Why Iran Has Ballistic Missiles to Send to Russia

America assisted Russia's aerial assault on Ukraine by enabling Iran to develop ballistic missiles in the highly flawed 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

America is only finally thinking about sending long-range missiles to Ukraine. But Iran sent them to Russia: 

Iran has provided Russia with a large number of powerful surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, six sources told Reuters, deepening the military cooperation between the two U.S.-sanctioned countries.

Iran's provision of around 400 missiles includes many from the Fateh-110 family of short-range ballistic weapons, such as the Zolfaghar, three Iranian sources said. This road-mobile missile is capable of striking targets at a distance of between 300 and 700 km (186 and 435 miles), experts say.

You can thank the monumentally stupid 2015 Obama/Kerry Iran nuclear deal for advancing that Iranian capability: 

Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a speech at the Australian National University that Security Council Resolution 2231, which was adopted after the Iranian nuclear deal was signed last year, did not bar Iran from testing the type of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles that it launched last week.

"It doesn't call upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles, or ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads ... it calls upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles that were 'designed' to be capable," Zarif said.

"That word took me about seven months to negotiate, so everybody knew what it meant," he said, referring to "designed."

Kerry went along with that long effort at crafting the Definitions Section. Because of course he did. And that was just one of the ways Iran duped our chief of the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne.

Not that American short-sighted stupidity is the only way Russia is getting missiles. North Korea improved its missiles based on the chaos of post-Soviet Russia. Now North Korea sells missiles for food to Russia to fire at Ukraine. North Korea sent Russia its old ones first, naturally.

Ah, the circle of life.

Sometimes short-sighted stupidity somehow works out for you. I don't think we'll be as lucky as Russia on this score. Notwithstanding the Biden administration's remarkably reality-free confidence in its Smart Diplomacy® with Iran. 

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.

Have People Permanently Lost Their Minds Over Iraq?

Why do so many people insist we lost the Iraq War in defiance of the evidence staring at us?

What. The. Actual. F**k:

So disastrous was the Iraq war, in fact, so costly and unforced an error, that in retrospect it seems the hinge of the entire post–Cold War era, the moment when American hegemony switched from successful to problematic, welcomed to resisted. Two decades on, the unipolar moment has faded, along with dreams of a better Middle East and American appetite for active international engagement. What remains is the puzzle of how such an epically self-destructive fiasco could have happened in the first place.

The war was the hinge that changed a unipolar moment of American leadership into an epically self-destructive fiasco? Seriously?

I'm just going to focus on this claim because it is exhausting to take on every new bout of nuance that keeps floating to the media surface about how the Iraq War was a "strategic disaster."

During the Iraq War it was common to claim the war was a fiasco--until it wasn't.

Once it was merely alleged to be one of our biggest mistakes--which I rejected. Heck, even Biden and Obama--don't contradict our former president, you racist--called Iraq a success before withdrawing and failing to defend the success. That fiasco led to Iraq War 2.0 against a resurgent ISIL that established a caliphate across parts of Syria and Iraq.

Or the argument is flipped to say we needlessly made the effort for someone else's success. No, Iran didn't win the Iraq War--unless we let them win now. For some reason the success of Kurds no longer gassed, Iraqi Shias no longer impoverished and oppressed, Sunnis not part of the Tikrit "mafia" getting the police state treatment, victims of the terrorists that Saddam funded a bit less likely to die, and neighbors no longer under threat of invasion don't count because the war was a success for them, too? Normally one would consider that a record of success. I mean, did only America benefit from our fight in World War II? Is that the standard? Does Stalin's advance into Central Europe to begin its post-war super power status negate our success?

But I digress. Sort of.

Things are getting worse in this "fiasco" line of analysis as time goes on. There was a brief time when it wasn't all doom and gloom. Given the doom being wrongly laid at the feet of the Iraq War on the tenth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I thought it was a Festivus Miracle when I read an editorial in the Washington Post, of all places, that saw hope. I tossed off nine successes off the top of my head in that post.

I say we gave Arabs long suffering under autocrats or mullahs hope for a better future. And if we don't walk away, Iraq might renew that hope to finally make progress toward rule of law and democracy in the Middle East.  

Hell, if you think "invading" a Moslem country in 2003 alienated the Sunni Arab world, how do you explain that so much of that world is standing by while Israel pounds Hamas into the sand for slaughtering and raping Jews on October 7, 2023? Why didn't Russia's two brutal wars against Chechnya alienate the Islamic world?

Yet repeatedly, people who are supposed to inform us seem to live in a fantasy world of kite-flying simplicity before Bush 43 went and ruined the ride of regional "relative stability" by invading Iraq and overthrowing a murderous dictator.

Say, about the "unipolar moment" before the Iraq War ruined it. Ah yes, the era of "bully America" when Bill Clinton was still president. So sad we lost that. Please, click on the link and read about how little America was loved and eagerly followed in the Clinton era.

And aside from the above problem, quoting Bill Clinton to bolster his argument, as the author does in that initial link, is figuratively quite insane:

President Bill Clinton once told his staff that he found Iraq “the most difficult of problems because it is devoid of a sensible policy response.” Once Saddam survived the Gulf War, it was reasonable for the United States to try to contain him without getting sucked into another full-scale conflict. But that approach was costly, risky, and hard to sustain. The George W. Bush administration refused to accept that such an unsatisfying course was the least bad option available and blindly plunged into the abyss.

It is insane because under Clinton, the official policy of America on solving the problem of Iraq under Saddam was regime change. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which Clinton signed, stated:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Huh. In 1998! And let's not even bring up the once-popular-in-ruling-circles theory of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that held rescuing people when it wasn't even in our national interest was the apex of force-using moral goodness. So that's non-operative for Iraq, now? I find R2P as a stand-alone policy pure idiocy. But I'm a knuckle-dragger and not a morally superior person of the left. So what's their problem with Iraq?

When you look very hard for a strategic debacle, unsurprisingly you find the evidence. It's natural but no less annoying to deal with when an author believes the war was a disaster.

Few victories are permanent. Yes, we won the Iraq War. Get over it. How easily that is unrecognized continues to astound me.

But the reality of our victory doesn't mean enemies--like jihadis, Iranians, Russians, and Chinese--won't try to reverse our victories. Our refusal to resist new enemies even on the ground we once won doesn't make our victories over past enemies any less victorious.

But it does make us idiots.

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.

Is the FPV Suicide Drone as Effective as Its Reputation?

I have no doubt small aerial drones--including FPV suicide drones--are a valuable new weapon. But is it the Silver FPV Bullet it is often made out to be?

I've expressed my doubts about the dominance of First-Person Viewer (FPV) drones based on a moment in time during the Winter War of 2022 that doesn't allow for the development of counter-measures.

But before we focus to the drone versus countermeasures race debate, just how effective are these drones?

This really needs better data to decide. I honestly don't want to take the time to do more than a cursory search. But I follow the war closely and haven't noticed much data behind the claims of revolutionary status. Those FPV drone video feeds are compelling. But we only see the apparently successful strikes. Our military surely has better data on success rates and how armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) are destroyed in combat.

Early in the war, various infantry anti-tank missiles got the glory. And we saw images of Ukrainian 100mm anti-tank guns pressed into service. The drones weren't the wonder weapon yet.

So let's just go with what I found for more recent times.

This reports on Russian armored vehicle losses:

Separate reports published by Estonia's Foreign Intelligence Service and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) on Feb. 13 suggest Russia has lost over 8,000 armored fighting vehicles, such as tanks and armored personnel carriers, in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. ...

The IISS said the figure has reached 8,800 since February 2022, with Russia losing more than 3,000 armored fighting vehicles in Ukraine in the past year alone.

So basically, Russia has lost far more in the first rather disastrous year for Russia's mechanized units. 

So let's call it 3,000 tanks and other armored vehicles lost in the last year.

I don't know how those vehicles were lost. Drones, anti-tank missiles, direct-fire guns, mines, tube and rocket artillery, hand-held anti-tank rockets, and other causes could kill them. 

Before publishing I see this: "Despite the extensive use of drones, missiles and tanks in the conflict, artillery fire has been responsible for 70% of all losses on both sides[.]" But "losses" is not defined. Does that mean AFVs, all equipment, or lives?

But for the purpose of illustration let's assume for the best-case scenario that every last one of those 3,000 were taken out by drones.

In this June 2023 post I quoted a story saying Ukraine was losing 10,000 drones per month. That's 120,000 extrapolated out to a full year. So if every Russian armored vehicle was destroyed by drones, it took 40 drones to achieve one kill.

What is the kill rate for all the other means of killing AFVs? Lots of precision weapons have 90+% kill probabilities. But that is lower if you include attempts and not just actual shots taken. And attempts could include sending out infantry with Javelins who are blown up in an air strike before they get a chance to shoot. Does it take 40 Javelins put into Ukrainian infantry hands to kill one AFV? What about HIMARS rockets? Precision shells or cluster munitions? Direct fire rounds? With modern sights our tanks have a very good first-shot hit probability. Although precise numbers escape me on that as I write this.

And of course, looking at those other rates accepts that drones aren't making all the kills as my best-case assumption as a starting point made. And as that 70% figure suggests.

If drones killed half of those 3,000 AFVs--which I consider a very good record, if that assumption is used--they required 80 drones for each kill.

And as drones have gotten more popular since June 2023, are more lost now? Which ups the drones per AFV killed ratio even more.

Further, define a kill. If a drone disables a tank that is later taken out by dumb artillery shells walked into it by observers correcting the shot, what weapon do we credit with killing it before the Russians could recover it and repair it. Or what if a drone kills a AFV first disabled by other weapons? Double-tapping a disabled vehicle is a factor in tank losses.

Finally, the drone loss would not be only suicide drones, I assume. How many are pure recon now or armed non-suicide drones?

Anyway, I have more questions than I have answers for resolving my skepticism. But setting my questions into a post will no doubt help me notice stories--as I did pre-publication for the 70% figure--that answer my questions that in the past I possibly filtered out of my krill flow of news as irrelevant at that moment.

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.

Loose Apps Sink Ships

We have long known our command posts are missile magnets because of all the ways they emit signals that an enemy can detect and attack. Every troop with a modern phone is a missile magnet now.

Targeting is easier with a complacent and cooperative enemy:

As the general paced the briefing room, he displayed a piece of lethal technology and detailed the death and chaos it has caused in Ukraine.

Almost 90 Russian soldiers were slain in a single attack in 2022, explained Army Maj. Gen. Curtis Taylor, when Ukrainian forces dropped U.S.-provided rockets on buildings pulsing with electronic signals. 

Here in the Mojave Desert, where Taylor oversees simulated war designed to prepare U.S. troops for the real thing, the same behavior abounds, he warned.

Taylor held up his cellphone. “This device,” he said, “is going to get our soldiers killed.” 

TDR has been worried about our forces being self-targeting for a long time. Although my initial worry was our big carriers that would have the kill chain considerably shortened by compromised electronics:

Could the Chinese slip something into our carrier systems that would function as a homing beacon for a missile attack, eliminating the need to deploy surveillance and targeting systems for tracking our carriers at sea? What if a compromised chip could make a silent-running carrier emit in every frequency by just turning equipment on? The Chinese would only need to know the general area of a carrier and shoot blind, counting on the carrier itself to bring the missiles home. Shoot, just infect every iPod sold to make sure sailors take them on board a carrier and put emitters in them.

iPods! LOL. Simpler days, eh?

Ten years later I noted that China could compromise cell phones that they produce to gain targeting data.

Now, the risk is to more than high-value naval targets. The threat extends to any individual soldier using phones working as they are intended being exploited by enemy forces without any modified hardware or remotely installed malware.

UPDATE: More:

As military units increasingly depend on wireless communications in the combat zone, the Ukraine War is providing examples of how patterns of cell phone use can be mapped and provide targets for guided missile attacks.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

Dude, Enthusiasm for the Winter War of 2022 Was Like, Two Years Ago

Ukraine's military lacked the means to prevent Russia from threatening to encircle the city and capture its defenders. So it wisely withdrew its troops to a new line further west. Did Avdiivka break the West even if it didn't break Ukraine?

Russia is now grinding forward in the east, using additional forces sent to the section of the front; while keeping up the pressure in the south. They are willing to lose planes to support their ground attacks. As I asked in yesterday's data dump, does this mean Russia is running out of other ways to support ground attacks? I believe Russia doesn't rely on air power the way America does. 

But I suppose it is also possible that Russia thinks it is time to commit its major uncommitted asset to achieve a significant breakthrough. Or at least doesn't believe it needs to hold it in reserve in case a Ukrainian offensive breaks through. And that, in part, is because American military aid has been on hiatus for many months.

After all the rush of enthusiasm after Russia stepped on a rake in its intended short and glorious victory parade through Kiev and Odessa two years ago, we've decided that a single costly Russian victory in a long battle for a small city means it is futile to help Ukraine defeat Russia's invasion?

If Ukraine loses, the fault lies in the West which failed to ramp up its ability to sustain Ukraine's ability to resist Russia's invasion:

The blame lies squarely with Western leaders. If they had backed up their stirring rhetoric and smiling photo-ops in the early months of the full-scale war with immediate decisions to start producing artillery shells and gun barrels, and if they had given Ukraine the long-range strike weapons it asked for, we would be celebrating victory.  

I worried early on that the West would grow weary of a war grown "normal".

I warned that Ukraine needed a victory in 2023 to encourage Western will to arm it.

When Ukraine couldn't provide that in 2023, I at least wanted a symbolic strike at the heart of Russian power. Once that would have been a fatal blow to Russian logistics in the south. Now I assume Russia has had time to build up the land bridge. Although yes, the Russian sea supply route is risky with Ukraine's sea drones and NATO targeting information.

But Ukraine is trying to keep those hopes alive:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Ukrainian forces are planning future counteroffensive operations, although delays in Western security assistance will likely continue to generate uncertainty and constraints on these operations.

With a major caveat of course--resuming the flow of weapons and support.

This admiral recognizes Ukraine must provide a land victory to prove to the West it is worthy of support:

[Ukraine must] show it’s a going concern militarily if it is to prove to potential allies they’re not betting on a weak horse.

So here we are without either signal event. Is it just me, or is this author saying Ukraine can't win--because America won't supply Ukraine--so why bother supplying Ukraine? If smaller countries are doomed to fall to larger countries, after all of human history why isn't the world composed of only a small number of large countries?

UPDATE (Monday): "A series of swift Russian advances have challenged Ukraine’s new line of defense set up after their withdrawal from the key town of Avdiivka and are raising fears about Kyiv’s tactics and momentum on the front lines." 

Repeatedly observers have advised Ukraine to lower its casualties by withdrawing from locations that Russia was pounding. But that potentially reduces the Russian losses and lets Russia improve its loss ratio by attacking new Ukrainian positions that may not be as good for defense as the positions the Ukrainians abandoned. I believe as a rule, retreats won't end Russian attacks.

And certainly the front moves deeper into Ukraine when Ukraine pulls its troops back. Unless Ukraine sucks Russians into a trap for a counter-attack that destroys a chunk of Russia's army, that doesn't end well for Ukraine.

That said, the narrow Avdiivka salient was a trap and I urged Ukraine to get out before Russia could close their pincers. Although I wrote in a perfect world Ukraine would have counter-attacked the pincers to cut off and destroy the Russian attackers enveloping the city to end the threat of encirclement. 

UPDATE (Monday): Interesting:

Recent relatively high Russian aviation losses appear to be prompting a significant decrease in Russian aviation activity in eastern Ukraine, although it is unclear how long this decrease in activity will last.

I'd also like to know what is causing Russia's increased aircraft losses. Are NATO countries providing more targeting information to make up for a slowdown in ammunition and weapons deliveries? 

Could F-16s be in the fight? There's RUMINT to that effect. And it would explain why getting F-16s into Ukrainian hands is taking so long--it hasn't. Although I consider this a low probability explanation. No way video of F-16s in action wouldn't be out there from one side or the other.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Ukraine will create a strategic reserve:

Pavlyuk stated that Ukrainian forces will aim to stabilize the frontline while degrading Russian forces in order to rotate frontline Ukrainian units to training grounds in the rear for replenishment and restoration. Pavlyuk stated that this will allow Ukraine to create a grouping of forces that will conduct unspecified counteroffensive actions (possibly but not necessarily counteroffensive operations) in 2024.

If Ukraine can conduct a counteroffensive, that would be great. But I don't get the impression Ukraine could pull that off. Unless we have military aid primed to push into Ukraine once Congress authorizes aid.

I suspect this will be more useful to counter-attack Russia's renewed offensives by hitting exposed spearheads.

UPDATE (Friday): For all the needless panic alleging that Trump would let Putin conquer Ukraine, here's what Trump said recently about dealing with stalled aid to Ukraine:

[Trump] suggested a workaround -- convert the cost of the weapons transfers into a loan. Trump even specified that the loan would bear no interest and would only be paid "if Ukraine ever strikes it rich."

Seized Russian assets could one day constitute that "striking it rich" condition, no? 

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

But how much success has Ukraine had? "Russia has been seeking countries where they can recruit local men to be mercenaries but has had little or no success." Russia did recruit 15,000 non-Gurkha Nepalese. That's 15,000 Russians who won't die charging the guns.

Huh: "The Greek government on Monday approved the country's participation in a European Union naval mission in the Red Sea to protect merchant ships from attacks by Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi militia[.]" Expect new EU authority and many EU meetings--but little protection of merchant ships.

Well that seems gruesomely symbolic of the Air Force's focus on pronouns over bombs on target: "An active-duty member of the US Air Force set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC, on Sunday, according to the Air Force and local authorities."

Zelensky said Ukraine has suffered 31,000 KIA. Perhaps that's true. Then add in those who died from their wounds later, accidents, and disease?

This seems like part of the strategy genre of "I'd like to support X--but it's too late now, darn the luck." Manufacture and send the ammo, and let Ukraine worry about whether it is enough.

Talk of the failure of sanctions ignores that we haven't really cut Russia off from the West even on paper: "The United States and the European Union are piling new sanctions on Russia on the eve of the second anniversary of its invasion of Ukraine and in retaliation for the death of [Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny]"

Own-goal: "U.S. defense officials are concerned the military may lose access to crucial staging ground in the Pacific region — and potentially cede it to China — because of a lapse in funding held up in Congress." A sense of urgency, please. 

Was a bargain deal the price of voting to let Sweden in NATO? "Hungary has ordered four Saab JAS 39 Gripen C/D multirole fighter jets in an undisclosed deal, to sit alongside an existing fleet of 14 aircraft, the manufacturer announced today."

I noted Italy's rearmament a while back: "Italy’s parliament has approved the planned acquisition of two new FREMM frigates with updated electronics and 132 combat-version Leopard tanks as well as 140 other tank versions."

Interesting: "[The V-22] Osprey is a modern marvel in terms of performance and capability, and its operational safety record is on a par with the most widely used conventional rotorcraft flying in the Department of Defense today."

Huh: "Denmark has dropped its investigation into the explosions in 2022 on the Nord Stream pipelines carrying Russian gas to Germany, police said on Monday, becoming the second nation to do so after Sweden closed its own inquiry."

Yeah, appliances have been needlessly jazzed up with computers and Internet connections. Do the tail fins really provide more than status and headaches? I'm not yet too old to figure these things out to set them up. How long before I must rely on my children for this? Tip to Instapundit.

The great sorting continues. Tip to Instapundit.

Biden (or rather, the people who guide him) doesn't want to solve our illegal immigrant crisis. He wants to entrench and exploit it.

China's subliminal war against the Philippines at Scarborough Shoal continues.

The Russian people are accepting the burden of invading Ukraine--until they don't: "Russia's economy appears resilient after more than two years of war with Ukraine — but even the Russian people themselves may be getting impatient with the situation, an expert says."

The Marines are being reduced to something between coast artillery and naval infantry. The Marine Corps wants critics to shut up and salute. But the debate over organizing for global roles is hardly over. I have concerns.

Yet I read we'd see preparations in time to sink them all and let Sun Tsu sort them out: "China's military is perilously close to being able to launch a surprise offensive against Taiwan, the commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet has warned." If we react to preparations but China doesn't invade we'll be blamed for a crisis.

Build actual low-cost basic warships to get numbers to afford losses in a war over sea control. I keep urging the Navy to pick a number and follow the logic. So far the Navy is willing to pick a number but seemingly wants funding to build their fleet of capital ships.

Could a "European" army "go it alone"? One, that's a question about a European Union army--not a random army in Europe. Two, the EU doesn't care about that. It cares about destroying NATO (and American influence) and having the authority to build a "European" army. Two sides of the same coin.

China is battling corruption in its military: "The only thing more frightening to the regime than protests in the streets would be a revolt within the military." The corruption and crackdown means China is less likely to start a war, he says. Unless even losing a war is the least bad option for the Chinese rulers, I say.

Is it just me or is it funny that the Army practices for extremely cold Arctic warfare even as the military says global warming is a major threat? 

While I advocated evacuating Avdiivka to avoid a Russian encirclement of its troops, I do believe I said retreating doesn't end Russian attacks--it just invites them further west: "The latest setback for Kyiv’s soldiers was in the village of Lastochkyne, where they fell back to nearby villages[.]"

Ukraine lost its first Abrams tank. They aren't invulnerable. But Ukraine only got 30 so every tank is precious. Last week I said I wanted a "cope cage" on it so it wouldn't stand out. It also could have used that to avoid destruction, apparently.

Isn't a "sideways landing" a crash? That's quite the media spin on a literal spin.

Deep inside Lebanon: "The Israeli military says its air force on Monday struck targets of the militant Hezbollah group 'deep inside Lebanon,' where residents reported explosions near the northeastern city of Baalbek." That's where a hypothetical ground drive would end, I believe.

Ally: "Greece's frigate Hydra departed for the Red Sea on Monday to participate in a mission to protect merchant ships from attacks by Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi militia[.]"

Removing the Klamath River dams was supposed to bring Eco-Nirvana. The unintended consequences have been an eco-disaster. I assume nature will eventually recover after paying the price. Tip to Instapundit. We must end the tyranny of experts. They don't know what they don't know.

Rodents find eco-friendly insulation in European military equipment tasty. Tip to Instapundit. Also, forward the article to the Navy. But I worry more about senior leadership who have many substitutes for victory. Who am I kidding? They'll still look us in the eye and pretend they achieved victory.

Idiot, Useful: one ea.

Russia has lost two A-50s, but: "this Russian AWACs is still effective against Chinese and other foreign aircraft. Russia is saving its R-50Us for aircraft it can safely detect and track." With its shattered ground forces pinned fighting Ukraine, only air power stands in the way of needing nukes to defend the Far East.

Has Russian impressment of foreigners into combat units in Ukraine made it easier to keep Russians supporting--or at least not opposing--the war? 

Basically, I think he's right: "French President Emmanuel Macron has said it is key for Europe's security to defeat Russia in Ukraine, amid urgent pleas for more weapons from Kyiv." But I suspect his true motivation is different.

The Marines are testing their landing ship medium concept for moving Marines around to support the Navy's anti-ship fight. They got rid of the pretension, at least. I had my own thoughts in Proceedings on what the ship should look like.

Russia reestablished the Leningrad and Moscow military districts to focus on NATO; while the Southern Military District gets responsibility for the war in Ukraine. And about that Eastern Military District.

Iran's proxies have scaled back attacks on Americans in Iraq and Syria after our air strikes. But "after" implies cause and effect. Did our attacks compel the restraint? Or did the administration send another love letter to Iran?

I didn't bother to vote in the Michigan primary. The outcome was never in doubt. If in doubt, I would have voted notwithstanding my former career-motivated aversion to voting in partisan primary elections.

The American and Japanese navies intend to shield Taiwan with BMD-capable warships. Who shields the shields from the PLA? 

American and Japanese ground forces practice island defense: "Troops will practice recapturing an island during the Iron Fist 24, which is 'focused on island defense,' a spokesman from Japan’s Ground Staff Office said by phone Tuesday." Japan might lose the race, after all.

Yes, the EU is moving toward an "autocratic" EU. What part of "ever closer union" has been unclear?

No, the cause is Germany's embrace of green domestic energy: "Germany is experiencing an end to its title of an industrial superpower due to energy crises caused by declining relations with Moscow." Don't pretend Russia is a source of energy solutions rather than security problems. 

You think you distrust and hate our news media enough. You do not. 

The ideological tribe--unlike past racial or ethnic tribes--is wrecking cities without negative repercussions for those politicians doing the wrecking. Indeed, those politicians thrive amidst the ruins--the Curley Effect. Sadly not a Three Stooges reference. The great sorting accelerates. Tip to Instapundit. 

Fear is the beginning of wisdom: "NATO countries closer to Russia spend more on defense because they are more aware of the threat." Well, sure. Note the size of aid to Ukraine from Europe. Yes, America has sent more military aid. But Europe sends more financial aid.

Peak China. When socialists try capitalism they can only go through the motions--for a while. That should be a lesson for us. Another lesson is that the combination of socialism and capitalism is pretty much fascism.

Worry: "In the last few centuries, China had endured periods when independent warlords ruling portions of a divided China, and the communist Chinese feared this might happen again." Indeed. Which is cause for us to worry.

Good: "At a repair base in Ukraine, mechanics patched together Western artillery guns using parts scavenged from the battered carcasses of some 20 damaged howitzers scattered outside." I noted the concept recently.

The Army is adjusting to fewer soldiers. It is emphasizing fires and air defense; moving brigade-level assets to divisions and corps; downgrading COIN to prepare for large-scale combat operations; and eliminating empty slots to diminish the "hollow" part of an undermanned Army.

We're from the government and we're here to help. Tip to Instapundit.

Preventing China from taking over Taiwan is very important to American security. Taiwan under China's control is both an asset for power projection and a demonstration of increased power projection capacity. It is so important to America that we'd have to deny its use as a Chinese asset even if Taiwan won't fight.

Hey! My dating pool is larger than I thought! But perhaps I share too much.

Iran pressured their proxies to halt attacks. The militias didn't want to halt: "Several Iranian-backed Iraqi militias have signaled that they will resume conducting attacks targeting US forces in the Middle East. " America strikes clearly didn't frighten the proxies. What led Iran to restrain the attacks? Fear or gifts?

Hints of sanity in Moscow? "Shoigu additionally highlighted Russia’s Central and Eastern Military Districts (CMD and EMD) to posture against supposed anti-Russian activity in Central Asia and the Indo-Pacific." There is a threat to the Far East and Central Asia. But it can't be named.

Hmmm: "Ukrainian forces have reportedly shot down two Russian Su-34s on February 27, the tenth downed Russian military aircraft within roughly as many days." This is different. Is NATO providing Ukraine with more targeting information to compensate for a lull in military equipment aid?

I've mentioned this before, but Obama got foreign intelligence agencies to spy on Trump before the 2016 election. Is it just me or do a lot of Democrats have incentive to portray Trump as a danger to "our democracy" to avoid prison time?

Was Iran trying to hijack or crash an Israeli airliner near the Red Sea?

Yin and yang: "The Third Taiwan Crisis in 1995-1996 exposed China to the strategic dominance of U.S. aircraft carriers, marking a turning point in Chinese military planning." Our carriers are a huge threat if unchallenged. If challenged, they are an opportunity for China.

The New York attorney general lived in a luxury glass house as she threw stones at Trump. Amazing. I'll be more amazed if James faces consequences. I can understand not liking Trump. But don't go all Moby Dick crazy over it.

This new JACKAL drone is capable of "engaging helicopters in flight". Why not--as I proposed in Army magazine--shoot down other drones?

Priorities: "India, now the country with largest population in the world, at over 1.4 billion people, is largely at peace and prospering while neighboring Pakistan, with a population of 243 million, continues struggling with the Islamic terror groups it created and supported for so long [and corruption]." Shocking.

Russia is setting the stage to destabilize Moldova via its territorial-void hand puppet Transnistria. 

Yes, selective prosecution is not rule of law: "A judge in California threw out charges against two far-right political agitators, saying the federal government engaged in 'selective prosecution' by charging right-wing rioters but not the far-left agitators they fought against, and who did the exact same thing."

Understatement Alert: "Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Wednesday said the Chinese navy's presence in the South China Sea is 'worrisome' but will not deter his country from defending its maritime territory and protecting its fishermen."

So what are the actual casualty figures in the Winter War of 2022? I have no idea. I have no idea if Russia--or at least its top leadership--or Ukraine really know.

Re-use is better than scrapping: "Ukrainian ambassador and the head of an organization representing Ukrainians across Australia appealed for tanks, Taipan helicopters, money and a change in how Australia considers Ukrainian aid."

Oh: "European leaders should discuss using the profits from frozen Russian assets to boost Ukraine’s military in its defense efforts against Moscow, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday." EU--not European--leaders want power to seize assets more than they want to help Ukraine.

Obviously--and rightly under our Constitution--there are limits: "The Pentagon is mulling workarounds to arm Ukraine as the country faces severe ammunition and artillery shortages amid recent Russian advances." Biden needs to stop holding Ukraine hostage to keep our southern border open.

I've been urging America to help send body bags back to Russia since 2014. But this bothers me: "The Army has used approximately $500 million in funding for units in Europe and Africa to continue training Ukrainian forces to fight off invading Russian troops, service Secretary Christine Wormuth said."

Thank you Germany: "The recent downing of attack drones by a German ship in the Middle East likely marks the first known use of live weapons in combat by the country’s navy since it was rebuilt after World War II[.]" They've made great progress. Will Russians notice that Putin achieved this remarkable change?

Communist China never went away while it smiled to attract foreign investment and trade. In college, a test asked if Soviet reforms showed it was no longer a Stalinist Hellscape. I argued, "Just because peasants are allowed to own a couple chickens doesn't mean the terror apparatus is gone." Tip to Instapundit.

Progressives keep predicting Red State Nazi hate is descending on America. But it keeps landing in Blue-run entities: "Pro-Palestine protesters at the University of California, Berkeley, violently shut down an event that featured a former Israel Defence Forces member on Monday night." Tip to Instapundit.

Macron's comment about sending troops to Ukraine was a gift to Putin who replied with nuclear threats: "His big idea was a clumsy bid to grab a leadership role for France, and to a lesser extent the European Union, in the fight for Ukraine." It delays long-range weapons for Ukraine. But Macron has a bigger goal.

I doubt large numbers of jihadis could lay low in America for long without giving even our politicized intelligence agencies something to wonder about. Hamas didn't infiltrate Israel before October 7th, after all. But I agree that CONUS is no longer a sanctuary. But how big would such a terror attack need to be?

Via Instapundit, New York City opened the spigots for easily obtained welfare. Rich people not named Trump should have no worries they will be targeted by government using novel theories of criminality to loot them for cash, right? What part of "from each according to his ability" is unclear?

But intensely serious people of Science tell me we have but a few years to keep the planet from boiling! "Soldiers in Alaska recently tested the Army’s new rifle and automatic rifle in -35 F conditions as the weapons approach official fielding to the 101st Airborne Division later this year."

Good! "Several European nations have sourced hundreds of thousands of 122-millimeter artillery rounds from abroad to donate to Ukraine[.]" Two years into the Winter War of 2022, this buys time to get our act together on 155mm ammunition. Russia should have went right for Berlin--not Kiev.

Given the time period I grew up when Democrats loooved Soviet Russians and felt people like me were evil monsters, I feel like I'm in Bizarro World America as I look at polling about aiding Ukraine's resistance to Russia's invasion. 

Huh: "Using biocement to build a runway or road in a remote location could shave months of prep time and tons of equipment off the traditional methods." Can it be used to patch damaged traditional concrete runways?

As active forces pivot to Asia and cope with a war in Europe, the National Guard has stepped up in the Middle East--where it is in the line of actual fire. The Guard became an operational rather than a strategic reserve.

The empire strikes back: "A recently announced defense deal between Somalia and Turkey to enhance the African nation’s naval capabilities is as much about Mogadishu’s sense of security as it is about Ankara’s ambition to project maritime power beyond its own shores, according to regional experts." Indeed.

The Iranians are expanding their regular and nutball navies.

Report to Congress on Navy-Marine Corps distributed operations concept.

How? By demanding they spend more on defense as they promised Obama? Also, NATO is still there! "President Donald Trump shocked the Europeans by upending the transatlantic balance on which the postwar Western world was built[.]" So Europe is "Trump-proofing" itself--i.e., doing what Trump wants.

The Chinese Communist Party does not believe diversity is a strength for China.

Is China's economy okay or not?

And now for something completely different (news from ISW):

Russia will remain a threat to America regardless of how the Winter War of 2022 ends. That's why it is important to keep Russia as far east as possible. If we have to "understand"--which too often means "accept"--Russia's claim that it must have buffer, why isn't our need valid?

Yes: "Ukrainian assessments state that Russian advances along the frontline could gain significant momentum by summer 2024 unless Ukraine’s partners increase provisions of artillery ammunition." Why is Biden helping Putin by clinging to his demand our southern border remain open to illegal immigration?

Russia will obviously use its growing influence in West Africa to cause distracting chaos. AFRICOM is an economy-of-force front. But it is still a front.

Maybe if Biden hadn't needlessly abused the Saudis for fighting the Houthi, they'd have suppressed this problem: "A ship attacked by Yemen's Houthi rebels has sunk in the Red Sea after days of taking on water, officials said Saturday[.]" I warned Iran would have a proxy "along the Red Sea oil shipping routes."

At some point the long-suffering and now dying Russians won't take it, right? "Thousands of mourners gathered in Moscow for the funeral of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny despite a heavy police presence and the threat of detention." 

I wonder if Ukraine refrains from mobilization to avoid giving larger Russia an excuse to do the same: "By early 2024 Russian losses in Ukraine ... reached unsustainable levels [and] efforts inside Russia to recruit more men to fight in Ukraine are unable to obtain enough new recruits to replace all the losses."

Russia's botnets on offense in the cyber realm.

So it isn't dead? "The U.S. Air Force has released pictures of a live AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon hypersonic missile, or ARRW, under the wing of a B-52H bomber during a training event at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam."

Sadly, a good test: "Early last month, the US Army sent four Stryker-mounted 50-kilowatt laser prototypes to the Middle East for real-world testing that includes facing down dust particles[.]" And also, missiles.

I have no doubt we are: "I believe that many observers have overestimated the country’s apparent power." My question is do we overestimate our apparent power by more.

Xi counts on carefully calibrated nationalism to maintain power: "Beijing adjusts the volume on nationalistic rhetoric to serve its interests, according to Yuan, engaging in a balancing act of patriotic sentiment when necessary." I've warned the Chinese Communist Party is riding the tiger. 

Italy rearms. 

As long as the wheels don't come off before he leaps to the White House, Newsom doesn't care. Tip to Instapundit.

Iran's campaign against shipping in the Red Sea via their Houthi proxy is hurting Egypt's Suez Canal revenue. Ultimately that hurts Saudi Arabia.

Idiot, Useful: 1 ea. The writer in the SCMP is too ignorant to realize freedom wins even by his standard.

China: 1) Hong Hong is wealthy. We should firmly control it! 2) China takes firm control, crushing its dwindling democracy. 3) Hong Kong unexpectedly stops being the financial powerhouse it once was. Tip to Instapundit.

How China's subliminal war actually started: "In 2012, when Chinese marine surveillance vessels pushed the Philippine navy out of disputed waters in the South China Sea, Beijing learned it was possible to assert its sweeping territorial claims under the cover of enforcing domestic laws, without the help of its military."

Do they work? "The DF-21D missile, part of China's strategic anti-area/access denial (A2/AD) arsenal, represents a pivotal component of Beijing's military posture against US naval power in the Indo-Pacific." There are many points of failure if we attack them. Is it really "pivotal" given its large navy and air force?

Is this a sign that Russia has run out of other resources? "Russian forces appear to be willing to risk continued aviation losses in pursuit of tactical gains in eastern Ukraine, likely along the Avdiivka-Donetsk City line." 

Russia is relying more on North Korea for weapons and ammo? Just what is North Korea's ammunition production capacity? Is it really more significant than the West's? Or is North Korea's support a one-time dump of ammunition--starting with the old, degraded shells--produced over many decades?

Are Russia's Nukes Real and Spectacular?

Russia's need for nukes to defend its territorial integrity is even higher as its ground forces continue to get ground down trying to conquer Ukraine. Moscow does not want China to be tempted.

Well, sure: 

FT reported that the documents show that Russia has war-gamed avenues for employing tactical weapons and alleged that the files show that Russia has a lower threshold for using nuclear weapons “if the desired result can’t be achieved through conventional means. FT stated that the criteria for a nuclear response vary between “an enemy incursion on Russian territory” to more specific parameters, such as “the destruction of 20 percent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines.” than Russian officials have ever publicly admitted.

This is no surprise. Russia's military is too weak to defend its entire border. 

Indeed, after this was scheduled for posting but prior to posting, I see this new detail about the FT news:

The classified papers, dating from 2008 to 2014, show a readiness to deploy nuclear arms at a threshold significantly lower than previously disclosed by Russia, alarming experts and international observers, the Financial Times reported.

The leaked materials indicate that Russia's eastern military district has actively prepared for various scenarios involving a Chinese attack, underscoring the pivotal role Russia's nuclear arsenal plays in its defense strategy. Such preparations suggest a complex relationship with China, juxtaposing public alliances with private contingencies for conflict.

Complex? Indeed. They are friends with temporary benefits. 

And tied down in Ukraine to build a needless buffer where almost all of its ground power is being bled dry, nukes are Russia's only hope to hold the Far East territory Russia took from China in the 19th century.

Putin sure does like to wave his nukes around:

Putin also emphasized that Russia possesses weapons that can strike Western countries and claimed that Western escalation is threatening a possible nuclear conflict that could destroy civilization. Putin and Russian officials frequently invoke nuclear threats to instill fear in Western audiences and weaken Western support for Ukraine.

But as much as Russia needs nukes to compensate for small ground forces now being ground up, are the nuclear weapons real? I only ask because this kind of nuclear threat is nothing new and doesn't even require actual possession of working nukes.

Sometimes I wonder if we know Russia's nukes are mostly inert but go along so China won't pounce on Russia and gain its territory and resources to use against us.

I guess I'm assuming this FT "scoop" is a Russian information operation to nudge China to look elsewhere to purge the memories of the Century of Humiliation. Like out to sea where America is, ideally--from Moscow's perspective.

But with Chinese military problems stinking up the PLA's new-car smell, perhaps China might announce its arrival on the world stage with an easier signal event than tangling with America and its allies.

UPDATE: I've recently noted that Putin's war is causing friction in the relationship.

UPDATE: Russia's need for working nukes is clear when you try to add up the declining numbers of recruits available for defending Russia's lengthy border. And it gets worse when Russia concentrates them on a needless front in Ukraine where they die in large numbers with lots of equipment destroyed or worn out.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

Strategersky?

I think Putin screwed the pooch by portraying a docile and disarming West as his enemy. But the West has to make Putin pay the price for it to be a serious mistake. If we let Russia defeat Ukraine by depriving Ukraine of the means to fight, in fifty years Putin's strategic error could instead look far-sighted.

Indeed:

As far as the history of Russia is concerned, I think he will be remembered as someone who made the Russian state much weaker, because I think he's made, already more than 10 years ago, a profound strategic mistake, which was to choose to have the West as an enemy. That was a choice he made, and choosing to have the West as an enemy means choosing to have China as a patron. And I think having China as a patron is a much weaker situation for Russia than trying to be between China and the West.

So I think he'll be remembered as someone who made a basic strategic mistake.

I've been droning on about this for a long time:

Will Russia at some point realize that they risk a two-front war with their pointless confrontation with NATO that lacks the ability and interest in attacking Russia? Will Russia realize that having European Russia as a secure rear area is the smart thing to have with a rising China in their east?

NATO was dwindling in power even as it had a false dawn of post-Soviet collapse expansion as worried former Soviet colonies sought refuge in NATO after the USSR lost the Cold War and shed its former imperial territories:

Remember, in addition to the general decline in Western defense spending, America's military became "unbalanced" with a long focus on fighting insurgents and terrorists, leaving it unprepared for conventional warfare.

In addition, readiness outside of those forces sent to fight in the Obama administration declined with the 2009 planning assumption that America faced no threat of war with a peer or near-peer in the next ten years medium term:

We assume no enemies will match us in the medium term. This is undoubtedly correct. But this also sounds too much like we're instituting the British Ten Year Rule from 1919.

It was a perfectly reasonable rule when adopted by the British government in 1919, which stated the British would not face a war in the next ten years. The rule was formally abolished 13 years later, in 1932. But defense spending did not rebound from its post-1919 collapse, and when war broke out in 1939, the British only barely proved they'd done enough to withstand the German offensive in the opening of the war.

Good grief, if Putin had just kept his mouth shut and his army at home, NATO would have continued to disarm. In a few years of the trend continuing, the fierce warriors of Montenegro could have conquered Germany.

Questions of whether NATO should be abandoned were rampant throughout the West. The EU salivates over the prospect.

At some level the Russian leaders understood there was no NATO threat because Russia decided to pretend NATO was a threat in order to conceal their appeasement of China. And a lot of pretending was required:

And for years after the Cold War, NATO expansion east was in name only. NATO did not add forces to new NATO members and NATO didn't build up the logistics infrastructure to sustain a defense of those new members, let alone to attack Russia from there. And NATO didn't even have war plans to defend new members. Russia changed all that with its serial aggression against Ukraine.

Really, you can't simultaneously argue that NATO provoked Russian aggression and that it is perfectly natural for Russia to want buffer territory in the west. Would Russia have attacked west if NATO never admitted former Soviet-controlled territory, or not?

But as time passed, NATO finally began to notice it still had a Moscow threat from the east. All those Russian threats that Putin believed were cost-free because NATO couldn't invade Russia began to add up in price. 

I noted the price of this pointless hostility toward the West and asked why no advisor was willing to tell Putin he was effing up royally:

Russia has alienated the West which was not a military threat to Russia by pointless threats to the West given weight by Russian invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, even though the West was willing to help Russia upgrade their defense industry until 2014; while China stole and then surpassed Russian military technology and production methods.

And recall that China has dormant claims on Russian Far Eastern territory with a treaty keeping those claims dormant up for cancellation in 2021.

Putin isn't brilliant. He is weakening Russia's economy, failing to arrest the decline of Russia's defense industries, alienating potential allies, and strengthening potential enemies all for the "glory" of Abhkazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, parts of the Donbas, and bases in Assad's Syria.

And he's not that impressive riding a horse bare-chested, truth be told.

Chimps with nukes.

What Western plot could be as effective at wrecking Russia than Putin himself? Seriously, why isn't there a conspiracy theory floating around Russia on that possibility? 

And over time with frequent restatements of the threat, Putin may have believed his own BS--or interpreted the natural but still anemic Western reaction as proof he must have been right all along!

I suspect his pact with China was to buy time to recover strength to cope with China. And that with the latest extension agreed to on the eve of Russia's mobilization to invade Ukraine, Putin believed he had a slightly postponed deadline to settle the NATO "threat" and pivot to Asia, much as America has since the demise of the Soviet Union.

Hell, on the eve of war the situation was so uncertain that I wondered if Putin was trying to get a diplomatic settlement with the West in order to pivot east before his deadline extension with China ran out.

And here we are with Russia failing to get a necessary short and glorious war to regain Ukraine, intimidate and ultimately break apart NATO; impress China; wow his people with the luck to live during his reign; and create the strategic situation to reinforce the Far East and make it less likely China will pounce on Russia as China's power rises.

Instead, Putin exposed the reality of the Russian military to China. Oopsky.

Will the naturally paranoid Russian leadership that knows it is one whiff of suspicion ahead of a fatal fall out of a two-story window decide that Putin is making a basic strategic mistake rather than deliberately trying to destroy Russia?

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.