Irresponsible Retreatcraft

America's defense of the global system that has provided unprecedented freedom and prosperity is the problem?

I've never doubted that China's military power didn't live up to the hype of its new car smell. But this minimization of Chinese military power is contradictory and ultimately an excuse to accept Chinese power.

[There] is ample evidence to suggest that China hawks in the Pentagon and Congress are overstating China’s military capabilities while underplaying the value of dialogue and diplomacy in addressing the challenges that Beijing poses to the United States and its allies.

What of the overstatements?

1) He says Chinese military power is not roughly equivalent to America's but perhaps no more than 59% even with purchasing power parity considered. That's a reasonable criticism, I admit. 

2) Of the military assets, he picks large aircraft carriers  (11-3 American advantage); nuclear weapons (10:1 American advantage); advanced combat aircraft (nearly 3:1 American advantage); and America's nearly double ship tonnage, reflecting larger and more capable ships).

Yet he admits that trends are working against America's fleet.

And he admits that force levels in the western Pacific must be considered, a region "where China holds a geographical advantage and has increased its capabilities considerably compared to a few decades ago."

So what of his basic arguments?

I think his first point has some validity. Those worried about China will assume worst-case assumptions about their hidden defense spending figures. But I think the author goes the other way of best-case assumptions to justify supplanting military power with robust diplomacy. Which I find silly. Adding an adjective to essentially assert that diplomacy can be more effective without the military power that traditionally makes talking more effective is folly. Friends won't exploit lesser American power. Enemies will.

Yet his second set of arguments undermines his minimization of Chinese threats by accurately noting that China's smaller defense budget has an advantage over our forces near China. We deploy globally and so our forces are spread out. China is right there able to concentrate its forces. And given that China would almost certainly be the side to initiate war, they can ready their forces to maximize their home field advantage. And if they catch American forces in a theater-wide Pearl Harbor, our best forward deployed forces could take quite the hammering. And that author admits the trends favor China.

And of all the areas of military assets he picks just four. Does America have a carrier advantage? Yes. But I don't think they are as valuable for sea control missions as we think. If those trends the author mentions that put our fleet at risk so close to China continue, those carriers may not last long in the fight. 

They may be burning and/or sinking--or pulled out of the fight to avoid that fate. Then that American ship tonnage advantage disappears very quickly. China, of course, is a vast air base that can be used instead of carriers for air power in the first island chain. Our air bases are much more scarce. Recall that the author limits his comparison to advanced aircraft, presumably stealth. China may catch up with that, and as the Winter War of 2022 shows, quantity has a quality all it own. Especially if we struggle to sustain our forces across the vast Pacific and defend the few bases we can use. We may not have the logistics or air base capacity to exploit our 5th generation plane advantage--except in the area of replacing losses.

And given China's vast shipbuilding advantage, in a long war China can more easily replace losses and even expand their fleet.

As for the nuclear advantage? Unless the author is suggesting America will use nukes, it's irrelevant. All that may mean is that the war is kept conventional. Which may very well favor China on its home turf. Further, China appears to want to dramatically expand its nuclear arsenal. So the trends on that favor China, too.

Mind you, it gets complicated when you consider America has many capable allies. But herding those cats is difficult. And gives China opportunities to split the alliance.

The author's bottom line about how we allegedly underplay dialogue and diplomacy in favor of military power?

[A] report by the Quincy Institute that proposed a new U.S. defense strategy for Asia points out that the answer is not to simply race to reestablish U.S. military superiority in the region: “Efforts by the United States to restore military dominance in the region through offensive strategies of control . . . would . . . prove financially unsustainable; they could also backfire by exacerbating the risk of crises, conflict, and rapid escalation in a war.”

In the place where the risk of a U.S.-China conflict is most likely—Taiwan—a robust diplomatic strategy needs to be developed to accompany and supplant the emphasis on how to win a war with China.

So Taiwan is the most likely scenario for a U.S.-China war. You have to consider how China could win before America can gather its own forces and rally scattered allies. Taiwan, for example, is a scenario that China could absolutely win--if you check the Definitions Section for what a victory actually is.

Taiwan is China's most core of core interests that China claims it must achieve to restore China's glory and erase the Century of Humiliation. How does even robust diplomacy solve that problem and supplant the ability to defeat China in a war? Can we really figure out a way to sort of hand over Taiwan to China? Really?  

If China agrees to any compromise, assume China will press its advantage over time to take total control. We watched Russia in Ukraine go from "little green men" in Crimea in 2014, to subliminal war in the Donbas in 2015, to "frozen conflict" pressure through 2021, and then back to war--bigger and more destructive--in 2022. And now there is talk of compromise with Russia that would convince Russia to only sort of take over Ukraine. Despite Russia's persistent claim that Ukraine must be restored to the Russian empire.

Robust diplomacy with China will be a fig leaf for a slow American retreat and probable ultimate defeat of America.

And when you click on one link in his article supporting his desire to see robust diplomacy supplant military power you see what the author thinks about American defense policy:

Sticking to the current strategy is not only economically wasteful, but will also make America and the world less safe.

The idea that American defense spending makes us and the world less safe is repulsive. It relies on the assumption that a Chinese victory without war is superior to a war that stops Chinese aggression.

It's essentially another "let the Wookie win" proposal.

Chinese defense spending makes the world near them less safe. Russian defense spending makes the countries near them less safe. North Korean and Iranian defense spending makes the world less safe. American defense spending helps keep the threats to safety down to a dull roar. And protects America. Lord, this guy isn't even up to the level of Fortress America thinking on defense policy. 

Ultimately, I'm not happy with the need to defeat China. And I'm not confident we can calculate a lesser level of defense effort to deter China. I would prefer to distract China inland so it is too busy to focus its aggression out to sea. If robust diplomacy can do that, I'd be all in.

The author is from Responsible Statecraft. Which I've mentioned I find worthless as a source of national security policy thinking. As I read the article, I honestly started to get RS vibes and then saw that the author is with the outfit. So there you go.

I'm done with wasting my time on anything associated with RS.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.

Never Let a Faux Crisis Go to Waste

European Union (EU) fanboys (and girls) are hyping the "threat" of a Trump presidency for their own ends. Don't buy what they're selling.

Oh, please, stop the crocodile tears of anguish:

Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo warned that Europe must be ready to stand alone if Donald Trump sweeps back to the White House later this year.

“If 2024 brings us ‘America first’ again, it will be more than ever Europe on its own,” he warned in a speech at the European Parliament, at the start of a year in which both European Union citizens and Americans go to the polls.

“We should, as Europeans, not fear that prospect; we should embrace it,” he argued, saying that Europe must become “stronger, more sovereign, more self-reliant.”

The alarm in "EU capitals" that Trump will abandon NATO as Russia wages war on Ukraine and threatens to keep moving west into NATO itself when Russia absorbs its conquests and rebuilds its military machine is overblown. Remember when the election of Biden did nothing to ease Euro worries despite his claim that America "is back"?

Strategic autonomy is all about weakening NATO and expelling America from Europe. It is not about opposing Russia. And in less guarded moments the EU apparatchiki are more expansive in their aims.

Everything is an excuse to pursue European Union strategic autonomy at the expense of America-dominated NATO. Hell, the EU has wet dreams that Trump will kill NATO for them.

Honestly, who was in thrall to Putin? Trump or Obama? 

It still amazes me that Democrats insist Putin is "playing" Trump as if Trump isn't pushing back against Russia in contrast to Obama's flexibility and retreat.

Obama began his administration ignoring Russia's late 2008 invasion of Georgia in order to begin the famous "reset" with Russia, complete with abandoning the Bush missile defense plan on the day the USSR invaded Poland in 1939. Early in his administration Obama formally declared a "medium term rule" scarily reminiscent of Britain's "ten year rule" in the 1930s that said America faced no conventional military threats. Obama famously promised Putin "flexibility" after his reelection, remember?

Obama mocked the very idea that Russia was our main geopolitical foe as Romney said in a 2012 debate (to the delight of Democrats)[.]

Does any of this ring a bell?

Obama ignored Russia's violation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty, accepted the Russian proposal for a chemical weapons agreement with Syria that did not eliminate Assad's chemical weapons or prevent Assad from using them and which helped Assad survive the rebellion, did nothing to stop election interference in 2016, refused to enable energy production in America to reduce Russia's oil sale income, pulled our last tanks out of Europe, and allowed American military readiness and war reserve stocks of ammunition to drop to dangerous levels.

Yes, Obama made late and small additions to American forces in Europe while imposing some sanctions on Russia for Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. But the overall message was one of not provoking Russia rather than helping Ukraine fight.

Trump encourages energy production which expanded under Obama only in areas away from Obama's prior obstruction, Trump is reinforcing American forces in Poland and Germany, including adding more tanks, reestablished Second Fleet to fight for control of the sea lines of communication between North America and Europe, reestablished a logistics command in Europe to supply forces in eastern NATO, pushed missile defenses at home and in Europe, brought non-NATO Sweden and Finland into defense preparations in the Baltic region, reinforced NATO in Romania while pushing back against Russian claims to dominate the Black Sea, rebuked the INF treaty that only America was obeying, began rebuilding American readiness and war reserve stocks, bombed Syrian chemical weapons facilities despite Russia's presence in Syria, began selling lethal weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia in the Donbas, restored our military focus on conventional warfare and our focus on great power competition that includes Russia, loudly insisted that NATO members make good on their 2014 pledge to spend more on defense, strengthened our defenses against potential Russian meddling in the 2018 election, tightened sanctions on Russia, and warned Russia to stay away from Venezuela.

These contrasting positions in regard to Russia are simply off the top of my head and I assume more could be added to each category of actions with some research and thought.

Please excuse my lengthy quote, but it bears repeating in full during this age of posturing over supposed threats to our democracy and the very world that is gearing up in our media.

At worse, American military aid might be reduced as Europeans step up. Or Trump might try to leverage European financial power to pay for American military aid in a more transactional approach:

Trump seems transactional in nature. Perhaps aid to Ukraine will rely more on Europeans paying for American weapons sent to Ukraine.

Perhaps there will be something akin to the "destroyers-for-bases" deal with Britain in 1940. Although I imagine instead of bases he'd want stakes in Ukrainian strategic natural resources.

Or maybe military aid would be paid for with assets seized from Russia.

Maybe that's how Trump thinks he'll get Putin to end its war on Ukraine in a day. It won't work. But that path seems more likely for what Trump intends than letting Putin capture Ukraine and be responsible for all the evil and danger to American security that will follow that outcome.

Face it, this issue is merely more of Trump pushing Europeans to do more. That's what Trump did his first term rather than abandoning NATO.

Yet despite the actual Trump record, European Union throne sniffers will try to exploit a new "crisis" to strip away the prefix of their proto-imperial project.

I'd really like Republicans to move on from Trump for a number of reasons. Including his age. Do we really want to ignore the perils of electing a seriously old president after the last three years? Mind you, I'll vote for whoever runs against the increasingly bizarre Democrat Party's nominee since I'll have just two choices. But let's get real. Don't take European lamentations at face value. Any crisis will do. Even if it is fake.

NOTE: The image was made from DALL-E.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.

The Winter War of 2022 Forgets How to Win

Nobody ever won a war by sitting on the defensive. This applies to Ukraine's prospects for defeating the Russian invasion notwithstanding the tactical superiority of the defense over attackers.

Russia appears to be on the offensive:

Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Head Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov stated on January 30 that the Russian offensive in Ukraine is currently ongoing and that Russian forces aim to reach the Zherebets River (in the Kharkiv-Luhansk Oblast border area) and the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Budanov forecasted that Russian forces would fail to achieve these objectives, however, and would likely be “completely exhausted” by the beginning of the spring.

ISW doesn't think the offensive will achieve more than tactical gains. Despite this, it appears to me that the military is under pressure to attack when it should be building up forces for a significant offensive:

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu stated on February 2 that Russian forces retain the “strategic initiative” along the entire frontline in Ukraine, a notable departure from Shoigu’s previous characterization of Russian operations as “active defense.”

Is holding the strategic initiative a simple statement of fact (excepting the Kherson front) or an indication that Russia will attack with whatever it has available?

It has boggled my mind that Russia hasn't built up a force to resume offensive operations north of the Kharkov region. Why wouldn't Russia use its superior numbers to extend the front to the north and northeast?

But Putin seemingly hopes Russia can absorb casualties along the current truncated active front better than Ukraine can. I was way off before the big invasion on this issue. But is Putin right about the Russian willingness to keep dying?

The Kremlin censored a protest by wives of mobilized soldiers in Moscow on February 3 likely to suppress any possible resurgence of a broader social movement in support of Russian soldiers and against the regime.

Losses will certainly prevent Russia from accumulating significant forces to achieve significant gains. Assuming Ukraine doesn't crack from morale or supply issues.

ISW rightly notes that Ukraine can prepare to win while on the strategic defensive. But there is a danger of sitting on the defensive too long:

Ukrainian forces will likely be unable to husband materiel and personnel while defending against Russian offensive operations, localized or large-scale, that are meant to prevent them from doing so. Ukraine would risk consuming resources it hoped to conserve for its own counteroffensive operations in efforts to stop continuing Russian attacks, likely while losing ground, if it went over to the strategic defensive as some US officials are apparently recommending. The side in war that holds the initiative generally has the advantage, and it is unwise to suggest that Ukraine should cede that advantage to Russia for longer than is absolutely necessary.

As I commented in 2022, nobody ever won a war by staying on the defensive, notwithstanding the rote repetition out of context that defending requires fewer troops than attacking:

First, people often get the 3:1 rule wrong. It is a ratio of power--with a number of factors contributing and not just troop numbers engaged--for tactical battles, and not a measure of necessary troop strength superiority overall in a war.

Second, in military parlance there's another saying. "Nobody ever won a war by sitting on the defensive."

Third, while being on the offensive is harder than being on the defensive, having the initiative has a number of advantages.

As an aside, I wrote a better post for the 3:1 rule from The Dupuy Institute example than the one linked in the quote.

I then went into the advantages in that 2022 post that I won't repeat here. Check it out if you like.

Recall that in World War II, Russia was able to get large advantages in men and materiel on their offensive fronts in large measure because after Kursk, Germany was too weak to go on the offensive even on limited sections of the front. This allowed Russia to thin out their troops on non-offensive sector parts of the front to get big superiority at the point of attack. And the Germans were unable to exploit the thinner Russian forces elsewhere--even if Germany had been aware of the vulnerabilities. 

That German inability to seize the initiative was a tremendous safety net for Russia which knew it could take those risks in order to keep hitting the Germans.

If Ukraine can't seize the initiative, it must defend. And building fortifications is good. But don't dare think that this is the path for a low-cost Ukrainian victory. At best it is a strategy for losing less than it might. 

At worst, with that safety net of knowing Ukraine can't exploit any Russian weaknesses, Russia conquers Ukraine after a long fight. And while we may later marvel at how many casualties Ukraine inflicted on the inferior Russian troops, in the end Ukraine will be conquered.

The West must not throw Ukraine to the bear and hope that sates its appetite:

Once aid expands to allow greater Ukrainian military assertiveness, instead of pure survival, and simultaneous long-term security commitments, including the prospect of NATO membership at the alliance summit in July, a path to peace and stability would be possible by this year’s end. 

Putin has more territorial ambitions. Even if he pushes elsewhere first before returning to his NATO obsession.

Have a super sparkly day.

UPDATE (Monday): Russia builds up reserves:

Russia's reported reserve concentrations throughout Ukraine largely align with Russia’s assessed priorities along the front, although they are not necessarily indicative of future Russian operations. Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets stated that Russian forces currently have 17 regiments, 16 battalions, and two regiment-battalion level tactical detachments in reserve. Mashovets stated that there are about 60,000-62,000 total Russian personnel in reserve units, but Russian forces have only equipped about 20,000 tactical and operational-tactical level reserve personnel with weapons and equipment.

Will Russia expend them to maintain the illusion of strategic initiative to take minor objectives? Or will Russia equip, organize, and deploy them into a significant force able to achieve decisive results? 

Will Ukraine contest Russia's strategic initiative to deny the ability of the Russians to mass their reserves? Can Ukraine without immediate resupply?

UPDATE (Tuesday): Is Avdiivka about to fall to the Russian invaders? 

I worry less about Ukraine losing the city than I worry about Ukraine losing their troops defending that narrow salient if the Russians manage to encircle the city. Preserve the army, I say.

Unless Ukraine is poised to counter-attack any Russian penetration and engage them in an open battle kill sack rather than trying to batter through Russian minefields, fortifications, and artillery fire.

UPDATE (Thursday): Russia redeployed heavily armed National Guard units to the Belgorod border region:

ISW also previously assessed that Russian forces may launch tactical diversionary cross-border raids into Kharkiv Oblast from Belgorod Oblast to distract and pin Ukrainian forces away from the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna axis, where Russian forces are currently pursuing offensive operations[.]

I've long been puzzled why Russia doesn't try to stretch Ukraine's defenses by striking into the less-defended north and northeast.

UPDATE (Saturday): Russia has added about 100,000 troops to its invasion forces, which probably means Russia plans an offensive. Their training and equipment are likely inadequate.

I assume Russia will attack in the east where they are closer to logistics sources.

NOTE: The image was made from DALL-E.

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

NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.

Weekend Data Dump

The Lions crushed San Francisco in the first half, then faltered. Epicly. That hurt. I can't complain about the two decisions not to go for field goals. That attitude got us to the prom and field goals aren't automatic in Detroit this season. I'll sooner wish a ball didn't bounce off of a player into the air, keeping it live.

We'd better kill a lot Iranian proxies soon: "Three US Army soldiers were killed and more than 30 service members were injured in a drone attack overnight on a small US outpost in Jordan[.]" We basically ignored the attacks as long as we suffered no KIA. FFS. Biden thinks mullah-run Iran is our pre-friend.

Well, this May 2021 observation wasn't wrong: "The increasingly influential left within the Democratic Party is increasingly ... anti-Semitic. And if American Jews think they can avoid that hate by being more leftist than Jewish, they are totally confused about what irrational racial hatred entails."

Despite facing China's subliminal war at sea, Manila's internal war isn't over, I guess: "Philippine troops killed nine suspected Muslim militants in the volatile south, including two key suspects in a bomb attack last month that left four Christian worshippers dead, the army said Saturday." Perhaps related?

I was assured global warming made it pointless to conduct this kind of training: "U.S. soldiers from a division that specializes in extreme cold-weather operations are putting their skills to the test alongside Japanese troops on the northern island of Hokkaido this month."

Danger close: "American troops stationed in Egypt didn’t get their Christmas presents in the mail, and now some are concerned that they won’t receive their ballots." We've kept the peace a long time there.

Huh: "A new nuclear bomb simulator created by Russian scientists, complete with mushroom cloud effects, will enable the Kremlin’s troops to train for combat operations after a radioactive blast[.]" Bluff? Or Putin could simulate a nuclear strike on Russia to justify horrific acts of his own.

Turkey's regional ambitions run into regional problems. Life was certainly simpler as a reliable NATO state hoping to hold off Soviet forces on the border.

Don't believe Russia is doing just fine: "Russian oil sales are now barely profitable. Russia depends on those profits to pay for oil and gas exploration and the construction of new oil and gas extraction and delivery systems, plus maintenance of existing oil and gas infrastructure."

Biden makes life harder on our allies than on our enemies: "President Joe Biden is reportedly considering using weapons sales as a means to convince Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scale back their attack on the Gaza Strip." Why will enemies surrender--or talk--when we rescue enemies?

Will the northeast freeze this winter because of energy phobia? Maybe. But that's what those folks vote for. Tip to Instapundit.

To be fair, nobody they know has been de-banked. Tip to Instapundit.

Iran has been at war with us since their Islamist revolution. But a strain of Democrats refuse to admit the love of their life can do anything wrong. Iran may not want a war with America. But Iran sure does want a free pass to attack and kill American troops, our allies, and neutrals with no repercussions.

The end is not nigh if we fail to repent. Take a trip down that memory lane! The climate lunatics really are religious fanatics. Tell them to take a hike.

The United States underestimates China's defense budget. Sure, China's shiny new advanced weapons may not be wielded by competent troops and commanders. But they have a lot of new shiny weapons that indicate a much bigger budget, no?

This defense of radical Marine changes lists missions that in no way address criticisms of whether the Marines can achieve wartime missions they've done in the past. And validating changes from Russia's invasion of Ukraine is premature. I'm not willing to salute and shut up. Just what can the Marines do?

Loose lips don't sink ships. Public apathy does. He makes a good point. I say woke lips sink ships. And that might explain the public apathy problem as our people lose faith in failing Navy leadership.

Perhaps that actress didn't ruin her looks with plastic surgery. I hope not! But boy did she look dramatically different in the pictures. Was commenting on the picture misogyny? Meh. Whether it was makeup or surgery, her purpose was to look better. naturally she'd get comments on her looks.

Post-apocalypse progressive policies scene. The people have spoken, the bastards. Seriously, what did progressive voters expect would happen? Paradise? Tip to Instapundit. 

China has apparently decided that it will pretend the Philippines isn't breaking China's blockade at the West's line in the sea. Is this retreat or buying time to escalate?

Russia is pushing its major customer, India, away: "Unnamed Indian government sources stated that India wants to distance itself from Russia, its largest arms supplier, because the war in Ukraine has limited Russia’s ability to provide India with munitions." Strategery.

I'm worried about stupidity not a civil war: "A sizable majority of the public supports Texas’s construction of a wall along its border with Mexico and feels that President Joe Biden’s efforts to stop it are the first step toward civil war." But who knows how that malevolent mediocrity in the White House could ef up.

It's not the great replacement. It's the great new pliant voters: "The unprecedented chaos at the U.S. border and in major American cities that has been caused by the Biden administration’s immigration policies finally seems to have moved to the center of national political debate and public awareness."

Sure, mass illegal immigration isn't an invasion for the purposes of Constitutional provisions. But it is a figurative invasion. Also, Texas isn't defying the Supreme Court. And shame on those who know better saying it is so: "Nothing in what the Supreme Court did told Texas to take or refrain from any action."

Iran's proxies hit the American outpost in Jordan, Tower 22, by fooling American air defenses into thinking it was friendly: "The drone bypassed US air defenses by trailing a US drone that was returning to base in Jordan at the same time." We apparently thought it was what we expected to see.

Democrats pull every dirty lawfare trick to avoid facing opponents on election day: "one of countless instances in which Democrats hurled billable hours at anyone deemed a 'threat' to votes they considered theirs." Even when the Democrats lose, the process is the punishment for their foes. Via Instapundit.

The tale of quasi-moons. Fascinating. Tip to Instapundit.

Brexit was not a terrible mistake. The EU punished Britain for it. America has stiff-armed Britain on trade. British lefties work to make it worse. And conservatives are afraid to make it work. It will take time. Until then, Brexit is blamed for all woes--except when climate change is blamed. Still, Britain is free.

Biden pledged to respond to Iran's attack on Tower 22. Democrats can't admit Iran is at war with us--and has been for some time. Because Democrats looove mullah-run Iran. Even their best killers. Democrats hate that the mullahs make it hard to surrender to Iran. Cue an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.

China got old before it got rich--and is suffering significant population shrinkage that it is in denial about: "... current official population projections actually underestimate the extent of these challenges, ... because they bake in shaky statistical assumptions that fertility rates will 'rebound' in coming decades."

Well, yes: "In its cold war with China, the US cannot afford to neglect Pacific island nations[.]" Good advice.

The small, "J6" prototype "first insurrection" that wasn't. Via Instapundit.

Fighting China--win or lose--would be a disaster. But really? "[Since 1945] America has lost every war it started — Vietnam, Afghanistan and the second Iraq War." We didn't start Afghanistan. We won Iraq. We chose to lose the others. Our record is fine. And the U.S. starts a war with China? My prior rebuke of him.

The Czechs will buy F-35s. 

Denmark steps up: "The Danish air-defense frigate Iver Huitfeldt set sail to the Suez Canal on Monday to join the coalition protecting shipping in the Red Sea[.]"

Somaliland will press ahead with its port/base deal with Ethiopia. I addressed it here.

The Tower 22 outpost in Jordan.

Facing off against China: "An air base in the Philippines is set to receive a major upgrade to accommodate U.S. aircraft under a plan to strengthen deterrence against China." The line in the sea grows.

Note that at Tower 22, American reservists are used as an operational reserve to replace active troops rather than as a strategic reserve to reinforce them in war: "Our active duty army is not engaged in any significant combat operations. None. Is this what we have a National Guard for?" And Reserves?

Ukraine's shoot-down of a rare Russian AWACS plane. Also: "At the same time, a nearby a multi-engine Il-22 airborne command aircraft was mistakenly fired on by Russian anti-aircraft forces." Friendly fire is not friendly.

Interesting: "Currently Russia has 1,100 jet fighters and strike aircraft. Russia is a large country and most of these aircraft are stationed in distant areas of Russia with about a third of the aircraft concentrated against Ukraine." Fifty F-16s will have an impact with that deployment fraction.

Democrats will unleash a secret weapon to "re-ignite" their voters:

Nice. But until there is a space diner it really isn't an orbital gas station.

Putin isn't Hitler. He's Mussolini. Ukraine is his Abyssinia (Ethiopia). I too, rejected the Hitler template. While I agreed with the author's excellent analogy in 2014, Italy conquered Abyssinia. Unless we let Ukraine fall, Ukraine is now Vladolini's Greece. Will Xi aid Putin and get fatally distracted inland?

Ukrainian corruption is less than Russia's, and got better; while Russia's got worse. Based on perceptions, of course. So conservative arguments since Russia invaded that Ukraine doesn't deserve our help founders on that silly metric alone. I've long recognized the need for Ukraine to combat corruption, however. 

Protecting a border, using a fence. Haters?

The best and brightest at Davos know they've lost their assault on rule-of-law democracy? Fingers crossed.

The Anschluss tightens: "Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko signed a series of economic and technological agreements on January 29 advancing the Kremlin’s efforts to further integrate Belarus into the Union State structure."

Congressional Research Service report on China's subliminal war on the Philippines. 

A frozen conflict: "Senior Russian security official Dmitry Medvedev told Japan on Tuesday it would have to drop territorial claims to a group of Pacific islands if it wanted to conclude a peace treaty with Russia formally ending World War Two."

The West rations weapons to Ukraine because it fears Russian victory and defeat in Ukraine: "This type of controlled weapon dosage also helps explain why the war has dragged on for so long." That kind of nuanced calculation invites defeat by ruling out Ukrainian victory.

The real coup unpunished: "It was on [January 5, 2017] that the Democrats decided to spread the phony story that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. It was ludicrous, it was ridiculous, and it crippled Trump’s presidency. As far as sheer national destruction it was far worse than the riot of January 6 could ever be."

The virtual cold war: "The U.S. government in recent months launched an operation to fight a pervasive Chinese hacking operation that compromised thousands of internet-connected devices[.]"

Ah, the sainted international community in action: "An Israeli document obtained Monday spelled out allegations against a dozen U.N. employees the country says took part in Hamas’ Oct. 7 assault[.]"

But they have gold, so Russia will exploit the "corruption, ethnic rivalries, and Islamic terrorism in the north" to pay for war in Ukraine: "The West African nation of Mali faces another bad year in 2024."

Ukraine is asking for these European helicopters because they are better than their old Soviet helicopters: "While many other users have been dissatisfied with the NH90 helicopter; Ukraine regards these helicopters as useful even if they are second rate in the West."

This isn't banana republic-like at all: "Some protests are more protected than others." Tip to Instapundit.

Army Typhon missiles for mid-range capabilities advance. The god of war will be pleased with the offering.

Who says terrorism doesn't pay?  "State Department reviewing options for possible recognition of Palestinian state[.]" I say if we eventually do this it should be a blended virtual/territorial state.

This author believes Taiwanese have the will to fight China. I have my doubts. Even the new law increasing draft service from four months to a year is inadequate to prepare them to fight. I hope he's right about a new attitude.

Ukraine will get a new weapon made just for them: "Ukraine will receive its first batch of Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs[.]" It's a SDB attached to a ground-launched rocket. I noted it earlier.

Via Instapundit: "Blue Shield, a health care provider that moved its headquarters to Oakland in 2019, is offering employees security guards and ride-hail services due to the rise in crime in Oakland[.]" As I memed:

Fear? "Iran's Revolutionary Guards have scaled back deployment of their senior officers in Syria due to a spate of deadly Israeli strikes and will rely more on allied Shi'ite militia to preserve their sway there[.]" Sure. Better for Persian Iran to fight Israel to the last dead Arab, eh?

The last line of defense is the Phalanx CIWS: "A Houthi missile recently put a US destroyer's close-in weapons system to the test, a report said." The first line of defense is destroying the Houthi missile launcher and killing the crew. Are we waiting for an Iranian-supplied missile to hit a Navy warship first?

Faux fear: "concerns are rising among European nations that Mr. Putin could invade a NATO nation over the coming decade and that they might have to face his forces without U.S. support." Blaming Trump? He had four years. So stop. EU fanboys are manufacturing "concerns" about America. It's them--not us.

India will have another option when Chinese troops advance into contested border territory and set up defenses: "The U.S. State Department has approved the potential sale of 31 armed MQ-9B SkyGuardian drones, related missiles and equipment to India for nearly $4 billion[.]"

You see, I'm not against seriously punishing actors like this for J6. My problem is over-charging people who at worst trespassed and at best were actually invited in by cops where they walked between the velvet rope lines. It's a digital witch hunt now with years of imprisonment before trials in an unfriendly venue.

Making sure those you do recruit don't wash out of training is more important when fewer sign up: "Almost 15,000 potential recruits have graduated from an Army prep course launched a year and a half ago to boost their physical and academic scores[.]" I had thought along these lines seven years ago.

Why are conservatives blamed for a stalled "bipartisan deal that would pair policy changes at the U.S. southern border with wartime aid for Kyiv as their carefully negotiated compromise[.]" Why should conservatives compromise on our border security? Shouldn't that be the easy part to agree on? 

More, please: "The U.S. early Thursday carried out a 'self-defense' strike, targeting and destroying multiple projectiles that Houthi militants in Yemen were preparing to launch at commercial ships, a U.S. official tells Fox News." Rubble doesn't make trouble. That's self defense.

The U.S. announced the units for upcoming rotations through Europe and Central Command. 

Fine, I think: " The German navy’s priorities for 2024 will focus on increasing its presence in the Baltic Sea and Indian Ocean[.]" The Red Sea is also under consideration. My view is control the Baltic and token forces elsewhere for alliance tripwires.

Testing USVs in Ghost Fleet Overload. The Navy wants them to act like ships and not like torpedoes the way Ukraine uses them in the Black Sea.

Oh joy: "After an absence of five years, it appears piracy has returned to Somalia." I'd tell Somaliland and Puntland that if they act like a state and control their territory we'll treat them like states. Otherwise it's the Lexington Rule. India isn't shy about acting.

Oh FFS. But I would say that, right? 

The veto of the violent: "Denmark’s parliament has passed a bill that makes it illegal to burn copies of the Quran in public places after protests in Muslim nations over the desecration of Islam’s holy book raised security concerns." Jihadis won't like Denmark now. Is anybody Charlie anymore?  It's broader.

Science! Are we really shocked that "experts" are increasingly distrusted? Tip to Instapundit.

If any old-timey KKK members are still around, they must be kicking themselves that they really had a marketing issue (via Instapundit): "An increasing number of school districts are offering 'affinity classes' that cater to specific racial groups." As I've noted:

 

In theory we want countries to replace Russian LNG: "The Washington Post editorial board on Monday slammed President Joe Biden's move to put a hold on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals as an 'obviously political decision.'" Putin approves. As do Greens, as I've noted. Via Instapundit.

FFS, progressive military veterans still get sad when they think about Trump ordering the strike on Iranian terror master Soleimani whose EFPS killed hundreds of American troops in Iraq.

More to follow: "U.S. military forces today conducted strikes on seven facilities, which included more than 85 targets in Iraq and Syria, that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and affiliated militias use to attack U.S. forces." But don't worry! Biden warned his true love to duck and cover.

Government tax incentives have consequences even if the government didn't intend them--and doesn't like them. I want a sedan but can't buy one. So I keep my current car. I'll wait to see if models more affordable are built again. Maybe the horse will sing. Tip to Instapundit.

Sitzkrieg: "The Supreme Court vacated an injunction forbidding the Border Patrol from cutting the barbed wire that Texas had installed along the border, but – contrary to many media reports – didn’t rule that what Texas had done was illegal, or order Texas to stop policing the border."

Democrats try to discredit open border complaints by calling it the "Great Replacement" racist conspiracy theory, but "Democrats have pretty much touted this as the plan for years. Indeed, it goes back to Ruy Teixeira’s 'Emerging Democratic Majority' strategy, though it’s been accelerated in recent years."

Putin put the West on notice two years ago: "America’s closest allies in Europe are warning that Russia could initiate a new war on the continent as soon as this decade — and that they are chillingly ill-prepared." I got that "postwar to a prewar world” feeling a long time ago. Don't warn--again. Prepare.

An example of how the National Guard is an operational--replacing active forces in nominal peacetime--rather than a strategic -saved for the "big one"--reserve. 

Learning from Russia's invasion of Ukraine: "Beijing has discerned that toppling the leadership in Taipei must be done swiftly to present a“fait accompli' to the world, according to President Joe Biden’s nominee to head up Indo-Pacific Comman[.]" I have similar-ish thoughts. China isn't learning invasion is futile.

A girl can dream, right? "The Russian ministry of defense has declared 2024 as the year when several nuclear weapons will enter the inventory of Moscow’s strategic forces, moving a number of goalposts that were meant to be reached last year." Is one goalpost making sure the missiles actually work?

No more "let's just teach the smartest grunts in the squad how to operate the Bradley": "The Army will establish a new dedicated occupational specialty for Bradley crew members ... government watchdogs have previously criticized the service’s on-the-job driver training model."  Huh. Did not realize that.

Hmmm (via Instapundit): "The Biden administration is preparing a wave of strikes and cyber attacks that could last 'weeks' in response to the Iranian-backed drone attack that killed three U.S. troops in Jordan." How much work is "and cyber attacks" doing in that vow? Because when you Twitter X a king, kill him.

Promises made. Promises kept! "Joe Biden’s war on fossil fuels is hurting America[.]" How desperate does California have to get before it exploits its "almost two-thirds of the nation’s total supply of shale oil[.]" Tragically funny that Europeans are getting what they wanted with Biden. Via Instapundit.

Live by the scimitar, die by the scimitar: "Pakistan continues struggling with the Islamic terror groups it created and supported for so long, plus the internal corruption and mayhem that policy has created." Hiding Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad was fun until SEALs killed him. Land of many Ef-ups.

Most Iraqis don't want Iranian influence: "Iran wants the Americans out of Iraq so that Iran has a better chance to take control of the country. Iran justifies its attacks on Iraqis and Americans because Iran claims Israel seeks more power in Iraq. That is absurd but normal for Iranian propaganda."

I've said panic about Trump and Ukraine is baseless: "Former President Trump does not sound like a man ready to abandon Ukraine as some fear. This week, he instead called on Europe to match dollar-for-dollar the amount of aid the U.S. has sent to counter Russian aggression." But Trump's math is way off.

Saying Black students can't meet high standards is something the KKK endorses: "[One professor] implemented a 'labor based' grading system in which students are graded on the basis of the amount of effort they claim to have put in on an assignment." Boeing will hire them, I guess. Trying is not enough.

We waited until our troops died at Tower 22 before getting serious: "The U.S. on Friday began to carry out strikes against Iran-backed militants and Iranian military targets in Iraq and Syria in retaliation for a drone strike on an American base in Jordan last Sunday that killed three U.S. service members." More to follow.

When the U.S. sends troops to exercise with the Australians, the U.S. leaves equipment there to function as a stockpile so fewer equipment needs to be sent during a crisis or war. Just make sure the equipment is protected. 

Pacific Fleet commander: "I believe that the current size and scope of the U.S. merchant fleet is a vulnerability." He said it is designed for efficiency and not effectiveness under fire. The same could be said for our top-heavy surface warships.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is not imminent?  Bravo! I've been assured that a successful invasion is totally impossible! Nay, inconceivable! Despite being China's most core objective--finishing off the civil war losers. And despite decades of military modernization that somehow neglected invading Taiwan!

Echelon above reality in action. Ah, "experts". Calm down. We'll be fine. As long as the Climate true believers are stopped.

About that Iranian evacuation of its leadership from Syria I noted: "[The Biden] administration leaked it will strike Iranian personnel and facilities in Iraq and Syria, giving the regime ample time to close up shop and evacuate." Biden wants the mullahs to know this is a lover's spat. Can't we exploit this underbussing?

Not gonna lie. When I read a city official boasting that Chicago passed a ceasefire resolution, I assumed it was a stupid bandaid for their murder problem. But as I kept reading, it got much more stupid.

The American Psychological Association "studied" the issue and concluded hiring based on qualifications is unfair. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the APA started avoiding that unfairness decades ago. In totally unrelated news. Tip to Instapundit. 

Were mRNA-derived Covid vaccines given our too broadly, exceeding safety standards? I worry my adult kids chose to get those vaccines. I thought they were young enough to decline any version. I did not get an mRNA vaccine, at least.

Consequences. What are they?

It was all fun and games when the CCP thought North Korea would only nuke China's foes: "The Chinese public, even with a heavily censored local Internet, made it clear they were not happy with a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons while still ruled by a homicidal and increasingly hostile to China tyrant."

The Army is shrinking: "The U.S. Army has problems finding enough new recruits to maintain its current strength of 460,000 active duty and 500,000 reserve troops." I warned about the insufficiency of the mid-1990s Army. It loses budget wars even when it wins. A decade ago we forged the Army we have.

If you think this is bad, you might be supporting a dictator: "Reading ‘Lord Of The Rings’ And ‘1984’ Could Lead To Right-Wing Extremism, Gov’t Report Warns[.]" Sure, they're good. But don't forget Not This August.

Russian artillery doesn't feel the need to shoot and scoot: "Open-source investigations indicate that Russian forces are benefitting from Ukraine’s ammunition shortage and inability to conduct sufficient counterbattery warfare." Ukraine has to ration ammo for priority targets, unsure of supply resumption.

The Axis of Weasels in action: "The Kremlin is doubling down on its support for Iran as the US conducts strikes to preempt attacks by Iranian-back proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen against American and other targets." Is China happy to have its energy and trade routes complicated by Iran's Houthi proxies?

Too close to the heart of darkness: "Another neighbor of Congo is the Central African Republic/CAR which remains mired in a civil war that began in 2012 and resists all efforts to stop the fighting."

Artillery ammo is short, but "France is sending Ukraine several hundred of its Armement Air-Sol Modulaire (AASM) Hammer bomb guidance kits. These are similar to the Stormbreaker bombs Ukraine already has." They are much more expensive than JDAM.

The never-ending story: "Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi recently won reelection for a second term. Tshisekedi had to overcome opposition from his predecessor Joseph Kabila, who resisted being replaced."

Imagining Defeat

America's wars in CENTCOM after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks achieved successes rather than being the obvious disaster so many claim. 

More than twenty years after 9/11 our two wars in the Middle East gave us disaster?

The folly of empire is manifested in America’s military graveyards, mental health wards of military hospitals, post–Afghan/Iraqi War suicides among servicemen and women, the many thousands of wounded warriors, the waste of American treasure and resources, and the decline of American influence in the Middle East even as China’s influence there and elsewhere rises.  

Let's address each point of evidence for the folly of our "empire" in turn, shall we?

America's military graveyards, mental health wards, veteran suicides, and wounded servicemembers.

American deaths in our post-9/11 wars were historically low. They were individual and family losses no less horrific for those directly affected for being low. But it isn't a nation-crippling loss. That isn't callous. That's a silver lining to a dark cloud of war. Ask the Russians what a disastrous level of casualties looks like. 

Having more wounded (instead of dead) is relatively good news. We of course owe the wounded continued help. As we owe help to those with war-induced mental health problems. But there is no evidence offered that the problem is worse now than in the past. Or whether it is any different from the same age cohorts in the civilian world. I've certainly seen stats over the last twenty years that call into question the supposed greater problem for active duty troops or veterans compared to non-veteran civilians.

A "waste" of American treasure and resources.

The costs were relatively small for America, where even inflated costs including all indirect costs that can be tacked on are dwarfed by American "stimulus", Covid-related, and "green" spending binges we've embarked on in the last twenty years. Don't blame the war for wasting resources. And despite war our defense budget as a percentage of GDP never even approached Cold War levels.

As for wasting resources, terrorists have been set back in attacking America. Many countries once neutral or supportive of jihadi terrorism now see it as a threat to themselves that justifies cooperation with America. Doesn't anybody see that in Iraq? Pointing to Iranian influence in Iraq just means Iran retains influence that it had inside Iraq prior to the Iran-Iraq War that Saddam started in 1980. It just means we have to hold our gains in Iraq. 

Imagine the alternative we could have chosen by refusing to take down Saddam.

Although we shall see if our own-goal Afghanistan skedaddle debacle will undermine that gain. 

Sure, the outcome of the Libya War is an open wound that harms Europe. But I was against waging that war because I didn't see an American interest in joining the war that France in particular seemed eager to wage.

Decline of American influence in the Middle East.

America has helped push Israeli-Arab reconciliation, is a welcome security partner throughout the Arab world, and is key to maintaining a rough pseudo-peace in Syria and Iraq to keep jihadis, Turks, and Iranians from turning the region upside down.

Is American military strength down in the Middle East? Yes. Of course it is. Don't mistake presence for influence.

And right now America seems pretty darned important for supporting Israel, defending sea trade routes, containing Iranian threats to Arab states, and containing the war in Gaza after the October 7, 2023 Hamas rape and murder invasion of Israel. And that's what we've done despite the self-inflicted wound of our leadership's bizarre love for mullah-run Iran that causes or exacerbates so many of the problems we have to deal with.

The rise if Chinese influence in the Middle East and elsewhere.

China has risen dramatically in GDP and military strength. We weren't going to change that without wars in CENTCOM. In the ten years before 9/11 we were busy enjoying that "peace dividend" following our victory in the Cold War.

As for Chinese influence in the Middle East? Prime evidence is the China-brokered Saudi-Iranian detente. But I see that as a Saudi shot across America's bow for its ridiculous and persistent love for mullah-run Iran.  

Yes, China has a base in Djibouti on the periphery of the Middle East. But in war that outpost could be cut off and destroyed.

And America is successfully rallying Asian allies, including longtime neutral India and longtime pacifist Japan, to resist China.

So there you go. That's not a lot for a long article, but most of the article recounts a history of American foreign policy according to a "prescient" author twenty years ago. I say strike four. 

FFS, Even Obama and Biden called Iraq--the "bad" war--a success. And Obama recognized he screwed that up in 2011 and embarked on Iraq War 2.0 in 2014 to re-win the war. And he vastly escalated the "good" war in Afghanistan that his VP eventually lost. But the claim is that Bush 43 screwed up?

Some people analyze our wars until they see defeat:

I just don't know if we recognize victory when we achieve it. As I quoted in this post:

A victory described in detail is indistinguishable from defeat.

In America, we describe our victories in great detail.

Let's defend what we did indeed spend significant blood and treasure to achieve rather than examining our actions until we only see defeat.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.

Something Wrong With Britain's Bloody Strategic Assumptions Today

After an expensive reorientation, the British Navy has to again contemplate a radical restructuring to face the renewed threat of major power war in Europe. This day's strategic environment is radically different than the one when the fleet was planned and built.

The British had no carrier strike group to send to fight the Houthi alongside American naval forces despite thinking about sending one of their two modern carriers:

Sadly not. Both ships are currently keeping watch in that notorious trouble spot known as... Portsmouth Harbour. A few days ago, Tobias Ellwood, the Tory MP and former defence minister, asked the Defence Secretary whether he plans to task an aircraft carrier to the Middle East. The answer was no time soon, though according to the Ministry of Defence, our Carrier Strike Group (the collective term for the carriers and their support vessels) is ready to sally forth, should the call come.

To describe that as misleading is generous. For while it is true that the Navy could just about cobble together something resembling a Carrier Strike Group, despatching it anywhere remotely risky would be criminally foolhardy – and leave Britain dangerously exposed. The painful truth is that since the ships were first commissioned, the march of technology has threatened to render them both obsolete.

We do not have enough smaller warships or submarines or indeed weaponry to optimally protect them, in the way the US carrier is kept safe, unless we are willing to abandon the protection of our own coast and our nuclear deterrent.

I've had worries about the new composition of the Royal Navy:

If Britain is focusing their navy on supporting a single carrier strike group, and having problems even with that limited goal, is the Royal Navy vulnerable to being taken down with one good hit on the carrier at sea?

This is a problem now:

This path was perhaps defensible when the Royal Navy was for power projection in the absence of serious naval opposition. In the era of great power competition that puts control of the seas in doubt, it is kind of nuts.

Or a failure to distinguish between those two types of missions.  

Sadly given events, Britain made what seemed like a reasonable bet on what the future would look like:

No longer tied to the defense of Europe because of the shattering of the Soviet Union, Britain is looking to a wider world of defense missions to support their diplomacy and trade. Will the sun ever set on British influence?

That global capability is no longer the prime military objective since Putin decided to wage war in Europe.

I worry America can't protect its carriers. The British have it even tougher. Where do their expensive carriers fit in with the renewed era of Russian threats to Europe?

Would the new but expensive carriers better serve British security interests in Indian service in order to free British resources for Europe and protecting freedom of navigation from threats like the Houthi? 

UPDATE: You go to war with the navy you have, not the navy you might want or wish to have at a later time.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.

America Lost the Peace? Have You Lost Your Mind?

We have another entry in the "blame America" genre of foreign policy thought about our new age of great power competition. The idea that it challenges conventional wisdom is laughable given that the charge is the ultimate in conventional wisdom.

Sakwa has challenged conventional wisdom? Please. It is the most conventional of conventional wisdom to blame America for our current challenges. And it has been that way all my politically aware life over the last five decades. No other actor has agency, in that remarkably enduring view. All actors base their decisions on what America does in that view. Or what America doesn't do. So I call bullshit on this:

Writers who challenge the conventional wisdom about history and current events are usually interesting and provocative; Richard Sakwa, professor emeritus of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent, is both. In The Lost Peace, Sakwa contends that the West—mainly the United States—is largely to blame for the new Cold War with Russia and China. He is half right.

Sakwa believes that the West had an opportunity to forge an enduring great power peace at the end of the Cold War. Instead, the United States sought to maintain its “unipolar moment” by extending its “hegemony” to Russia’s borders in Europe with NATO enlargement and trying to prevent China’s rise in the Asia-Pacific.

America sought to revive Russia's economy and help democracy replace communism. And America sought to supercharge China's economy for decades. How much more "restraint" was America supposed to show to these problematic countries?

It is not America's fault that newly free vassals of post-Soviet Russia knew first hand the perils of letting Russia return. There is no way Russia would have allowed a vacuum of influence between Classic NATO frozen in 1991 and the the shrunken Russian empire to continue. Were we to let Russia re-absorb those states suddenly freed from the Soviet gulag and hope this time Russian domination would be kinder and gentler?

Good God, what was the point of a long Cold War struggle between a free West and a dictatorial, aggressive, and evil communist world if in the end we just threw the former victims to the new wolves?

And China--although the reviewer denies we are at fault for that problem--used its growing economic strength to pressure existing neighbors into accepting China's increasingly forceful expansive claims to match that power. It should be no surprise that those neighbors reject that kind of claim and pressure. Should America have told our friends and allies that China had a really good point and that maybe they should talk to China about what to give up? That would not work out well for America.

Honestly, in some ways America is just too big to ignore. Although our friends and allies managed not to turn against us militarily to balance us as classic balance-of-power theory would hold. Free democracies have limits on what they worry about, I guess.

But for less savory nations, that acceptance isn't easy. Despite our benign neglect of China and Russia during that so-called "unipolar moment," confirmed by the slow slide of our military power during the 1990s "peace dividend"--and in the rest of NATO, virtual elimination of it--Russia and China knew we could revive that power. And direct it at them. It's really the foundation of our security.

And so China and Russia became frenemies with benefits to help their territorial ambitions without being left as the last one standing when the music stopped in a game of Musical Rogue State Chairs.

But what was America supposed to do? Accept their hegemony over unwilling subjects and hope for a good outcome? 

Bah. That path to peace for our time is an illusion. And blaming America has a long pedigree in the Western academic echelon above reality. 

But I can kind of--if I turn the lights down, squint, and perhaps take mushrooms--see the logic for the urge to blame America. If it is America's fault and not our powerful enemies' fault, all we have to do to fix it is change our policies enough! Then those poor misjudged and good-intentioned lambs would relax and reciprocate with peace for all times! 

I mean, the alternative would be that the West a lot of hard work and sacrifice ahead of us to stop actors with evil intent who would threaten our prosperity and freedom. That would suck, right? 

And it's not like America will blow a gasket if it is blamed for our dangerous era. Many Americans expect to be blamed! And agree with the charge. So America is a much safer target. It's not like Biden will send an assassin with Polonium 210-laced tea to exact revenge, right? No, lucrative speaking deals in American colleges and universities are the reward for that kind of conventional wisdom-busting analysis!

Half right? More like half-wit.

This age of "great power competition" is on Russia, China, and their minor power Axis of Weasels.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.