And Now For Something Completely Different

With the bombs and the devils and the memes keep coming. Nowhere to breathe easy ... no time to be young. But I tell myself that I'm doing all right.

Too Big to Fail in Our Budget Battles But Not in Sea Battles

The Navy quietly declared the first of its class super carrier Gerald R. Ford to be minimally capable of fighting. Given its delays, problems, and costs I wouldn't have advertised that, either.

Break out the champagne! Or whatever the Chinese use to celebrate opportunity:

The Navy in December quietly determined the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) had achieved initial operational capability, the program manager for the ship revealed today.

The milestone was officially reached on Dec. 22, 2021, when the last advanced weapons elevator was turned over, Capt. Brian Metcalf, the ship’s program manager, told attendees at the Sea Air Space exposition.

Initial operational capability is an important acquisition milestone that indicates the ship’s capabilities have reached the minimum thresholds required to be operationally useful.

I don't worry about missiles knocking out tanks because losing tanks in battle has long been normal--the recent era of tank armor winning over anti-tank weapons is what is abnormal--and there are a lot of tanks to complete the mission.

But networked missile attacks can sink a carrier. And we don't have many. And they absorb a lot of our Navy resources to build, protect, and maintain.

Further, even if I concede the claim by some that carriers are too difficult to sink--and I don't--mission kills are as good as sinking if the war doesn't go on for years.

The carrier has come to represent American power projection. We can take pride in them, we are told. Can we be proud of them burning on live television for the world to see?

As a King's College London professor of war and strategy said of the loss of Russia's Moskva flagship in the Black Sea:

“Ships operate away from public attention, and their activities are rarely the subject of news,” he said. “But they are large floating pieces of national territory, and when you lose one, a flagship no less, the political and symbolic message — in addition to the military loss — stands out precisely because of it.”

And that's for an ancient Russian warship that eventually sank. Now do large aircraft carriers.

Mind you, carriers are great for power projection missions against enemies without the missiles or sensors to hit them. But sea control is another thing altogether from that kind of useful power projection.

Ford will deploy in the early fall this year. Unless there are more problems. 

NOTE: War coverage continues at this post.

Putin Decides To Count on China's Merciful Good Will

Putin effed up. Will he pay the price or will Russia?

 

Perhaps Putin invaded Ukraine at least in part to get a little respect from China in a relationship best described as Russia being China's vassal. That backfired:

Now that the Russian invasion has failed and produced unprecedented economic sanctions, China is making the most of that and forcing Russia to be even more dependent on China. For example, Russia was able to use the Chinese credit card network and a new China controlled international banking system. This system is still small and new members tend to be outlaw states, but it’s a start. Ukraine, which has done a lot of business with China over the last decade, is aware that China could order Russia to halt their invasion and deal with the aftermath via negotiations. It suits China to allow Russia to weaken itself further and become more dependent on China. This is their long-range strategy to defeat Russia and retrieve the Pacific coast territory lost to the Russian monarchy centuries ago. For the moment China goes along with the Russian version of the war, in which Russia is simply defending itself from NATO aggression. China intends to be the only winner in this war and so far, that is happening. 

Even if Russia manages to grind out a bloody victory over Ukraine, China won't be impressed. And NATO isn't cowed into passivity. That's what happens when you plan a parade instead of a war with a military you wrongly believe is as capable as your propaganda.

I have to wonder what happens if the paranoia-prone Russians start to imagine a Chinese plot that sent Putin to Moscow to pave the way for China's victory.

Still, this war doesn't have to be a win for China. As long as Russia and America don't use nukes on each other, China could be a loser in the war.

If Russia digs on on hostility to NATO and accepts vassal status under the Chinese, Russia loses. But from the West's point of view, Russia has at least prompted NATO to rearm. Which will free American power for Asia. And that outcome could possibly distract China inland to support their weak vassal. Which could be direct support to Russia or China taking over security in Central Asia from a weakened Russia.

On the other hand, if Russia is shocked by the cost of the war against Ukraine and the stripping away of the facade of "alliance" with China to expose Russia's subservience, maybe Russians will finally get a big enough whack with the clue bat and seek an accommodation with NATO to pivot east to face the real threat to Moscow's empire. Russia is running out of time for that.

NOTE: War coverage continues at this post.

Strategersky

For years (decades?) I've been arguing that Russia's pointless hostility toward NATO was making Russia's Far East problem worse. China's claims on Russian territory there are dormant--not abandoned. Russia needs NATO friendship.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is turning out badly for Russia on its eastern front, too:

China has also been investing more money in its “lost territories” in Pacific Coast Russia. More Chinese are coming into these territories to live and do business while, since the 1990s, more Russians left. China expected to eventually take control of the lost territories economically and with a lot of Chinese residents. The Ukraine-related sanctions have sped up this process. ...

It suits China to allow Russia to weaken itself further and become more dependent on China. This is their long-range strategy to defeat Russia and retrieve the Pacific coast territory lost to the Russian monarchy centuries ago. For the moment China goes along with the Russian version of the war, in which Russia is simply defending itself from NATO aggression. China intends to be the only winner in this war and so far, that is happening.

I want Russia to lose this war. But I don't want China to win.

Which is why I've been desperate to see a way out of this spiraling NATO-Russian hostility that diverts both the West and Russia from containing China.

This is all the fault of Russia. I've wanted to focus on China. But Russia's policy of appeasement of China to secure its Far East while Russia is weak is now clearly a failure. Russia has weakened its military and exposed it as less effective than advertised. Russia had best not count on another extension of Chinese restraint.

Strategersky. Putin's stupidity is astounding. A 3D chess player, my ass.

#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

NOTE: War coverage continues at this post.

Cyberbooting Civilians Could Spark Real-World War

The increased reliance on the Internet and the expansion of cyber skills across the world in civilian life means civilians can wage war anywhere. Nineteenth century freebooters once waged private warfare in Latin America. Where does this modern version end?

Private warfare is now a thing online (via Instapundit): 

The developer of a popular open source package has been caught adding malicious code to it, leading to wiped files on computers located in Russia and Belarus.

I mentioned this sort of thing long ago:

And beyond a war against a recognized enemy, what happens if the old freebooting tradition of conducting independent foreign policies at odds with American interests arises? We have had citizens going off for adventure in Central America and even had an abortive Irish-American plan to invade British Canada.

What happens when members of our many ethnic communities decide to band together to seriously attack other countries' networks? If computer users can break a dam by messing with the computers that control them, how is it that different in effect from going off and planting a bomb to break the dam?

We recently had an example against a country with less ability to react against the threat in the real world. But a country can go kinetic in response to hacking.

And keep in mind that the attack on Russia and Belarus is cyber-carpet bombing that doesn't distinguish between people in those countries who support the war or oppose it. Our military takes great effort to avoid "collateral damage" when striking lawful targets. The modern version of the freebooter, the cyberbooter, may have undermined opposition to Putin.

Even if targeted, will the targeted governments accept that the developer's country of origin isn't responsible? I think not:

So while cyber can have an effect, my old advice remains valid--when you Twitter a king, kill him:

In the past I've noted that we can't get so caught up in the mystique of cyber-warfare that we forget that a JDAM dropped on an office building filled with enemy hackers is probably a more straightforward way of dealing with their offensive efforts than equivalent hacking back at them.

And don't think cyber attacks on the supply chain will avoid retaliation even if they seem like the perfect attack method (via Instapundit). If a country hurt by a severe cyber attack thinks their cyber operations to respond to enemy cyber operations are weak or judged ineffective in effects achieved, the cyber target will use kinetic means to retaliate.

And then the kinetics start exploding. Which we'll need luck to live through.

I believe JDAMs are the ultimate cyber weapon. War can start in cyber. From governments or civilians. It will end in the real world where governments and their arsenals exist.

NOTE: War coverage continues at this post.

The Winter War of 2022 and a Last Gasp for Putin's Victory?

If Russia isn't ejected from Ukraine, Russia can regroup and advance their logistics line forward through conquered territory. And then conceivably repeat their 2022 invasion in a few years if the casualties don't deter them. The logic of Putin's statements requires the conquest of Ukraine. His political survival might require victory soon.

Grabbing territory and then ending the war, exploiting Western fear of escalation, ratchets Russian control a little more. I've outlined, in Military Review, the far more deadly problem for Taiwan of ending a Chinese invasion campaign with Chinese troops still on the island. Indeed, China may think that the scale of Russia's casualties indicate that China could afford those loses for such a gain.

And it is significant for Taiwan that as Ukraine contemplates counter-attacks, the talk in NATO is of providing Ukraine with more than infantry anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. Now the talk is to add heavy armor and artillery, with aircraft seemingly more possible now. As I've argued, so-called asymmetric weapons are good for inflicting losses but if the enemy accepts and absorbs those losses it may still advance and take territory. The big items become important for driving the enemy back, as I argued in that article and on TDR repeatedly.

But before we reach that stage of a long war, Russia will try to win on the battlefield on a more narrow front:

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Russian President Vladimir Putin has “probably given up” on trying to capture the capital city of Kyiv, as Russia has shifted its focus to eastern and southern Ukraine.

Russia is putting the commander of the Southern Military District in charge of the campaign. Does a focus on a more narrow front mean Russia has a lesser goal? Russia may still think a narrow front battlefield victory can win this war. Especially if Russian troops can isolate and destroy Ukrainian brigades in that eastern Donbas salient. Or maybe the focused offensive will be another ratchet forward on taking more territory, with lessons learned for the next round in the future.

If the first four weeks of Russia's invasion of Ukraine were the equivalent of Nazi Germany's broad invasion of the USSR in 1941 that failed to reach all objectives or knock out the target, Russia is regrouping for the next offensive. But like Germany in 1942, resources can only support a narrow southern front. Will Russia in 2022 reach the figurative Caucasus oil fields and pave the way for Russian victory? Or will the drive founder on a Stalingrad? With dire results for Putin?

The ISW update for late yesterday showed Russia making gains in Mariupol but not elsewhere:

But first the Russians have to begin that offensive. Will it be after a build up or will Russia just throw already damaged units into the line as fast as possible?

UPDATE: Ukraine's 36th marine brigade defending Mariupol announced that it is running out of ammunition and that today may be their last day of resistance.

UPDATE: Cataloging what the Fuck-Up Fairy did to Russia's invasion. And again, I think calling up ex-soldiers who have been out since 2012 is going to cause more morale problems than combat power.

UPDATE: No such thing as "collateral" damage: "Having lost their military effort Russia is concentrating on devastating the Ukrainian economy, even though Russian acknowledges their military operations were unable to overcome the Ukrainian defenders." I thought the invasion might look like this. I was wrong. But it is ending up this way.

UPDATE: Does Russia have the ammunition stockpile and production capacity to sustain heavy artillery and air bombarment?

UPDATE: A German company will send 50 upgraded Leopard I tanks to Ukraine. The tanks are old and don't have the protection of modern tanks but they'll help.

UPDATE: Ukraine keeps reporting the Russian attack in Donbas is coming soon. Are the Ukrainians trying to provoke Russia to strike before ready by raising expectations of Russian capabiltities?

UPDATE: Russian air strike continue in central Ukraine.

UPDATE: I don't see how it is possible that half of Ukraine needs mine clearing given that Russia came nowhere close to advancing far enough to get to that percentage.

UPDATE: I've read from several authors that the more open terrain in the south will favor Ukraine when the Russian offensive opens up. That's crazy. Broken terrain always helps the defense and open terrain helps the offense. I certainly hope Ukrainian engineers are building fallback positions. And that Ukraine is preparing counter-attacks into the flanks of any Russian advances.

UPDATE: The claim that Ukrainian defenders in Mariupol are almost out of ammo may be false.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Yesterday's ISW update. A new Russian overall commander might help but doesn't by itself resolve Russia's problems. Russia continues to attack in the Donbas region while moving up reinforcements from the ex-northern front. Mariupol amazingly holds on. Did Russia use chemical weapons there? But define "chemical weapon." Could have been tear gas, I suppose. If any were used.

UPDATE: Is a Russian offensive imminent? "For more than a week now, the Russian military has been repositioning its forces in preparation for an all-out assault on eastern Ukraine in the Donbas region." Russia is moving depleted and demoralized units. Will Russia take the time to repair them? And can Russia sustain an offensive within the restrictions of the "special military operation" fiction that denies Russia launched a war?

UPDATE: What will Russia's offensive look like?

"We are looking at a slow war of attrition," says Snetkov.

"The Russians will be focused on grinding down Ukrainian positions and infrastructure."

She says Putin will attack from the north and from Mariupol, in the south - piling on pressure to extract concessions.

Really? Putin will commit to a war of attrition despite Russia's heavy casualties already? Russia is going to apply pressure to get "concessions"?

BS. Russia will ramp up firepower to kill more Ukrainian troops and civilians. But Putin isn't a nuanced Westerner who has moved beyond the simplistic notion of victory. He'll try to win. It may be unlikely depending on how soon Russia attacks and how both sides use a pause before a general offensive in the south. But it will be an effort to win. 

UPDATE: The latest ISW update: "The Russian military has continued to conduct small-scale limited offensive operations on the Izyum and Severodonetsk axes and has not yet gone over to a better-resourced or broader offensive campaign." Russia is moving troops into the Donbas region and working on logistics to support an offensive. But rather than wait for major reinforcements, Russia is continuing smaller scale attacks that suffer significant losses.

UPDATE (Wednesday): Russia claims over a thousand Ukrainian marines surrendered in Mariupol. Ukraine says the marines broke through Russian lines to link up with Azov battalion troops. It is possible that the Ukrainians had to leave their more severely wounded behind to surrender.

UPDATE: Can Russia afford the time to prepare a big push or must Russia take risks by throwing what they can put into the line as they arrive? 

China is not assisting Russia economically, unless it benefits China. To do otherwise would be expensive, reward Russian bad judgment and imply Chinese approval of the Ukrainian operation. With no Chinese economic lifeline available, Russia is under more pressure to end the Ukraine operation as soon as possible.

Can Putin afford to end the war ASAP but without victory? Will that push Putin to a risky last gasp for victory?

UPDATE: The U.S. backed out of supplying helicopters to Ukraine.

UPDATE: But this story says new America military aid will include helicopters.

UPDATE: The latest ISW update. Small-scale Russian attacks in the east while continuing to gather more troops. Russia's claim of a large Ukrainian surrender is probably false. U.S. intelligence thinks Russia has 55 battalion tactical groups "fighting" on the southern front, which I guess stretches from Kharkiv to Kherson. Does that include local Donbas allies? Or is that only Russian units? Does that include units in reserve?

UPDATE: Something happened to the Russian Black Sea fleet flagship. Accident or Ukrainian attack?

UPDATE (Thursday): I wonder if the crew of Moskva will be used as replacements for Russian naval infantry combat losses? 

UPDATE: Yes: "Ukraine needs the offensive capability to liberate the Donbas and threaten Russian control of Crimea."

UPDATE: America's latest arms package, including 200 M-113 armored personnel carriers, 100 armored Humvees, 11 helicopters, and other weapons, equipment, and radar. 

UPDATE: Supplies ... from the sea: "Russian Navy ships in the Black Sea are currently resupplying troops in Ukraine instead of playing an offensive role, a senior [U.S.] defense official said Monday."

UPDATE: A lot of people forget that Russia has taken significant territory in the east and south. Three scenarios going forward: 

Ukrainian offensive to eject Russia (probable fail that uses up Ukraine's reserves of men and ammunition);  

Russian offensive in south to break Ukraine's army in the east (likely Russian fail and at the cost of wrecking Russia's military even more); 

War of attrition (would Russian bombardment or Ukrainian insurgency/irregular warfare behind Russian lines be more damaging? Would this risk escalation and new combatants, or would it peter out into a frozen conflict?). Putin will claim a victory with territorial gains if he can, despite the price. 

And he'd be right, I think, on a purely bilateral sense in regard to Ukraine. Because the new front line would become the starting point for the next invasion.

But option one is too broad. I still think a Ukrainian offensive in Kherson alone could do some serious psychological damage to Russia's army by inflicting a local decisive defeat that destroys and captures Russian troops while taking back significant territory.

UPDATE: Putin is throwing a "Hail Mary" to achieve a victory over Ukraine no matter how brutal Russia has to be. But if successful, Putin will need a second high-risk approach to let Russia move on from the war to a peace that ends sanctions. Would Russia wage a sub-based undeclared war on sea trade to pressure the world to ease up on sanctions, as the author suggests?

Maybe. But Putin's fleet could lose that war. And even if Western governments retreat from sanctions as a result, will companies be eager to return to dealing with Russia after all that?

UPDATE: Moskva is heading to port under her own power. Or perhaps she is being towed. Unclear.

UPDATE: From the ISW urging Western support for Ukraine to eject Russia from their conquests. Western help is needed. If Ukraine could do the job it would have counter-attacked already after Russia's offensive largely culminated. But Ukraine did not have a strategic reserve as I hoped. 

But perhaps Ukraine needs to defeat the next more narrow but more brutal offensive before it can seriously counter-attack in the south.

UPDATE: Moskva sank while being towed to port. Darn. The biggest payoff from the damage to Russia's large warship would have come when the war with Ukraine is over and Putin decided that he simply must have that prestigious ship back at sea. Now that waste of money won't happen. I assume the entire crew now without a ship just became naval infantry replacements.

UPDATE: The latest ISW update. Fighting continues on the Kherson, Mariupol, and Donbas front--where Russia may be sending depleted units from the north already--but the front has not changed much. Ukrainian partisans may be active in the Kherson region.

UPDATE (Friday): Strategypage says Ukraine did indeed hit Moskva with two missiles. And somehow the Russian leadership thinks this is the superior excuse: "Russia is trying to blame the loss of the ship on massive crew incompetence rather than admit the ship was hit by two Ukrainian missiles." Does the Russian military like being thrown under the bus? Is there still a Potemkin in the Russian fleet?

UPDATE: I mentioned at the end of March that Russia has a history of mobilizing civilian vehicles for their military. It's still a thing: 

Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, sees another "bad sign" for Russian truck logistics: its use of civilian trucks to replace military ones lost in battle.

"Civilian trucks are not made to military grade. They're not made to carry the loads, they're not made to carry the specific pieces of equipment," and in many cases cannot even operate off roads, O'Brien says.

In addition to maintenance problems and inferior capabilities in military service, Russia's civilian economy has to do without whatever those trucks did in the civilian economy. My memory is that the USSR declined to invade Poland late in the Cold War to wipe out the Solidarity movement because the Soviet economy could not survive the mobilization of all the civilian trucks needed to invade.

UPDATE: The latest ISW report: 

The Russian military appears to be carrying out an approach in eastern Ukrainian similar to its failed efforts north of Kyiv in early March—continuing to funnel small groups of forces into unsuccessful attacks against Ukrainian defensive positions without taking the operational pause that is likely necessary to prepare for a more successful offensive campaign.

And Mariupol's defenders are still hanging on.

Could the Russians be that stubborn? Are they fearful of pausing even for a day their attacks to avoid looking like they are avoiding combat rather than preparing to do it better? Or are they preparing something different behind the screen of coming on in the same old way?

As I've said, pinning the main front on the Donbas front in place while pincers are prepared to isolate those Ukrainian brigades makes the most sense to me.

UPDATE (Saturday): Mud will make it tougher for Russia to maneuver off the roads until the ground dries out in the Donbas.

UPDATE: I may have been hasty in speculating that the crew of Moskva would become infantry replacements. Just how many of the 500+ crew did Russia rescue before the cruiser sank?

UPDATE: The latest ISW assessment. No significant movement of the lines. Can Russia exploit their new numbers in the Donbas given the mud and demonstrated inability of the Russians to efficiently take cities? 

UPDATE (Sunday): The epic intelligence failures of February.

UPDATE: I wondered about that: "Ukraine has managed to resupply its beleaguered forces in Mariupol in very risky night-time missions[.]" I was wondering if resupply was by GPS-guided parachutes. 

NOTE: War updates continue at this post.

Weekend Data Dump

Ongoing blogging on Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues under this label.

Some years ago I noted that global temperatures seemed to be going up after a significant "pause" as the global warming advocates called it. The new pause is 7.5 years long now. Which is news to me. I just don't lose sleep over this. If it is a problem we'll figure it out. No need to wreck our economies and punish the poor because of the mental health issues of the fanatics.

How Starstreak works.

I always assumed banning plastic grocery bags is counter-productive. I haven't bought a plastic trash bag box in forever. I re-use them for trash. And now I use them for cat litter instead of the special bags I initially used. But can you put an environmental price tag on feeling good about yourself? Tip to Instapundit.

Our elites (the 'Overclass") really do hate America and the West, in general. I'll ask again, why do we hate us? Our elites hate us because we aren't perfect. And they excuse--and God save us, sometimes celebrate--the bloody, backward behavior of our enemies because we aren't perfect. Democracy dies in wokeness.

Let's hope the Chinese military is as corrupt as the Russian military, and that it learns nothing from Russia's invasion failures. Although it will probably learn from the financial sanctions. And being much larger and more important to the global economy, blunt the effects.

The Marines want light amphibious warships and larger amphibious ships, but the Navy wants to truncate the latter. Perhaps there is room for converting LCS to LAW? At least as an experiment. I don't like the LAW concept as it stands. I'm not that happy with the money going into Ford-class carriers, for that matter. And the Atlantic Marines really should have tanks. I'm done.

Russia revived NATO. Well, I've long wanted NATO as a hedge against a revival of the Russian threat --with a robust American Army presence (see pp. 15-20). But China is still the main threat. European NATO states justifiably alarmed at Russia can handle the Russians with American help that doesn't weaken us in Asia.

Interesting: "Westerners do not realize how little most Russians know about the “Ukrainian operation”, as the invasion is called by the Russian government." You have to admit, if Russians think the West has reacted so extremely to a Russian mission to save Ukraine from Nazis, you'd rally around your leader, too. 

A Marine task force in the Mediterranean Sea hopes to employ "stand-in" forces operating in small numbers undetected close to the enemy. The purpose is to "conduct sea denial operations in support of fleet operations, especially near maritime chokepoints[.]" I'm not worried about the Russians in the Mediterranean. I think that capability in European waters is most useful in the Baltic Sea to contain the Russia navy to gain free use of the Baltic to support Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and potentially Sweden and Finland.

China thinks its economic ties to the world give it leverage over the West. But while cutting out a weak member of the Western herd can work, if the herd strikes back China may find that its Golden Handcuffs limit what China can do lest the prosperity the Chinese Communist Party relies on for legitimacy falters. So: "The Chinese have been lukewarm in their support of Putin’s war and need to remain on good terms with their Western trading partners."

I sure hope there isn't a war with China in the short run. Because if we wrongly assume we have time before China strikes we just saved the Chinese the trouble of sinking 5 Navy cruisers. 

So what the heck kind of air-to-air missile is the Modular Advanced Missile?

Huh. An A-10 with lots of small diameter bombs that can hit targets 50 miles away goes a long way to addressing my worries about the plane over a modern battlefield. 

Speak softly and carry a really fast stick: "The U.S. military kept a successful hypersonic missile test under wraps for two weeks in order to avoid raising tensions with Russia, a defense official confirmed to The Hill."

Russia's stumbling in Ukraine has to make China reconsider its strategy of pushing against America and its allies at sea while counting on Russia to keep America at least a little distracted. China knows it has a much easier target in Russia while counting on distance, the seas, and anger at Russia to keep Russia's sea flank quiet while it confronts Russia which stole Chinese territory in the Far East. 

Well, Assad's alive and still sits behind the big desk: "A decade of civil war has left Syria with a lot of losers and no clear winner. The Assad government is technically in control of 90 percent of Syria but that control is weaker than it was before 2011. There are not enough trained police and soldiers to maintain order throughout Syria and many areas are still generally lawless and dominated by Islamic terrorists, outlaw militias and gangsters of all sorts." And this is why I called it a "multi-war" and not a "civil war": "Syria remains a battlefield for Islamic terrorists and Israeli, Turkish, Russian, Iranian, Syrian, and American forces to fight each other in a constantly changing web of alliances. For Syria peace will have to wait, possibly for a long time." American-led forces. There is a coalition.

Sky Dew. America used them in Iraq and Afghanistan. And sometimes just mounted on poles.

Because the prediction is BS?

The Arab Spring was a sign of longing for alternatives to mullahs or autocrats running Arab lives and not a victory celebration for rule-of-law democracy. Still, this is sad: "Tunisian President Kais Saied’s orders to dissolve parliament and investigate its members for 'conspiracy' have pushed the country into deeper political turmoil and raised fears of a budding autocracy."

Collateral damage to Georgia. 

Three years. In case you wondered how long it takes to come up with a plausible explanation and create the documents to support the explanation. 

Russia will make Britain miss having heavy armor: "Among the changes to be implemented [from the Integrated Review] was a pivot to the Asia-Pacific region and a transformation of the military towards hi-tech capabilities like space, cyber, and artificial intelligence, away from conventional weapons like main battle tanks." I miss the British Army of the Rhine as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure Britain has a choice given its new global ambitions unless Britain is willing to ramp up defense spending quite a bit to keep a couple heavy brigades.

Credentialed, politicized morons. Tip to Instapundit.

I keep seeing stories about the Xi Jinping Flu Covid-19 virus being more dangerous to people 60 and older. What I don't know is if there is something intrinsic about being 60+ that makes you more vulnerable. Or is it that people 60+ in general have more health problems that increase risk. So that the health problems and not simply being 60+ is the issue.

Putin has demonstrated the horrors that can follow from pretending to see Nazis where none exist. Tip to Instapundit. Too many need to see Nazis.

Ramping up Stinger missile production is not easy because America is already looking at a replacement.

This article argues that contrary to the "myth" of the missing Russian cyberwar in Ukraine, Russia launched a massive cyberwar attack on Ukraine. Okay. I do recall some of those stories. But doesn't that just expose that Russia's cyber effort has had little apparent effect on the war? For all its size, what good did it do? It is possible that the failure lies in Russia's kinetic military to exploit what was done in cyber. That's possible. But I'm skeptical. At the very least, cyber is no silver bullet. Related American defensive moves (via Instapundit).

North Korea may detonate another nuclear device. I worry less about North Korea with nukes than I worry about the possibility that Iran freed from sanctions could afford to buy North Korean nukes.

More on American snipers and sharpshooters. I believe I mentioned the rifle last week.

Drone swarms.

Linda Sarsour "pinkwashes" Islamist anti-Semitism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies.

After two years of pandemic lockdowns, a "portion of" colleges students are disengaged according to professors: "'Stunning' is the word she uses to describe the level of disengagement she and her colleagues have witnessed across the Nebraska campus. 'I don’t seem to be capable of motivating them to read textbooks or complete assignments,' she says of that portion of her students. 'They are kind kids. They are really nice to know and talk with. I enjoy them as people.' But, she says, 'I can’t figure out how to help them learn.' Why does she need to figure out how to help them learn? When I was a student, the professors didn't waste any time trying to motivate me. They gave the assignments to us. And when we did the homework, took the tests, or wrote the papers, we got a grade based on how much of that work we did. If failing and wasting borrowed money that the government absolutely should not forgive doesn't motivate you, you have no business being in higher education. I reserve my sympathy for the K-12 students left behind during the lockdowns. They're effed and the teacher unions couldn't care less. 

Let's hope these America-India talks smooth over some of the friction from criticism of India over not wanting to cut off Russia as a source of arms and a potential alliance against China. 

Somalia continues to display zero evidence that it should be treated as a unified state. 

Until 2014, corruption and Russian influence undermined Ukraine's military. Since then it improved morale, training, and equipment. Also, how Russia created their eastern Donbas hand puppets.

The Navy isn't really factoring in the need for information technology and artificial intelligence in its unmanned surface vessel plans and cost estimates.

I've long wanted to flip Russia from its insane hostility toward NATO and jointly focus on our common threat of China. But the idea that Europe must "embrace" Russia for peace in Europe at the cost of "understanding" their deep roots of brutality is insane. Sure, the authors look to Russia changing. But all too often such "preconditions" fall away when the allure of "a grand deal" raises its ugly head. Then it will be the "you talk peace with enemies--not friends" nonsense. See Iran. I would be happy if Russia would embrace the West and reject those deep roots. I'm unwilling to embrace a Russia that embraces their roots. Oh, and bonus disgust for supporting more power for the EU in this. I don't trust the two authors. Your mileage may vary.

The government couldn't persuade a jury that Michigan men plotted to kidnap the governor.  I'm conflicted. I do think there were way too many FBI agents and informers involved to make it a real plot. It smells of entrapment and taking civilians along for the ride. On the other hand, I like it that the government carries out these types of operations. Actual plotters--like jihadis--are forced to wonder if their comrades are working for the FBI. Which should reduce terrorism. I wish I could trust the FBI to avoid entrapping boastful but otherwise harmless people while protecting us from real terrorists.

It took a couple centuries to catch up to 18th century common criminal defendant practice. A useful lesson that our ancestors were not awful people who can be disregarded by our more enlightened contemporaries. Tip to Instapundit.

China is committed to Zero Covid outcomes and has turned Shanghai into a virtual death camp: "The brief, temporary lockdown has become indefinite. Because the entire population is stuck at home, there’s no way to get food except via delivery. And because everyone is ordering delivery, the odds that you’ll be lucky enough to land in the queue are slim." If the concept of "the Mandate of Heaven" that bolsters a government or delegitimizes it when withdrawn still applies because of the weight of China's long history, "Emperor" Xi Jinping and perhaps the entire Chinese Communist Party is skating on thin ice. Tip to Instapundit.

Four American troops at the Green Village base in eastern Syria were wounded in a rocket attack on the base. Could be Iran. Could be ISIL. No blame was assigned.

No! Way! "After weeks of tough talk about defense spending, Justin Trudeau’s government unveiled a budget Thursday with only an incremental boost for Canada’s military." You're as shocked as I am, I'm sure. To be fair, Trudeau is still busy hunting down Canadian trucker protesters.

Zero Trade.

LOL:

The Michigan World War II Legacy Memorial. 

India relies on Russia for 60% of its defense equipment. But this will make India weaker compared to China: "India on Thursday said it would ramp up its production of military equipment, including helicopters, tank engines, missiles and airborne early warning systems, to offset any potential shortfall from its main supplier Russia." Russian weapons are better than what India's corruption-plagued arms industry can produce. And India's sale of carrier-killer BrahMos missiles to the Philippines is endangered. Don't give China another benefit from Russia's war on Ukraine by pressuring India to lower arms and component imports from Russia.

Everybody in the Kaliningrad exclave is grateful to be stationed there: "Russia has staged war games in Kaliningrad - an exclave on the Baltic Sea sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania - the Russian news agency Interfax cited the Baltic Fleet Command as saying, days after a senior official warned European countries against any potential action against Kaliningrad." Why Kaliningrad matters to NATO.

It really angers me that there is even any discussion about taking money from the taxpaying blue collar to give it to the upper middle class. 

Remember when leftists said Merkel's Germany was the real leader of the West? Well: "Angela Merkel's reputation has taken something of a battering in Germany in recent weeks. ... The war in Ukraine has not so much undone Mrs Merkel’s legacy as shine an unflattering light on parts of it most Germans used to prefer to ignore." Yeah, the appeasing Putin part.

Russia could default on debts. I was skeptical that Western sanctions on Russia could be effective in the long run. In the short run they appear to really hurt Russia. But I'll wait until the long run displays itself before admitting I'm wrong or claiming I was right. Also, how is Europe going to endure next winter without Russian energy?

Finland may apply for NATO membership as early as May. Russia under Putin is NATO's best recruiter. Hell, when does Belarus apply for membership?

Was China's delivery of anti-aircraft missiles to Russia's traditional ally Serbia in such a dramatic manner the first open Chinese effort to exploit Russia's more feeble military reputation?

And Now For Something Completely Different

Meme well soon. Please don't meme any longer. How are you so burnt when you're barely online?

 

 

So We're to Forget Actual History to Criticize Putin?

The Iraq War wasn't that long ago. Don't twist the record for current political biases.

I disagree strongly with this comparison: 

Some around Putin appear to have been as delusional about a quick, easy victory as U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was in 2003 when he imagined that U.S. forces would be greeted as "liberators" in Iraq and American troops would be home for Thanksgiving.

American troops absolutely were greeted as liberators by the brutalized Shias. And the besieged Kurds were happy to have America (and others, most notably the British) topple Saddam. 

The conventional war was astoundingly successful--short and with few Coalition casualties. I expected that although I did not expect our troops to be home by Thanksgiving. I expected American troops to be there in strength for years. 

What I didn't know was how strong the minority Sunni Arabs would resist and what the pro-Iran Shias would do after their happiness at Saddam's defeat wore off. Remember, even opponents of invading said the better alternative was overthrowing Saddam. So they believed Saddam had few fans inside Iraq. 

The author also knows better than to repeat the "mission accomplished" statement about the end of major combat operations without understanding--or explaining--that this meant the fight against Iraq's organized military was over. Which was true. I expect better of him. 

Mind you, I was unhappy with Rumsfeld's defense priorities that assumed air power made ground troops just the guys who go in to collect the win that precision firepower would achieve. If the hard but successful fight to topple Saddam didn't end that notion, the counter-insurgency certainly did. So I'm not a shrieking fanboy for Rumsfeld. But let's be fair, here.

I will add that the insurgencies were defeated in a relatively short time with relatively few Coalition casualties, compared to other counter-insurgencies. As it turned out, even the Sunni Arabs who backed armed resistance largely decided after just over three years of insurgency to side with America (the Awakening).

The scale of incorrect Russian assumptions far exceeds what America expected. And America did win the war. Or is that to be forgotten, too?

NOTE: War updates continue on this post.

Russia "Provokes" the EU to Pursue It's Long Dream of Empire

The proto-imperial European Union is using Russia's invasion of Ukraine as one more excuse to become an empire.

Just stop this pimping for the Eurocrats:

Four years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron, newly arrived in office, proposed a European Defense Force -- a counterweight to a NATO alliance he and increasingly other EU leaders feared was being effectively held hostage by the United States and especially Donald Trump.

The result at the time was a rupture between Trump and Macron, followed by the French leader's rapprochement with then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Still, Macron's idea went no further. Until now.

 

On Thursday, it will come to fruition. With Macron in the driver's seat as France holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, the vehicle is called the "Strategic Compass." This blueprint for Europe's security strategy, ratified Monday by the bloc's defense ministers, sets out a context and concept in the strongest, even belligerent language. "We are adopting this," the report begins, "at a time when we witness the return of war in Europe" -- with these words boldfaced.

 

Don't pretend this war is some shock that has pushed political Europe (different from geographic Europe) to regrettably be forced to get its own army.

 

Half a year ago, Biden's Afghanistan skedaddle debacle was the reason. And Trump was just one more excuse before he stopped being the reason.

 

The European Union is a proto-imperial body that wants to strip away the prefix. An EU army is a means to destroy America-dominated NATO and leave the EU army as the sole hard power force in Europe. It will be far less effective than NATO. But the EU doesn't care about defending Europe from Russia. Don't you worry, an EU army will be just fine if somebody wants to follow Britain out of the EU.

 

The EU is more interested in exploiting Putin's war crisis than solving it. A common Euro currency failed to make Europeans think they are in a new and glorious empire. Now a EU military is the Great Brussels Hope for submission.

 

And Macron himself hopes to ride the rise of an EU empire to greater power.

 

Kill this monster that is a threat to America and European freedom itself before it can be stitched together. 

NOTE: War updates continue on this post.

The West is Kind of a Big Deal, You Know

The West risks alienating a lot of the world by insisting they care about what we care about.

Yes, the Western problem with Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not the rest of the world's problem. 

Not for the first time, the west is mistaking its own unity for a global consensus. One misleading measure is at the UN. In the organisation’s last tally earlier this month, 141 of 193 member states condemned Vladimir Putin’s blatant violation of international law. But the 35 that abstained account for almost half the world’s population. That includes China, India, Vietnam, Iraq and South Africa. If you add those that voted with Russia, it comes to more than half.

Moreover, many of those nominally against Russia are hedging their bets.

A bloody war went on for years with millions of dead in the Democratic Republic of Congo (former Zaire) without arousing much interest in the West. 

India's fight against Chinese and Pakistani aggression is only occasionally newsworthy in the West. 

And speaking of India, spare a little nuance for India's dilemma and potential for dealing with the problem bigger than Russia--China.

Did Syria's multi-war provoke action by the West? 

Did Darfur? The Uighurs? Hong Kong? Myanmar? North Korea? Rwanda?

It took a long time for the West to be roused to action in the former Yugoslavia. In a corner of Europe.

And how was that Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 handled?

Hell, Russia's invasion of European Ukraine in 2014 barely got the West's attention!

The West is surely a beacon of democracy and rule of law. But it has no moral authority to insist the rest of the world be as outraged as the West is right now. Nobody can be outraged by everything, everywhere. Which is fine. Unpleasant. But fine.

The West should hope we aren't judged by the rest of the world for the standard of how we assume the rest of the world should react to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The West--and Hungary's Orban is a deep disappointment--should be outraged by Russia's invasion of Ukraine for moral and defense reasons. I worry that the West's outrage will wear off more than I worry about the rest of the world getting outraged.

Let's get to work with our Russia problem and not insist countries must be with the West or against the West. We might not like their choice.

UPDATE: Ejecting Russia from the UN Human Rights Council wasn't the no-brainer the West may have assumed, with other states having different priorities: 

That is why 93 UN member states backed the US-led move to suspend Russia. But there are 193 UN members, so less than half voted in favour: 58 abstained, 24 voted against, a further 18 were out of the room having what UN diplomats wryly call a "strategic coffee break".

UPDATE: This is what I'm saying:

Mind you, I'm willing to say the West is the best part of the world. But I'm a knuckle-dragger. What's the Left's excuse?

NOTE: War updates continue on this post.