual weakness and emptied NATO's armories of weapons and ammunition.

The fact that NATO doesn't invade Russia after Russian troops pull out of Ukrainian territory will be cited as proof of success. Never mind that NATO has no desire to do that.

And if any Russian challenges that narrative, they might fall down a flight of stairs or out a window. Eventually the message of victory will be pounded home. 

Heck, even open defeat in Ukraine could be seen by Putin as the best option available.

Calculations change.

Heck, what is Zelensky's calculation if the counteroffensive isn't successful--or isn't successful enough? Are the Ukrainian people willing to sacrifice more to reclaim more territory? Or do they think Russia received enough of a bloody nose to never try that again, as Finland achieved in its Winter War of 1939-1940?

Might Ukrainians think money to rebuild is a worthy trade for Crimea remaining with the Russians?

You never know. Britain and France went to war with Nazi Germany in 1939 over the fate of Poland. By 1945 the fate of Poland as an issue was moot even with Germany crushed.

UPDATE (Monday): Weather, weapons delivery, and training have delayed Ukraine's long-telegraphed counteroffensive. Sure, Ukraine wants more time. Every commander wants more. But so does Russia. Who needs this time more? 

I keep recalling reading former German commanders on the World War II Eastern Front who said it was always best to counter-attack Russian advances quickly with whatever you could scrape up rather than wait for the Russians to dig in and prepare. This was more tactical than operational advice. But it worries me. 

Oh, by the way: 

Many of the tank crews say Russian defenses are more dug in than they were during the early stages of the war and Petro says that combat is becoming more and more like "trench warfare."

I will say that the delay in Ukraine's counteroffensive that has given time for Russia to build heavy fortifications is a problem the Iraqis developed in the Iran-Iraq War. Dug in on a long line and optimized to hold off Iranian human wave assaults, the Iraqi regular army lost its ability to fight mobile warfare. That led the Iraqis to expand their small Republican Guard force into a six-division mobile warfare force.

This problem also afflicted Western Front units in World War I where many divisions were rated as "trench warfare only" units. How many of the units on both sides would be rated this way now? But at least Ukraine is building a mobile force.

UPDATE (Monday): Russia claims to control Bakhmut. Ukraine says it still has some tiny toe-hold in the city. Even if Ukraine's claim is true, Russia effectively has the city. On the other hand, the more significant fight for the city is on the northern and southern flanks of the city.

UPDATE (Monday): Russia's invasion proved its army was highly over-rated by most Westerners. Will Ukraine's counteroffensive prove the Russian army is still over-rated? 

As I've said, you can't win without attacking at some point. Russians ran from a small and bold counteroffensive at Kharkiv and pulled back rather than fight the small and cautious Ukrainian counteroffensive at Kherson. 

If the Russians run again, we'll again see that Russia's ground forces are over-rated. I suspect the Russians are still over-rated. But I fear the Russians are good enough.

UPDATE (Monday): Huh:

Clashes broke out on Monday in Russian villages near the Ukrainian border, according to local officials and verified videos. The Russian regional governor said that a Ukrainian sabotage group had crossed into Russian territory, while Kyiv said that anti-Kremlin Russian partisans were behind the attacks.

Quite the distraction. I mentioned an attack there as a purely hypothetical option. I sincerely doubt Ukrainian troops--other than special forces or intel raids--would cross the border. 

The Free Russia Legion claims responsibility. If Ukraine set them up, so what? Russia denies invading Ukraine in 2014-2015, after all. Just local Ukrainians rising up, Russia claimed.

UPDATE (Monday): ISW: "Elements of the all-Russian pro-Ukrainian Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK) and Freedom of Russia Legion (LSR) conducted a raid into Belgorod Oblast on May 22."

UPDATE (Tuesday): Will this force Russia to divert troops to the Russia-Ukraine border to man the border defenses built to stop a purported Ukrainian invasion threat:

Russian troops and security forces fought for a second day Tuesday against an alleged cross-border raid that Moscow blamed on Ukrainian military saboteurs but which Kyiv portrayed as an uprising against the Kremlin by Russian partisans.

Russia should basically ignore this threat and simply send reaction forces to defeat any raids. But can Russia afford to ignore the threat after their propaganda campaign played up the threat?

UPDATE (Friday): Did a Ukrainian surface drone hit a Russian intelligence-gathering ship in the southern Black Sea?

NOTE: The image was made with DALL-E.

NOTE: ISW coverage of the war continues here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.

The TDR Author Loves Cod, Beer, and His Electric Refrigerator

Your humble TDR host was finally interviewed by a journalist whose deep appreciation of my skills, dignity, and--yes--rugged good looks fully displayed my powers of analysis, synthesis, perspective, and raw sexual magnetism. 

Here's an excerpt:

The curious mind of Brian Dunn holds much of its functionality in reserve. Even as he discusses Ukraine and the U.S. military, down to the pointillist data that is his current stock-in-trade, The Dignified Rant author comes off like a Mensa black card holder who might have a secret Go habit or a three-second Rubik’s Cube solution or a knack for supplying, off the top of his head, the day of the week for a random date in 1404, along with a non-condescending history of the Pastafarian aluminum and plastic colanders.

As freelance author Dunn and I talked in his underfurnished corner patio one afternoon in early spring, I slowly became aware that his blogging hobby requires only a modest portion of his cognitive powers. Other mental facilities, no kidding, are apportioned to Sledge Hammer, board games, and Clausewitz’s On War—though not in the original German (slacker). Fortunately, he was willing to devote yet another apse in his cathedral mind to making his ideas about three mighty themes—the proto-imperial EU, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the military 3:1 rule—intelligible to me.

It went on like that for a while. As one would expect. My well developed sense of false modesty prevents me from excerpting more. Do read it all.

The interview may or may not have abruptly ended with the two of us ripping each other's clothes off as we stumbled inside my home to fulfill our deep hunger for each other. 

Truly, I've never been more proud of our formally trained Journalist Class.

And my deepest thanks to my completely objective interviewer. I'll call you tomorrow. I swear.

NOTE: The image was made with DALL-E. I was inspired by this mockery.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Weekend Data Dump

Junk science: "Since groupthink is so pervasive, any citations that confirm academics’ left-wing biases are rarely double-checked. And so junk piles upon junk." GIGO. Via Instapundit. 

The Belarus autocrat Lukashenko is ill and out of sight. If he can't rule--or his supporters can't prop him up and rule through him--does that mean Russia takes over and annexes Belarus? Or does it mean the opposition rallies people to eject the regime and Russia? 

Germany announces $3 billion military aid package to Ukraine that "includes 20 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, 30 Leopard 1 tanks, 15 Gepard antiaircraft tanks, 200 reconnaissance drones, four additional Iris-T antiaircraft systems including ammunition, additional artillery ammunition and more than 200 armored combat and logistics vehicles."

Biden conducted another one of his two-minute hates against a shadowy threat that lurks out there. Armed. Watching. Waiting under rocks. And ready to strike. Oddly, the widespread threat didn't unleash the ultra violence on January 6, 2021, when it had the chance. But they're crafty that way. Planning. Trying to figure out how many of their members are federal agents or informers. Waiting for just one more case of MREs, another 1,000 rounds of ammo, and a gross of MyPillows to arrive in the mail. Until then, they let criminals and leftists get all the violence action to destroy our cities. Lulling us. But the threat never goes away. We clearly can't let down our guard. These left-wing clowns--I mean, not all are just senile--really believe this fake charge. Including Biden's repetition of the "Fine people hoax." And also, with equally intense indignation, they'd never rig an election to stop that evil from seizing power.

It seems to me that Remainers trying to help the EU take over Britain again is behind efforts to blame Brexit for economic problems.

Wait.What? "The U.S. military is working with allies to send more ships and aircraft to the Middle East as Iran escalates its seizures of merchant tankers, the National Security Council announced Friday." I thought China's brilliant Saudi-Iranian deal quieted the region down to make oil exports safe.

FFS: "The Biden administration plans to continue nuclear negotiations with Iran despite the nation's crackdown on protesters who have demonstrated in recent days following the death of a woman in police custody." Because of course that's their plan: "Democrats bizarrely love Iran and think a new nuclear deal and a box of candy will turn them into a responsible regional power. And the Biden administration will twist reality again to get that deal restored."

The Ukrainians believe the Leopard I will be sufficient to smash up Russian tanks. Which is interesting given its low armor protection. Of course, even Ukraine's old Soviet models with thicker armor can be destroyed by the Russian tanks. Crew skill and the quality of leadership in employing the tanks count the most. If Ukraine's experience is that their own Soviet tanks can beat the Russians, Leopard I's with better optics for shooting should do just fine. 

Army soldiers are under stress because of a "breakneck operational tempo"? What? We have far fewer brigades deployed overseas even in a time of European war. And no full brigades in combat. I don't think we have any full battalions in combat. If the Army has problems, it isn't deployments overseas. The article doesn't persuade me. I'm sure some elements in high demand but few in number are under stress. But the Army as a whole?? What am I missing?

Special forces have a light propeller-driven close air support plane.

Not a single target struck? "Biden administration officials touted robust “over-the-horizon” capabilities to both gather intelligence and strike terrorist groups to keep them in check. But some two years after the Biden administration announced the drawdown, the U.S. military hasn’t struck a single target in Afghanistan, and U.S. military leaders now concede they lack sufficient resources to do so." I didn't expect much, but the administration claimed a few strikes! I guess that was by the CIA. Exactly: "During the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. had the benefit of not only surveillance aircraft and other technology in-country, but military, intelligence and State Department personnel on the ground maintaining Afghan and Pakistani human information networks[.]"

Can American allies keep an eye on Iran as America pivots to face China and takes the lead in Europe to stop Russia? Interesting question. I ask if America wants to keep an eye on Iran.

The end has been ten years away nigh for a long time in climate change circles. Is reason counterattacking (tip to Instapundit)? But will any leaders demonstrate the futility of promoting magical thinking? And now for something completely different:

Zelensky met Macron in France where France pledged to train more Ukrainian troops and provide "dozens of light tanks and armored vehicles 'in the weeks ahead,' without giving specific numbers. Also promised were more air defense systems, but again details weren’t made public." The "light tanks" are heavy armored cars.

Well, the struggle to decide who are the Bolsheviks and who are the Mensheviks is a high-stakes game: "The Minneapolis DFL Ward 10 convention descended into chaos on Saturday afternoon, leading to the session's adjournment without endorsement." Tip to Instapundit.

And yet Democrats want to cripple American energy production: "it is supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the bulk again from the USA, which have permitted the rest of Europe to resist Putin’s energy warfare and keep the lights on. Continued US support will be just as vital this winter, and probably for some years to come."

The alleged white supremacist movement is perhaps the most diverse and accepting group in America, apparently. 

Well at least we have established that illegal immigrants should patiently wait in line to get into America. I agree. I just think the wait should be longer while they wait in their country of origin while following the American immigration procedures currently in our laws. I know, I know, I'm a horrible person.

How long before China has a base in Eritrea? "Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Monday strong China-Eritrea relations were key to bolstering peace in the Horn of Africa region and pursuing mutually beneficial development, speaking at a meeting in Beijing with his Eritrean counterpart."

Is Russia resuming its attacks on Ukraine's long-range missile production capabilities?

In the nick of too late to save the LCS: "After several years of delays, the Navy’s mine countermeasures mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship has finally reached its initial operating capability." Well maybe the mission package will fit on small modularized auxiliary cruisers. 

The threat endures: "U.S. 5th Fleet, along with other allies in the Middle East, will increase the number of ships and aircraft patrolling the Strait of Hormuz in response to Iran’s recent seizures of merchant vessels, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command announced Friday."

Setting out the "Keep Out" signs: "The Philippines has placed navigational buoys within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to assert sovereignty over the disputed Spratly islands in the South China Sea, a coast guard spokesperson said on Sunday." The battle is on.

There should be prison time for those involved: "Special counsel John Durham exposed Monday how the FBI and Justice Department plotted to rig the 2016 presidential election." That Obama administration abuse of government power colluding with Hillary! to shield her and undermine Trump was the only collusion in 2016 and the next couple years. 

NATO works on surging forces into the Suwalki Gap in a crisis: "The concerns center on whether allies could mobilize fast enough should the Russian military attempt to seal off the Baltic states from the rest of the alliance." Good. But the real solution is to rapidly take Kaliningrad in a war Russia starts. 

Oh? "Iran is expanding its military partnership with Russia and has already provided hundreds of drones to Russia to pursue its war in Ukraine, a senior White House official said Monday, warning of consequences if Iran continues down this path." This White House will forgive Iran for anything.

Huh: "Russia's top army general and his South African counterpart discussed 'military cooperation' while meeting Monday in Moscow, the Russian Defense Ministry said."

Awesome: "Britain is having to cannibalize parts from one of its two new aircraft carriers to keep the other one operational." I've been worried.

The media refuses to look: "It is the blindside of our First Amendment, which addresses the classic use of state authority to coerce and control media. It does not address a circumstance in which most of the media will maintain an official line by consent rather than coercion." 

Putin ordered his country to produce better and more aerial drones. 

The Marines will battle workplace gender bias. General MacArthur said there is no substitute for victory. America's military believes otherwise.

Welp, the new super carrier Ford is combat ready. Huzzah? That pinnacle of platform-centric warfare sets sail into a network-centric sea.

China's aggressive stance has encouraged resistance rather than capitulation from Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Australia. And perhaps South Korea. How will China respond?

Moldova has begun the process of withdrawing from Russia's discount NATO, the Commonwealth of Independent States. It isn't a big direct blow to Russia. Moldova is small. But it does show a lack of fear of Russian retaliation. Which could spread to larger members of the CIS formed by Russia from former Soviet subject states. Tip to Instapundit.

Pawns: "Iranian leaders are stoking conflict between Israel and Palestinian militias, likely to enable the IRGC to transfer military equipment into Syria with a lower risk of Israeli interdiction."

Brain gain.

Denmark: "In a new foreign and security policy strategy, the country's government calls for more joint military exercises and coordination of defence plans with its Nordic neighbours." 

You don't need to be a MAGA fan to know the Russia-Trump collusion obsession was BS: "Within half a decade, [Democrats] went from 'The 1980s want their foreign policy back' to looking for Russkies under the bed. It was a mass delusion." 

Early in the week, Russia surged some of its best missiles in an apparently failed attempt to smash up Kiev. 

The American division in South Korea is the only "combined division" in the Army: "The 12,100-strong 2nd ID is the Army’s only division that combines U.S. units with those of another nation, in this case South Korea. 

South Korea will expand nonlethal aid to Ukraine.

Iraq's enemies, external and inside the house.

China has learned from Russia that invading Taiwan is too difficult. I hope so. More relevant perhaps is that the Taiwanese think resistance is not futile. If that's the most important lesson of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, China may in time regret they didn't invade while the Taiwanese were pre-defeated.

Rule of law. What is it? "Gunmen in south-eastern Nigeria have attacked a US convoy, killing [two consulate employees and two police], local police say." No U.S. citizens were in the convoy. And three people were kidnapped.

Biden cancels historic visit to Papua New Guinea. Worse than not going is getting PNG to plan for visit and see it snatched away. It was just a three-hour visit. Biden should have gone.

Communications is the backbone of maneuver and precision fires: "The U.S. Army is planning a second experiment where the latest networking technologies will be tested for potential outfitting aboard armored vehicles."

Shame: "The Justice Department — as well as the media that covered it — effectively shut down a duly elected presidency, based on what turned out to be a politically engineered hoax." And shame on the media for pretending this government abuse of power is nothing. What happened to Democratic championship of civil liberties? It's now open season on enemies of the state. Well, for targeting certain acto(R)s: "Durham documents that President Obama, Vice President Biden, top intelligence officials, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI director Comey were fully briefed by CIA director John Brennan on Russia’s assessment of Clinton’s plan to frame Trump." Hillary! walks freely despite her security crimes as Secretary of State with destruction of evidence thrown in, not to mention her role in starting and sustaining the Russia collusion hoax. Via Instapundit.

Interesting times in Pakistan: "The world’s fifth most populous country is no stranger to political unrest. No prime minister has ever completed their tenure in Pakistan’s history, but never before has a politician challenging the country’s all-powerful military and intelligence services, known as the establishment, enjoyed such public support." Is the public tired of the military's political power? This crisis is far from over. How will China react to this problem in their new client state? Oh, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a plentiful supply of jihadis. Have a super sparkly day.

I'm not sure that is fair to say Russia's ground forces have improved since beginning the war. Too much equipment, trained men, and leaders have been destroyed or killed. I think it is safe to say that Russia is adapting to its limitations by falling back on firepower and a willingness to let its troops die. 

Using old tanks as artillery is useful but not a real Russian innovation (as the author ultimately notes):

Also, it is less than optimal even for old tanks. The tank's engine is as much of a weapon as its gun. If used that way. But in a static front it is useful. As the U.S. used them in Korea and as the Ukrainians have already used them.

I've heard this already and dismissed it as anything but a Plan B: "Rather than a costly ground offensive to liberate Crimea from Russian control, there may be an easier way: Use unmanned boats to attack Russian forces and blockade the peninsula, argue two American experts." Stop throwing panties at unmanned boats. Long-range missile bombardment would be a better way to smash up Russian bases in Crimea if it can't be captured.

Do not become confused: "The Biden administration proposed to Israel a few weeks ago the idea of engaging in joint military planning concerning Iran, three U.S. and Israeli officials told Axios." This is obviously to prevent Israel from acting against Democrats' love interest.

Missile magnets won't command and control much: "Command posts of the past were relatively stationary, cumbersome to set up and break down, and often identifiable by the heat, noise and electronic artifacts they give off. Such easy targets will not cut it in a fight against China or Russia[.]"

I think this intends to transfer older Virginia's to Australia to bridge the gap between its conventional subs and new AUKUS subs and prepare crews for the new subs: "The U.S. Department of Defense asked Congress to authorize the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as part of the trilateral AUKUS agreement with the U.K."

No doubt: "A U.S. Navy commander said Wednesday there is “no significant change” in the conduct of Russian aircraft and warships toward Western naval and air assets in the eastern Mediterranean as Moscow’s war in Ukraine grinds on." The Russian force would have a short but exciting life if it starts shooting.

Wartime innovation. But does it work in combat?

The Russian airborne forces' tank destroyer. But not fit for fighting in Ukraine. I'm surprised it has the same 125mm gun as tanks. Doesn't that mess up the chassis when firing too many times? Isn't that why Western light vehicles have low-velocity versions of tank guns? Or I could just be missing something.

South Korea wants an arsenal ship: "When they are built and deployed, South Korea's ships will tell North Korea and China that a surprise attack will not destroy its ability to retaliate." I think the ship tells enemies that destroying on floating target will eliminate a lot of the deterrent force. Not a fan.

Is opposition to the Marine Corps' Force Design 2030 to support the fleet a "zombie" idea relentlessly and mindlessly undermining the path to success? I agree with Marines teaming with the Navy to defeat the Chinese navy. And while I miss the most significant ground force fighting at the Army's side since 9/11, I appreciate the Marines rejecting being a second Army. But when you start to sink ships, sink ships. And ... logistics? Also, the approach isn't as appropriate for the rest of the world where no fleet threatens Western control of the seas. Or even after China's fleet is defeated. I reject the idea that the Marine science is settled.

Russia agreed to a two-month extension of the Black Sea grain export agreement.

So Macron is a "chap"?

Integrated Battle Problem 23.1: "The U.S. Pacific Fleet is testing 'fleet-centric' concepts and capabilities with a keen eye on unmanned systems to figure out how would the fleet connect, command and control disparate uncrewed systems that are operated remotely, semi or fully autonomously." Explain to me again how super carriers fit into this networked concept.

Macron wants "strategic autonomy" for the European Union, notwithstanding having his nose rubbed in the need for NATO during Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Well of course Macron wants that.  What a nice chap.

The Philippines draws a line in the South China Sea. The contest is afoot.

Russia continues to attack Ukraine's cities with missiles, seemingly with little to show for it. I sometimes wonder if it isn't so much strategy as it is having measurable inputs to demonstrate to Putin that the military is acting.

Should John Brennan be in prison for undermining our democracy? 

The European Union's rule-of-law crisis is that members don't obey the EU?? Please, the proto-imperial EU is all about violating rule of law to strip away the prefix.

Shocking: "President Joe Biden's Syria policy has been dealt its biggest blow yet as the Arab League has welcomed back President Bashar al-Assad despite U.S. opposition to his rule." Biden has a Syria policy?

The "Not Part of China" coalition: "The Philippines finds itself part of a growing anti-China coalition dedicated to preventing China from exercising control over the South China Sea. This coalition now includes South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia and Vietnam as well as the United States, Australia and several NATO nations with navies and lots of trade passing through the South China Sea. To China this coalition is seen as an obstacle, not a defeat." Herding the cats is required to hold the line. 

The Navy will be able to build frigates faster: "The Navy has previously committed to just 20 Constellation-class frigates. The desire to add a second shipyard strongly indicates the Navy wants far more than the original number. Two shipyards building two ships per year would yield 40 frigates over ten years, and the actual number of ships the Navy would like is probably somewhere around 50." 

This will take time (tip to Instapundit): "The Biden administration has informed European allies that Washington will not block their export of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, a person familiar with the decision told The Washington Post. Biden has ruled out U.S. deliveries of F-16s to Ukraine." Can the time be shortened?

Australia will provide the Philippines with surveillance drones for their coast guard. And is considering joint patrols in the South China Sea.

Well yes, battlefield wounds from big weapons on a dangerous conventional battlefield means medics will have a far more challenging job dealing with wounds and injuries than they had in counter-insurgencies.

Britain will send a carrier battle group on a INDOPACOM deployment in 2025.

China's BRI loans have a mixed record of good and slipshod infrastructure in the poorer countries that get China's loans. And the debt-trap threatens to snap shut with defaults on shaky Chinese state banks absent Chinese government bailouts. Is this building dependence or resentment in loan recipients?

Trade: "Chinese leader Xi Jinping promised to build more railway and other trade links with Central Asia and proposed jointly developing oil and gas sources at a meeting Friday with the region’s leaders that highlighted Beijing’s growing influence." Flag to follow? And a flag that leaves?

An "accounting error" means the U.S. has $3 billion left in current appropriations authority to send military aid to Ukraine. It may or may not be fishy. Just as the FBI investigation of faux Trump-Russia collusion may have "only" seriously bent rules and standards to abuse government powers without technically violating any laws. But I know for sure that if a Republican administration had done either, we'd have 24/7 news drama about the "appearance of impropriety" that demands the truth and punishment--impeachment, anyone?--of those responsible. You know I'm right. 

Maybe we haven't looked for the right signals to find alien life. Maybe we missed the signal because we weren't looking or haven't found the signals in the collected data we've examined. Maybe we just don't appreciate how big the universe is and contact is unlikely. Or maybe we really are alone (tip to The Morning Briefing). Or, as the article continues, maybe we are alone because intelligent life is hard to come by. Or maybe it wipes itself out. Or gets wiped out from the universe itself. Maybe this means we have a tremendous opportunity to expand. Or, as I proposed, aliens are deliberately--if obliviously--vewy, vewy quiet.

Why does our government hate us? Tip to Instapundit.

Combat veterans can learn faster, I guess: "Yahoo News has exclusively obtained an internal U.S. Air Force assessment that concludes it would take only four months to train Ukrainian pilots to operate American-made F-16 fighter jets, a far shorter time frame than what has been repeatedly cited by Pentagon officials."

American forces are not immune to attacks on jammed up supply convoys. I guess we're sort of getting some practice now, in the sense of being aware that real potential threat exists.

I'm a traditionalist and think our most survivable nuclear deterrent loses survivability when visible: "Traditionally, submarines have relied on their invisibility and stealth for their effectiveness. In a strictly operational sense, that remains the case. But the more overt utilisation of deployments in times of tension represents something new." But I'm sure our best and brightest aren't bound by mere tradition built on experience. This will be fine, right? Fine, show the SSGNs and SSNs if you must. I'd rather not, but fine. But keep the SSBNs underwater!

I'm not pleased with retired flag officers offering opinions on political matters. Civilian control is vital. But it seems to me that the left started this and have politicized serving flag officers to the point that victory has many substitutes.

So perhaps the latest open letter is the least-bad option at the moment when responsible civilian leadership seems shaky.

Yes, a stronger NATO enables a pivot to Asia: "A stronger NATO and a less U.S.-dependent Ukraine will allow the U.S. to turn its attention to what should be its top priority: deterring China in the Indo-Pacific." But there is a danger if Europe builds up its defense industrial base. Especially if "Europe" is defined as the European Union. Isn't this in part Leading from Behind 2.0? I'd rather emphasize America being the primary arsenal of democracy.

This increase is not impressive: "The U.S. Army has placed a multi-year contract for 10,000 GMLRS guided rockets a year (up from 6,000) through 2026[.]"

This is government bureaucracy in action:

As Ukraine takes its time to make sure it is ready for its counteroffensive, the Russians got time, too: "This has resulted in much closer integration of multiple UAVs directly supporting commanders authorised to apply fires. Russian artillery has also improved its ability to fire from multiple positions and to fire and move, reducing susceptibility to counterbattery fire." And Russian engineers are building defenses and obstacles. But we'll see if the Russian troops with poor morale will hold them.

Also, I've noted my worry on this capability during the counteroffensive: "The Russian Aerospace Forces remain a ‘force in being’ and a major threat to advancing Ukrainian forces, although they currently lack the capabilities to penetrate Ukrainian air defences."

This is interesting: "There has been a shift in reliance upon 152-mm howitzers to a much greater emphasis on 120-mm mortars in Russian fires; this reflects munitions and barrel availability."

When tanks are destroyed, some say they are obsolete. How about those UAVs? "Ukrainian UAV losses remain at approximately 10,000 per month." Although we may have to revise what "tanks" look like. I concede most of those lost UAVs are pretty inexpensive. But countries lost a lot tanks in World War II.

One more: "Following the destruction of Russian command and control infrastructure in July 2022, the Russian military withdrew major headquarters out of range of GMLRS and placed them in hardened structures. They also wired them into the Ukrainian civil telecommunications network and used field cables to branch from this to brigade headquarters further forward. Assigned assets tend to connect to these headquarters via microlink, significantly reducing their signature." If Ukraine can shift the fight from positional warfare to one of maneuver, the Russian adaptation to static warfare will falter, I think. That's a separate issue from whether Ukraine can command and control maneuver warfare: "if Ukraine can disrupt Russian defences and impose a dynamic situation on them, Russian units are likely to rapidly lose their coordination." 

The North Korean smuggling fleet.  

Draining the Political Petroleum Reserve was easy. Refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve isn't a priority: "President Joe Biden in December began working to replenish the 180 million barrels he sold last year from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Nearly six months later, he still has zero barrels to show for it." Tip to Instapundit.

I'd rather have their ships join us: "The Mideast-based commanders of the U.S., British and French navies transited the Strait of Hormuz on Friday aboard an American warship[.]" But I don't like dangling big ships there.

A vassal without limits to its needs: "Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin will visit Beijing next week for talks, China's Foreign Ministry said Friday[.]" Let's see how that visit works out.

To be fair, Biden constantly tells his supporters that the MAGA supremacists are all around us waiting to pounce and kill. Tip to Instapundit.

Marines: Pre-Island Hopped for China's Convenience?

Is the Marine Corps Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) concept essentially replicating the Japanese experience from World War II American island hopping operations? Doesn't moving the Marine units or supplying them close to China assume friendly sea control that EABO is trying to achieve?

Yeah, Chinese long-range precision forces (LRPF) are a problem:

Col. Angell said that some LRPF lessons in Ukraine are that LRPFs offer speed, are more precise, and create a contested logistics battlefield environment. Now long-range precision fires are a threat across the entire battlefield, admitted Col. Angell, and enemy LRPFs can extend to the range of USMC (expeditionary) advanced bases. 

The Marine Corps, responding to the need to support the Navy in a sea control campaign against China in the western Pacific, is creating Marine Littoral Regiments to disperse small units across islands to add to the anti-ship missile arsenal aimed at the PLA Navy.

Well, allegedly.

I worry about logistically supporting these Stand-in Forces (SIF) contingents. After all, by definition the United States won't have sea control around them. That's why the Marines are being committed. To gain sea control.

I worry that analogies to American island-hopping operations in the Pacific are mistakenly assuming the Marines are following the American side when it is actually following the Japanese side.

After early war America frontal assaults on Japan's island perimeter, America eventually gained enough naval and air superiority to leap past Japanese defended bases.

America had the power to bypass many bases and pound the bases into passivity to let them wither on the vine as America advanced on Japan itself.

Marine EABO and SIFs are skipping past the prerequisite of establishing naval and air superiority to deliberately put Marine forces within China's air and naval envelopes.

It isn't as if the Marines haven't thought about this issue (back to the initial article):

Granted, USMC SIFs are supposed to be small, light, fast, and mobile to increase their survivability, thus making them very hard to detect, and not depend on a noticeable logistics tail. That would factor into the enemy’s decision not to waste LRPFs on SIFs if SIFs’ locations are generally unknown, or SIFs are so small that an enemy would not waste an expensive missile to destroy them. 

The units may be small enough to extract even in a contested environment. I admit that is a reason it might work.

Although the reasons the EABs can safely operate aren't accurate.

SIFs are mobile? 

No. Once planted on an island they require outside assets to move them. Even a Marine with just his personal gear.

Hard to detect? 

If they emit they can be detected. And if I may be so bold, I bet looking at a map will narrow down the range of possible locations considerably.

Too small to waste expensive missiles on?

Really? When the PLAN warships that the SIFs target are pretty darned expensive? Doesn't this argument essentially argue that the SIFs won't be effective in sinking Chinese warships? Because that's the only reason I wouldn't target them.

Still, the small size might be the ultimate enabler, meaning even intermittent and harder-to-detect logistics tails are good enough. As long as we don't count on barges with pretensions. 

And if we also use aerial assets to get the SIFs out or resupply them. But the Marines are getting rid of air assets!

Operational maneuver within the island chains of the vast Western Pacific is dependent on surface lift and air mobility. The huge divestitures in Marine Corps aviation appear not to have considered lift requirements to support its stand-in forces, or the support required for more conventional operations against a peer or near-peer competitor. 

And adding air defense assets to SIFs, which is the focus of that first article, isn't the answer. They just increase the logistics problem of supplying and extracting them by making them bigger and heavier--and less mobile.

I have worries.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

NOTE: May 2026: Something that wasn't clear in my mind until after I wrote this is that SIFs are the joint and multinational recon screen and forward observer force for the joint combat forces that include land outposts organized by Marine Littoral Regiments. So while many of my concerns apply to the SIFS, I was thinking about the MLR outposts. I can't amend every post I've written that may have perpetuated this mistake. But this is one I often link.

From the Pact of Steel to the Pact of Steal

China doesn't seem like it wants to bail out its Russian sidekick in the West. I've noted that history seems to be rhyming a bit. China would court trouble if it went along with that and discovered it had a liability without limits rather than a useful vassal.

Russia was a junior partner to China, at best. Which was humiliating enough given the history of Soviet-Chinese relations.

But Russia had little choice but to play along and buy time.

A short and glorious Russian takeover of Ukraine might have been viewed as a key humiliation of the West and the fracturing of a frightened NATO. Which would enable Russia to pivot to Asia to face China.

But the reality of a bloody and expensive war against Ukraine that has united and expanded NATO foiled that brilliant plan.

I'm not sure what Russia does now--if it has a choice.

But China has choices. Does China learn from Germany's mistake with its little buddy Italy in World War II?

Consider that Italy was an over-hyped military power that was a useful diplomatic ally for Germany before World War II. The Pact of Steel, it was called.

Italy entered the war after Germany invaded France, in an effort to pounce on the corpse. That didn't work out. But at least it was harmless to Germany, which crushed France and the Low Countries, and drove Britain back to its islands.

Italy invaded Egypt but stalled out. The small British counteroffensive routed the Italians. Germany sent a small force to bolster the Italians in an arguably wise and fairly cheap effort. But as the Allies pushed the German-Italian forces back and American and British forces invaded Northwest Africa, the Germans belatedly pushed large forces into Tunisia just in time to be captured in an enclave cut off by Allied air power.

Italy invaded Greece to demonstrate Italy's prowess and watched its armies get defeated and pushed back into Albania. Eventually that required Germany to conquer Yugoslavia and Greece, requiring large garrisons to hold against partisans and potential Allied invasion.

And Germany had to bolster Italy's defense of the Italian peninsula against Allied invasion, eventually having to take over complete responsibility once Italy defected to the Allied side. One can argue the Allies tied down more of its own troops there than Germany had to deploy. But the Allies had sufficient troops for the Western front, too. 

And you can hardly argue that Germany wouldn't have been better off if Italy had simply remained neutral for the entire war, protecting Germany's southern flank at little cost. Germany could have trained Italians and provided some military technology to keep Italy a target that looked too strong to take on to get at Germany.

That's what China faces now, although with geographic distance to change the dynamics. 

Yes, Russia plunged into Ukraine. Perhaps thinking this would diminish the shiny new superpower glow that China has been casting, and give Russia some protective glory, too. Russia is back, baby!

But Russia wrecked its propaganda-enhanced image by actually testing that military against Ukraine.

Russia is stuck in the west even if it defeats Ukraine against a revitalized and alarmed NATO rather than having a meek and de-fanged NATO flinching every time Russia waved its nukes at the West.

And so Russia cannot easily pivot to face China. A China that now knows Russia is too weak to stand in China's way. And which needs China so much more after burning its bridges to the West.

What might China decide if Russia has too many security demands on China, becoming a burden rather than a strategic asset?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Burning and Sinking Is a Hell of a Message

Without much greater aircraft range or much greater defenses or other protections, can America really risk our super carriers close to Taiwan to deter or defeat China and to reassure and encourage American allies to help defend Taiwan? Committing our carriers to defend Taiwan without those advantages just to send the right "message" to China and allies is insane and counter-productive.

 

Taiwan, America, and our allies need to think about defending Taiwan from Chinese absorption by pressure or force. But I don't like the implications of this statement:

Openly accepting the premise that US carriers can- not survive Chinese attacks also means openly stating that moving carriers toward Taiwan, Japan, or through the strait is always an American bluff and should not be seen as a serious demonstration of Washington’s willingness or ability to fight.

American super carriers and other capital ships are either vulnerable when fighting too close to Chinese anti-ship weapons weighted to China's littoral regions on land and afloat. Or they aren't. That isn't a mere premise to accept or reject.

If they are vulnerable, the problem with refusing to admit massively expensive carriers are vulnerable to avoid sending a bad signal to China or our allies is that losing the carriers and capital ships would be a far worse message for all of them to get. Not to mention what our own people will see.

Could an American super carrier in a multiple carrier task force have one carrier equipped with long-range drones for naval strikes against Chinese invading forces with the rest of the carriers optimized for air defense to protect the task force and send some F-35s with tanker support for escort?*

If the task force stays beyond the range of most Chinese anti-ship escorts with plenty of subs between the PLAN and the carriers plus ample air defenses, we might be able to strike with sufficient disaggregated power to cripple PLA invaders or blockaders. 

I'd also like us to figure out if figuratively sailing within the shadows of Taiwan's east coast provides protection against Chinese missile guidance systems. That would really change calculations for deploying American carriers.

And I'd like the AABONE from Guam to help escort the drones or shoot down Chinese transport aircraft carrying PLA airborne forces. 

Or maybe we just need to convert container ship hulls into drone-carrying escort carriers (CVEs). Those would be expendable enough to risk within China's A2/AD bubble early in the war to supplement submarines, cheap long-range anti-ship missile carriers, and long-range aircraft, no? 

Eventually, as sea control is established, the capital ships can press closer to Taiwan to add more firepower in a power projection role.

I want a debate on how to keep China from absorbing Taiwan. Remember, the Taiwan issue is more than an issue about Taiwan. So let's get the debate right.

NOTE: I drafted this in late February and for some reason left it languishing as a draft until I discovered it by chance. That sentence with the asterisk was written before I wrote the post linked about an article on that topic.

NOTE: The image was created using DALL-E. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Australia Extends Its Perimeter

Australian defense policy makes Australia capable of projecting air and naval power, with an assist from lighter ground forces, to the South China Sea. This encourages and enables America, Japan, and India to move forward behind that shield to face a common enemy.

I've wanted Australia to be a shield and sword:

American forces, supported by Australian forces and supplied from Australian bases, can swing west or north to support allies or react to natural or military crises from South Asia to Northeast Asia.

This shift to Asia where Australia holds a critical area has been going on for a while and makes sense.

The Obama administration "pivot" is merely the most vocal stage of our long shift to Asia following the collapse of the Soviet threat in Europe and the Atlantic. The announcement serves more to indicate our national focus rather than any real addition of forces.

And by giving America this central position, Australia gains a shield against Chinese power.

Finally, by allowing America access to northwestern Australia bases, Australia helps provide a shield that makes it safe for American forces to rush to Australia's defense without undue worry that the fleet has embarked on a death ride into the teeth of Chinese power. It also gives America confidence that Australia can hold on long enough to be saved and that Australian forces will be there to fight at our side when we get there.

This role enables and so encourages American forces to reinforce Australia against a threat from the north. China is the current threat. And as India looks to Act East to protect its shores--and to cut off China's sea lines of communication through the Indian Ocean--India is pulled east.

The Australian Defense Strategic Review wants more long-range military capabilities in light of China's growing power:

The public version of the classified review recommended that Australia’s government spend more on defense than the current expenditure of 2% of gross domestic product, improve the Australian Defense Force’s ability to precisely strike targets at longer ranges and make munitions domestically.

Other recommendations include improving the force’s ability to operate from Australia’s northern bases and to deepen defense partnerships with key countries in the Indo-Pacific region including India and Japan.

China’s military buildup “is now the largest and most ambitious of any country” since the end of World War II, the review said.

Mechanized infantry is downgraded.  

Australia has seemed to be on the right path despite my worries of more than a decade ago. 

And it is important to note that Australia resisted heavy Chinese pressure to submit:

China’s campaign of economic coercion against Australia failed because of support from other Asian trading partners who turned to Australia to secure their energy supplies.

This speaks well of American and, to a lesser extent, Indian and Japanese intent to contain a Chinese offensive. Australia is small and arming up can only provide a shield that lasts long enough for help to arrive. To commit to the burden of building that shield, Australia needs to trust that help will arrive in time.

And other nations that enabled Australia's decision had to have similar trust. They were just as important economically as American military help to build the foundation of an Australian collective defense policy strategy.

As I've noted, trust in American power and credibility is key to herding the cats in INDOPACOM.

Our Defense Department seems satisfied:

We welcome the release of Australia's Defence Strategic Review (DSR) — it is the latest example of the pivotal role Australia plays in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific, including through participation in AUKUS and the Quad.

There's a plan. Let's see how it is funded and developed.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Play Stupid Imperial Games, Get Stupid Imperial Prizes.

Let's watch the steely eyed chess master Putin work his magic on the world stage, eh?

Putin's flailing grasp for former imperial stomping grounds in Ukraine risks losing what Russia still has:

While the current focus is on Taiwan, analysts with broader vision watch the humble deference Putin is showing to Xi out of necessity.

It’s not too soon to wonder about the future of the Russian Far East – parts of which have a Chinese ethnic majority – in the event of a collapsed or badly weakened regime in Moscow. Given Xi’s clear intent to unify China and the Chinese, including Taiwan and elsewhere, it’s to be hoped that the right people in the Pentagon and elsewhere are already thinking about this. 

I've certainly raised the issue. And wondered if Putin's war against Ukraine is making Russia a more promising target for restoring territory taken in the "Century of Humiliation" than Taiwan.

I've even noted Russia's policy of appeasement of China to protect Russia's Far East as an interim strategy while Russia rebuilds its military.

And despite my revulsion for what Russia has reverted to under Putin, I raised a potential American Army role in helping Russia hold that territory against China in this Military Review article.

But Russia's bloody and brutal invasion of Ukraine is ruining Russian hopes for quite some time for getting Western help to avoid being a Chinese target:

Putin keeps winning NATO recruiter of the year awards.

The failure of Russia's army to quickly crush Ukraine as promised will harm Putin in the high-stakes game of Russian politics even if he manages to defeat Ukraine's army and "only" have to shift to a counter-insurgency campaign.

And to put the tasty stupid icing on the tasty stupid cake, Putin is alienating the West even as Putin wrecks his military with a still rising China looming over Russia's Far East--which was taken from China in the 19th century.

Bravo.

Seriously, Russia under Putin is Russia's worst enemy.

I wonder when the naturally paranoid Russian society will turn their suspicious gaze on Putin himself.

Really, Russia can't hope for rescue from the West if China exploits Russia's face plant in Europe, as that initial author speculates:

A badly weakened Russia, potentially newly free and democratic in that scenario, might ask to join Nato as well. 

Even before Putin initiated the Winter War of 2022, there was no way NATO would extend its defense guarantee to the Amur River to deter China when many members don't think of the Suwalki Gap as a reason to fight. 

And after the brutal and destructive war, Russia can't even count on the kind of support that non-NATO member Ukraine has gotten from NATO.

Chess master, indeed.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Evaluates the Bakhmut Offensive

The Russian winter offensive in the Donbas seemed to put most of its effort into taking the small city of Bakhmut. The way Russia attacked so persistently and at such a high cost, you'd think the city was named "Zelenskygrad."

Glorious victory, comrades! After twenty-thousand dead Russian soldiers in 5 months of attacking, Russia has finally almost captured that fulcrum of Ukraine, the small Donbas city of Bakhmut!

Ukraine is apparently counterattacking a bit with small-scale operations to exploit the Russian depletion of their army. This includes around Bakhmut. Which may signal peak Russian advances in that long-sought objective. Still, Russian attacks continue at points across the front, including inside Bakhmut.

There are Westerners who want to rescue Putin by pushing a ceasefire. My advice on diplomacy with the Russians remains largely my advice over eight years ago when that first invasion was about a year old:

Given that Putin is already flouting the UN charter, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and even a more recent ceasefire plan, by invading Ukraine, in what alternate world do we think we must test Russia's commitment to a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine War?

If Ukraine can win, let them. The issue now is whether Ukraine can conduct a large offensive to take land without enduring casualties on the scale of Russia's expensive hammer blows. 

And Ukraine might do better than we think they can: "What if Ukraine ends up routing Russian occupation positions relatively swiftly and effectively, with the Russian military in a hopeless retreat?" I'm hoping the Russians are sitting there like the Italian army in Egypt before the British Wavell Offensive.

One reason for Western pessimism is that Ukraine does not have air superiority. I think air superiority isn't as important for ground combat in an age of precision, long-range ground artillery. With a caveat that you at least have to nullify enemy air superiority. 

In reviewing a book I read a while ago on operational art by Robert M. Citino, I noted his observation that Germany's World War II integration of mechanized ground forces, close air support, and radios wasn't fully developed at first. In the 1940 France campaign, German air power was not yet able to directly support the German army once it broke through French lines and began its exploitation drive to the English Channel. So that's a prominent example of ground-based advances in the absence of close air support by either side in a decisive ground advance.

Not that air power isn't extremely useful to have. That's not my part of my conditional argument. I just don't assume Ukraine can't attack without air support. Ground-based precision fires may be able to replace what we've long assumed air power must provide.

Now, whether Ukraine can sustain an advance if Russia can unleash its air force on the attacking Ukrainian units is another question. Pity we didn't jump start a Ukrainian fighter force last year.

UPDATE (Tuesday): As Ukraine counterattacks around Bakhmut, Russia has reinforced the flanks. And doubled down on taking the city itself:

The reported Russian reinforcements to the Bakhmut area suggest that Russian forces are continuing to concentrate offensive capabilities there despite an assessed wider effort to reprioritize operations to prepare for potential Ukrainian counteroffensives.

Interesting. Russia really has tunnel vision on Bakhmut.

UPDATE (Thursday): Ukraine's local counterattacks around Bakhmut have cumulatively had an effect:

Ukrainian forces have seized the tactical initiative and made tactically significant gains around Bakhmut in counter-attack operations on May 18.

This despite the Russian attacks on Ukraine's toehold in the city itself.

UPDATE (Saturday): Russia is darned close to capturing all of Bakhmut. Will Ukrainian local counter-attacks on the flanks compel Russian troops to pull back in time to prevent its complete loss?

It's a prestige thing now. Although a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive would reverse that loss of prestige dramatically.

UPDATE (Sunday): I heard this morning that Bakhmut fell to the Russians. Medals all around in Moscow, I suppose.

UPDATE (Sunday): The Ukrainians are openly talking about an assault across the Dnieper River on the Kherson front. A crossing really relies on lack of Russian troops to counter-attack. And Ukrainian air defenses of bridges thrown across the wide river.

UPDATE (Sunday): Medals all around:

Putin said that the battle - the longest and bloodiest of the 15-month war - had ended in a Russian victory, and that all those who had excelled in it on Moscow's side would be given state awards.

NOTE: ISW coverage of the war continues here.