In the Debate on the Marine Role and Organization, Who are the Zombies?

Apparently, the debate over the Marine Corps' design and mission is settled. And everyone needs to salute and march into the glorious future of Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO).

Is the Marine EABO concept destroying the Marine Corps?

“Marine resources and organizational cohesion have been severely damaged. General Berger’s injudicious change of direction will adversely affect Marine war-fighting capabilities, internal morale, and recruiting for years to come.”

All of this has been done for a stunningly stupid investment in a land based anti-ship mission against China that will not work. It is competitive rather than complementary with the Navy and Air Force, and it is a scandalous misallocation of Marine resources. Inserting by sea three or four small Marine units, with no support, on atolls in the South China Sea invites capture and defeat.

There are certainly outside respectable voices--such as Robert Work--strongly in favor of the Marine Corps' change in direction:

The Marine Corps’ Force Design 2030, written under the direction of the 38th commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. David Berger, has been the target of much criticism since its release in 2020. In this article, former Undersecretary of the Navy and Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work addresses these criticisms and defends the document’s vision for the future of the Corps. Ultimately, he argues that it’s time for the self-proclaimed Chowderites, who have fought without success to oppose the commandant’s vision, to cede the field.

But opposition to Force Design 2030 has also been ridiculed as "zombie" behavior:

Force Design 2030 marks the U.S. Marines’ turn back to the sea after two decades of ground combat against insurgents and terrorists. The change has not set well with some 20 retirees, a who’s-who of Marine luminaries who cast themselves as intellectual descendants of past Marine Corps defenders.  ...

Chowderites have released the zombie horde again in hopes of reshaping the personnel battlespace at a critical time, or so I surmise.

I guess I'm between the sides that say this is a disaster and those who say the disaster voices (the Chowderites) are misguided, possibly puffed up with unearned importance, and quite likely dangerous.

The need to assist the Navy in defeating the Chinese navy in the western Pacific seems evident to me:

I am on board attempts to get the Marines to adapt to A2/AD by spreading out in smaller units more useful for raids or small missions, as I wrote about in this article in the Naval Institute Proceedings (USNI membership required to access it online)--at least until naval and air dominance is achieved.

The idea of coastal defense is also an idea I'm in favor of the Navy or Marines adopting.I thought that in place of MEUs as the building block that Marine Expeditionary Companies (MECs) could be that basic unit for disaggregated operations under A2/AD threat. And some could be used for other purposes in support of expeditionary advanced base operations[.]

So I like the direction of changes. And I certainly don't think that the answer to the China problem is to jam more traditional forces into the Western Pacific within easy reach of Chinese strikes. I've long been worried about that. So in principle I like mobile Marine anti-ship detachments in the Western Pacific.

But if you want to defend spreading out all of the Marines for distributed anti-ship operations, now do super carriers.

Sure, I worry about losing the most significant ground force that has fought at the Army's side in expeditionary campaigns since 9/11--and really, since World War II. But I appreciate the Marines rejecting being a second Army and losing its identity as a sea service. So I don't think my concerns about the Marine direction are a "zombie" argument, defending an undead past with unthinking determination to destroy the living and evolving Marine Corps.

My concerns about the Marines revolve on how the Marines are evolving to support the too-small Navy in a sea control fight. 

Note that initial article. The concept is completely changing the Marines to put "three or four small Marine units, with no support, on atolls in the South China Sea[.]"

If helping the Navy is so important, how is it possible for the end result of massive transformation be 3 or 4 anti-ship outposts? I mean, even if that is per Marine Littoral Regiment, that seems small. As I warned, when you start to sink ships, sink ships. 

And what about the logistics? As that first article warns, the new Marine operating concept invites the capture and defeat of the Marine expeditionary advance bases.

Also, the approach isn't as appropriate for the rest of the world where no fleets threaten Western control of the seas. Is a Marine Corps focused on anti-ship outposts appropriate for Europe? For Africa? For the Middle East? For the Western Hemisphere? What large fleets challenge sea control in those areas?

Sure--and this is reassuring--the Marine Littoral Regiments are limited:

only two of seven Marine infantry regiments will be reconfigured as Marine littoral regiments. The other five will retain their “traditional” infantry-heavy structure, which is optimized for sustained operation ashore.  

And truth be told, much of Work's argument has merit. His discussion of the non MLR Marines as able to fight ashore in up to divisional strength reassures me--somewhat. 

But all of the tanks and much of the equipment for sustaining operations ashore against capable enemies is gone. Sure, the Marines say they can do without that mere legacy stuff:

The bolstered infantry unit is “lighter, mobile, distributed, more lethal” and “expanding the definition of combined arms from … kinetics to multi-domain,” said Brig. Gen. Kyle Ellison, commanding general of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab.

Even if on paper what is left is enough, will it be? Tube artillery doesn't seem obsolete in Ukraine these days. And what about replacing losses? That traditional infantry-heavy structure is traditional for what era? The 1920s?

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for the Corps.

By all means, read Work's arguments. You may be persuaded. But I still have issues with the change.

Not all Marine Corps focus must be on fighting the PLA Navy simply because China is the "pacing" threat against which we must measure our military capabilities. It is simplistic to rest an argument on that basis. "Pacing" does not mean "only." And given that Work defends the changes by noting that only two of the Marine infantry regiments are converting to MLRs, he must agree at some level. So the way the non-MLR regiments are equipped must matter. 

Why change all of the Marines by divesting so much heavy equipment when the changes needed--if done right--are a response to current weaknesses in the Navy and Air Force that haven't had to think about sinking ships in a long time? In a specific--if highly important--part of the world?

I've asked before and I'll ask again, why wasn't the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command--the Navy's in-house ground force component--given the mission of creating anti-ship units to support the fleet? Marine regiments could have supported those NECC units rather than changing the entire Corps for that narrow mission.

Indeed, what will the anti-ship Marines do when they succeed in helping the Navy gain sea control in the western Pacific? Spend a decade rebuilding the heavier conventional forces needed for projecting power ashore--and inland--again?

Seriously, the Navy will get bigger and build new capabilities--like loitering suicide drones--to address the threat, right? After that, pushing Marines into the shadow of Chinese missile and aircraft envelopes won't be critical, right?

The newly nominated Marine Corps commandant should not dismiss criticism. Will he?

[Gen. Eric Smith] has been a strong advocate for transforming the Marine Corps through a variety of initiatives including Force Design 2030, Talent Management 2030, and the “stand-in forces” concept.

Yet Smith admits that the impetus for change is in the Pacific:

There are roughly 80,000 Marines aligned to missions in the Pacific, with nearly 24,000 of them forward deployed or stationed in theater … They will fight tomorrow if a war begins, but without change, they will do so with decades-old tools and organizations that are not up to the standard of a peer conflict. This is not acceptable.

What about the rest of the Marines not aligned for missions in the Pacific? What about six months or a year after the fight starts in the Pacific?

I am not a zombie for asking friggin' questions about such a radical and broad change in Marine Corps missions, equipment, and organization. 

But those who march forward into the glorious EABO future without being able to articulate why my questions and concerns are unworthy of their time to address just might be. Will the next commandant address such questions?

And if not, who is the zombie plowing ahead unthinkingly?

UPDATE: To support the Navy in the Pacific, the Marines want a Long-Range Unmanned Surface Vessel: 

The LRUSV is a 12.5 meter (40-foot) autonomous (unmanned) boat designed to operate at ranges of nearly 2,000 kilometers and launch loitering munitions to engage enemy targets afloat and ashore.

It will carry a number of the Hero 120 loitering munition that "weighs 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) including a 4.6 kg warhead. Max endurance is 60 minutes and max range of the control signal is 40 kilometers."

Huh.

Question: Why is this a Marine vessel and not a Navy vessel? The Marines are changing to avoid being a second Army. Are they trying to be a second Navy?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

What Size Metric Matters?

Does America still have the advantage in battling China for control of the seas?

The Chinese navy is larger than the U.S. Navy. But the American fleet's tonnage is more than double. Does this mean our Navy can still defeat the PLAN? 

All in all, according to a report issued by the US Congressional Research Service this week, the PLAN has 351 “battle force ships”, making it the biggest navy in the world. The United States Navy has just 294.

It’s an apples-and-oranges comparison of course, as the report is at pains to point out. By other measures, the USN remains well in the lead. The total tonnage of US warships, for instance, is more than twice that of Chinese ones. This means that the US fleet is longer ranging and better able to cope with rough open-ocean conditions, a true blue-water force. ...

So the USN remains comfortably more powerful than the PLAN, for now.

Of course, a lot of that tonnage advantage is in our huge carriers. Also, our ships need to be larger to reach overseas deployment stations. China's ships just have to leave port to fight.

Not that I'd trade geography with China, of course. While the debate is whether America can win control of the seas close to China, I don't think anyone judges that China could win control of the seas close to America.

The one statistic that makes me feel better is that the Navy has more than 9,000 vertical launch cells. China has about a thousand. And our allies add significant naval (including air) power. 

Thus far I'm mostly worried about our forward ships surviving the initial Chinese attack until reinforcements arrive. 

Because I worry what China can do with temporary sea control. 

And yes, I'm well aware of the kill chain for Chinese ASBMs. 

and on the bright side, if I'm right that carriers are a waste of money for sea control missions now, China is wasting money on them too. Although I don't think China intends to use them for sea control missions.

I just don't like to assume too much about our Navy's ability to fight. If tonnage isn't key because of the factors that add to American tonnage, maybe numbers matter more. And we should pick a number.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Doesn't Anybody Notice That America Already Downgraded Europe?

America should cut its military commitment to defend Europe in order to focus on Asia? America already did that! What's left to pull out? Our military cemeteries there? Leaving Europe is such a bad idea for American security that I can't believe the notion persists.

Oh come on!

As the political scientist Michael Mazarr recently wrote in Foreign Affairs (“Why America Still Needs Europe,” April 17), significantly downgrading the United States’ defense commitments in Europe would “validate the grim picture that China and Russia now paint of a United States that is pitilessly self-interested and transactional, and would severely undermine the United States’ painstaking attempts to build a reputation as that rare great power that offers something to the world other than naked ambition.”

This is a common refrain among those who believe that any meaningful U.S. military drawdown from Europe—most likely involving other states stepping up to shoulder the lion’s share of the defense burden—would sever U.S. ties with the continent and even the world. Pulling back, they argue, is prohibitively risky, would save little money, and could destroy broader cooperation between the United States and Europe.

I don't believe European deployments are depriving American forces in Asia of significant, usable military power. 

Second, America has a great and enduring interest in keeping Europe out of enemy hands.

Third, if you want a meaningful American military drawdown from Europe:

[If] you think America shouldn't need nearly as much military power to defend Europe from Russia compared to when the threat was the USSR,  well ... mission accomplished! 

At the height of the Cold War America had lots of troops in Europe with large numbers of tanks, artillery, and aircraft. In the seas around Europe, the American Navy roamed to contain the Soviet navy and keep lines of supply from North America to Europe intact. America's troop level in Europe--even with enhancements to reassure NATO allies while Russia is at war with Ukraine--is a tiny fraction of Cold War commitments. Compare the 100,000+ American troops in Europe now--up from 80,000 in the month before Russia invaded this year--to the 450,000+ Americans in Europe in 1959, the peak year of troop strength there.

I do appreciate that the author criticized in that initial article had a chance to reply. I'll settle for one quote from him reflecting my point made just above:

Their argument does not acknowledge the fact that Washington has already shifted to a “supporting role” in Europe. At the peak of the Cold War in the 1950s, the United States had over 400,000 personnel in Europe, and as late as the mid-1980s, it had over 300,000. In 2021, there were about 60,000. By contrast, non-U.S. NATO members in 2021 fielded over 1.9 million military personnel, including over 500,000 active-duty forces from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom alone. Nor are the U.S. expenditures as onerous as the authors imply; the direct cost of U.S. forces in Europe—between $30 billion and $40 billion according to IISS—was roughly a tenth of what other NATO members collectively spent on defense in 2022. The United States’ post-Cold War presence in Europe has therefore already seen a “meaningful drawdown.”.

Exactly. 

Europe is clearly an economy-of-force front compared to the priority Asia front. And America's military footprint already reflect that reality. What more should America do to satisfy the seemingly endless desire by some to walk away from Europe?

I don't take reassurances that of course Europe will step up to defend Europe from Russia which may be able to bully a Europe that has too few nuclear weapons. If we are wrong about this soothing assumption and pull out our few combat formations still in Europe, we'll find we need much, much more to liberate Europe.

What might China do while America is recovering what it fought to achieve and then defend since 1944?

And it might even be worse than a Russian conquest if the "Europe" that steps up to stop Russia in the absence of an American-led NATO turns out to be the proto-imperial European Union that finally rips out that troublesome prefix with nobody to resist the Eurocrats. We'll pretend they are allies and lose even the chance of recapturing Europe.

Leaving Europe is a bad idea for America.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Gets Dangerously Skittish

Sure, Russia has learned some things from its early poor war performance. They'd have to be non-sentient to not learn anything at all. But don't panic. Keep calm and carry on.

Russian improvements on their early war performance don't seem to have led to Russian victories of any significance. So saying the war is "now going Russia's way" seems silly:

What many of these analysts failed to recognize, however, is that Russia has vastly more capacity to make war, both in terms of material and personnel, and therefore has the capacity to absorb enormous losses and still remain viable. ...

Put simply, Ukraine doesn’t have the personnel or industrial capacity to replace their lost men and equipment in comparison to the Russians. 

And calling Ukraine's defense of a number of cities a mistake seems really wrong. Yes, Ukraine suffered casualties. But Russia has likely suffered far more. And Ukraine bought time for the West to arm it. Ukraine's weaponry is getting better while Russia's is getting worse. That doesn't seem like Ukraine is screwing up.

I just don't think much of that author's war analysis. He relies too much on Russia's size advantage, which--using the Iran-Iraq War where Iraq won "on points" as a counter-example--I believe is no guarantee of Russian victory over Ukraine despite a theoretical long-term advantage:

Like Iran, Russia has a 3:1 advantage in population. But Russian morale as a conqueror, that is clearly not liberating people from Nazis, is not superior. This could break Russia before Ukraine. Just how do we define the transition from the short run to the long run?

What about GDP and defense spending? You'd think Russia clearly has the edge with a 9:1 GDP advantage. 

But Russia is under Western sanctions that will harm Russia's ability to go to war production levels. Russian Soviet-era stockpiles will run low in time--or reach the material and ammo almost more dangerous to Russian users than Ukrainian targets.

And Ukraine is being supplied by the West, which has an immensely greater GDP advantage than Russia's advantage over Ukraine. So you can't just count the value of the arms and services provided to Ukraine when comparing the economic advantage. You'd have to count the research and development and logistics value on Ukraine's side of the ledger that provides the weapons, supplies, and services.

So when you compare the scientific, industrial, and military effort on both sides, is Russia really superior in material?

Ukraine hasn't won. And might not. Let's first see how Ukraine's "big push" goes before saying it is doomed. 

And if Russia hangs on to territory it captured since 2022 because Ukraine can't recapture it, the Russian victory may be too expensive to really secure Russian territorial integrity.  

But not because an alarmed NATO arms up to invade a weakened Russia. But because of that which must not be named. 

Of course, if the West heeds that author's warnings of "inevitable" Russian victory and abandons Ukraine, he will be made right. But because of Western policy and not because of the balance of power.

My view is don't let the Wookie win; focus on what we can do to help Ukraine defeat  Russia:

General Grant put it well to his subordinates who raised constant worries about what Lee could do when Grant's army marched:

Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.

Our enemies need to spend more time dwelling on their concerns about what America can do.

Whatever Russia has learned so far, it isn't a double somersault. Analysts can argue that Putin can never admit defeat in Ukraine. But that is true only until there are outcomes worse than admitting defeat in Ukraine. 

UPDATE (Monday): There appears to be action around Bakhmut, in particular:

Ukrainian military sources told the BBC that a series of small scale armoured offensive operations are under way.

They did not say whether this was the start of Ukraine's long awaited full scale counter-offensive.

Earlier, Russia's defence ministry said it thwarted a major Ukrainian attack in Donetsk.

I'd imagine Bakhmut is a feint. Unless Russian defenses prove to be weak.

UPDATE (Monday): Oh?

But it is now time that the United States develop a vision for how the war ends. Fifteen months of fighting has made clear that neither side has the capacity—even with external help—to achieve a decisive military victory over the other. Regardless of how much territory Ukrainian forces can liberate, Russia will maintain the capability to pose a permanent threat to Ukraine.

One problem with so many Western analysts is that they seek "visions for how a war ends" instead of visions for victory. Let's focus on that shall we, rather than looking for ways that essentially give Russia a partial victory--and launching pad for future attacks.

FFS, at least wait until we see if Ukraine's counteoffensive actually proves Ukraine can't defeat the invaders.

UPDATE (Monday): Per ISW, Ukrainian forces have made some relatively decent advances around Bakhmut; Ukraine's Russian proxy forces are still active inside Russia; and Ukrainian forces are launching what appear to be probes at other unspecified areas of the front. Meanwhile, Russia continues small attacks on the Donbas front.

UPDATE (Monday): I wonder if Ukraine could have built pre-fabricated bridge sections to rapidly create  underwater bridges across the Dnieper River to make the Kherson front an option. Move air defenses to cover crossings and add in boats and helicopters, and Ukraine might build a supporting threat from there.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Russia blew a hole in the Kakhovka dam that will flood land along the Dnieper River on the Kherson front. The Russians either believe this is a viable front for a Ukrainian attack, want to divert Ukrainian attention, or see it as retaliation for the pro-Ukraine Russian raids into Russia.

UPDATE (Tuesday): If the nearby nuclear plant isn't threatened, I can't rule out that Ukraine did this.

If Ukraine knows Russia would blow it during a Ukrainian river crossing, Ukraine has incentive to blow it ahead of such operations so the flood water surge will recede before Ukraine attempts to leap the river.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Aside from the nuclear plant issue, I'm not sure if destroying the bridge is a war crime. Both sides have valid military reasons to destroy the dam. I guess it might depend on whether the destruction's civilian impact is disproportionate to the objective of closing off the river--if Russia did it, or making sure the river is open by a certain date--if Ukraine did it. 

Unless I'm missing something. Which is certainly possible.

As an aside, that issue of "proportionality" is about the collateral damage of a military mission. It has nothing to with preventing one side from retaliating heavily if someone else attacks. That notion of "proportionality" is nonsense. It is designed to keep one side from effectively fighting back to stop attacks.

For example, if a unit is taking sniper fire from a building, it is disproportionate to nuke the building to get rid of the sniper.

To be clear, this is awful. And it may be a war crime. But I don't assume it is regardless of who did it. War is awful.

UPDATE (Tuesday): This makes me think it is unlikely that Ukraine did it:

Officials said about 22,000 people live in areas at risk of flooding in Russian-controlled areas, while 16,000 live in the most critical zone in Ukrainian-held territory.

Ukraine would have warned its people to evacuate, I imagine. 

UPDATE (Friday): Reports of Ukrainian attacks at separate points along the front. The Russians say there is heavy fighting in Zaporizhia province and that their forces are smashing the Ukrainians. We'll see. But no doubt all the time Ukraine took to create its counteroffensive force gave Russia time to rest and rebuild its troops in the south and to build fortifications.

UPDATE (Friday): It is interesting that foreign observers are saying sightings of Western vehicles indicates the main effort. I've long said I think Soviet models will do the heavy lifting in the opening moves of the offensive rather than the few modern Western tanks. And I've mentioned that committing those few Western advanced models early would be a great feint. Because it would be assumed they signal the main effort.

UPDATE (Friday): There is very little out there except locations and loud Russian claims of stunning victories. Perhaps that is true. But Ukraine and Western media are clearly being quiet to avoid telling the Russians too much. I'll wait for more detailed and reliable news before I start getting skittish.

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

Weekend Data Dump

China's space plane.

Erdogan won Turkey's run off election. Darn. We remain on a break for a little longer. Europeans are relieved that they don't have to reject the pro-West challenger's efforts to join the EU. Will Erdogan clear Sweden for NATO membership now that the election is past?

The new presidential campaign season is starting. And now for something completely different:

The Taliban have a use for some of our weapons they captured: "The Taliban and Iran exchanged heavy gunfire Saturday on the Islamic Republic's border with Afghanistan, killing and wounding troops while sharply escalating rising tensions between the two countries amid a dispute over water rights." A silver lining, I suppose. I missed the news last week.

The South China Sea.

The multi-war rumbles on: "Airstrikes attributed to Israel targeted Syria's capital city late Sunday, the first such strikes in nearly a month, Syrian state media reported." This is part of the Iran-Israel conflict.

Illegitimate federal agency power expansion reversed in one area. More please. The statutes are a guideline for agencies to push to and beyond their limits as long as the agencies can get away with it.

Russia fired Iskander ballistic missiles at Kiev in a rare daylight assault.

Huh: "Saudi Arabia said it executed two Bahraini men on Monday after being convicted of belonging to a militant group wanting to destabilize the two Mideast kingdoms." Iran has supported Shia unrest in the past. But after the Iran-Saudi detente deal, Iran really can't say anything.

Jane Fonda wants white men in prison because of *checks notes* global warming. There is but one appropriate response:

 

Will it be Trump-Biden 2.0 in 2024? Look, I voted for Trump in 2020. He was screwed. The media rigged it. Was there voting fraud? That's guaranteed given how widespread mail-in ballots lacked safeguards. Local election officials only had to not look to let it happen. Was it decisive? I doubt it. Media propaganda was the real thumb on the scales. That doesn't mean we owe it to Trump to support him. Politicians are a means to policy ends. I moved on. Mind you, if he's the candidate I'll vote for him. If he isn't, Trump's most dedicated fans must do the same. Strap in.

BRICS is no currency threat to America. Too many members have high interest in preventing the success of rival members of the grouping. Tip to Instapundit.

Friends: "The coast guard of the United States, Japan and the Philippines will hold trilateral maritime exercise in the South China Sea this week, the first such manoeuvres between them as a time of growing concern about China's moves in the region."

The XXB variant: "Last week when a Chinese senior health adviser projected 65 million COVID-19 cases per week in China by June, some health experts sounded the alarm." Huh. No indication it is particularly lethal.

Friends: "Japan’s three military branches will participate in the United States’ Large Scale Global Exercise 2023, according to a Wednesday news release from the Japanese Defense Ministry’s Joint Staff Office (JSO)."

Leaning forward: "Japan put its ballistic missile defences on alert on Monday and vowed to shoot down any projectile that threatens its territory, after North Korea notified it of a planned satellite launch between May 31 and June 11." 

I don't know what to make of Peter Zeihan. He's supposedly a geopolitical genius. Maybe. Or he has a knack for self-promotion who tells convincing stories. 

Can France refocus on its corner of former colonial Africa to defeat Russian and Turkish influence there? If so, France has to help civilians and promote rule of law. Good in theory. But the local governments prefer help from countries content to let the locals be corrupt. Like Russia, especially. It's a dilemma.

For me, the controversy over taking white male roles in entertainment and making them female and/or minority in new version isn't about fearing or hating minority or female actors. It's about hating stories that use the new characters to promote woke crap rather than tell a story. I liked the new Equalizer movies. I liked the new Battlestar Galactica. Because the new characters were part of a good story and you were invested in them. By injecting woke, the basic physical characteristics of the actors are the point, relying on bashing viewers who don't like the character or story by accusing them of being haters. 

French military intelligence: "'Reinforced since February 24th, 2022, we no longer focus on a 60-degree angle between Western Africa and the Middle-East dictated by the fight against terrorism, but we constantly look around with a 360-degree spectrum, not only geographically-speaking, but also with the integration of space, cyber and underwater domains,' Carcy said." Why it isn't a 270-degree spectrum.

The Czechs will by the CV90 infantry fighting vehicle. The Czechs will send Ukraine its Soviet BMP-2s being replaced. And the CV90 soon may get a "combat proven" stamp of approval in Ukrainian service.

Making friends in Singapore.

The U.S. military is involved in humanitarian and disaster recovery on Guam after the major typhoon strike.

Crimea is already nullified as a Russian naval asset: "Russia continues to keep most of its Black Sea fleet in the port of Novorossiysk, which is on the east coast of the Black Sea." This helps protect Odessa.

I've noted that Wagner is focused on helping Russia and not helping Mali: "The Mali military government use of Russian Wagner Group mercenaries has not proved very effective for Mali but has provided Russian with an opportunity to get past the sanctions imposed on Russia and obtain needed weapons for Russian forces in Ukraine."

Via Instapundit, are home prices about to collapse? I've already experienced one collapse. My home value is 50% higher than my purchase price. But that's over 20 years. Luckily I wasn't looking for an investment but a place to live. And any losses will be paper losses since I plan on staying here. But it is a bit demoralizing. Unless another dip lasts long enough to depress my taxable value. Which would help long after value recovers.

You may recall my unease over the last six months because I assumed Russia was building an offensive reserve within Russia. But I never read anything about this despite the fact that I believed it was a completely obvious course of action. Well, "Russia is rebuilding an offensive force in Russia but this process won’t be complete for another year." I've long worried that Russia will rebuild such a force before Ukraine can exploit Russia's first-year losses. Is it a race? Also, how big is it? And is it getting better equipment as older stuff is sent to the front to hold the line?

Avoiding being a missile magnet.

Agreed in principle: "Currently fielded transportation platforms lack the mobility and lethality necessary to insert these forces over the sea to key terrain, maneuver within the restricted maritime environment of China’s first island chain, and persist while enabling the tasks envisioned by A Concept for Stand-In Forces." Preaching to the TDR choir. Although the author's solution may not be quite right. But the issue is real.

Is this a lesson that Russia learned? "Our hesitance [to arm Ukraine] telegraphs to Russia that by continuing to assault Ukraine, it can wait us out—a lesson consistent with the course of the U.S. withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan." That's a lesson of Afghanistan. But I think only Americans wrongly learned this lesson from Iraq. I'd bet Russia has more of an appreciation that America won. And remember, Obama and Biden took credit for the win.

This has alarmed Israel and caused them to raise the idea of striking Iran: "Israeli officials are watching tensely as intelligence indicates Iran is working on the detonation mechanisms needed for a nuclear bomb." I worry this is part of Iran's red herring plan to avoid such a strike. Which may mean Iran has its nuclear deterrent already. Could Iran's seemingly pointless global naval deployments have hidden a mission to return nukes to Iran? Could North Korea have moved working nukes to a friendly location--say Venezuela--where Iran picked them up?

I pushed back on the notion that America placed a "bad bet" on India to resist China. This author agrees: "But India has never pretended it would behave like a treaty ally of the United States, and the occasional divergences between New Delhi’s and Washington’s interests do not mean the U.S. investment in the bilateral relationship is misguided."

Is Erdogan going to keep blocking Sweden's NATO bid? Or is this just a hard block before allowing a decent interval before dropping objections? But then there is Hungary's Orban to deal with.

Do EU confusion and floundering over Turkey and its record on helping Ukraine mean the "EU empire" is crumbling? Only if you assume achieving a result and not the power to try to achieve results is the EU's goal. 

Um: I'm deeply offended you don't think I'm a potential rapist. And I'm not sure I can forgive you. Tip to Instapundit.

End of an era: "China’s era of rapid growth is over. Its recovery from zero-Covid is stalling. And now the country is facing deep, structural problems in its economy." I've long been a China miracle skeptic. Can Xi Jinping survive the consequences?

Enemies of the state. And now for something completely different:

If Ukraine defeats Russia's ground forces and compels Russia to agree to a favorable peace settlement, Russia will still have the lovely parting gift of Belarus far more securely inter-weaved with Russia. Which would fit with a pre-war speculation. Which assumed Putin understood his military's limitations. 

I was a little disturbed that Ukrainian drones targeted civilian areas in Moscow. Despite what Russia is doing to Ukraine's civilians it seems wrong. Even if revenge is good, Ukraine can't match the scale. But it sounds like the drones had no warheads. It was a propaganda strike. Ukraine should follow China's example when Japan invaded it:

 

The government has a strict limit on its actions because it must presume defendants innocent until proven guilty. But the government has ways to improve its odds of proving guilt--or at least getting in the way of defendants creating reasonable doubt. Rule of law dies a little more. Because enemies of the state don't deserve that quaint notion.

I worry not only that we have morons leading us. I also worry that the voters who put those morons in office agree with them. The morons believe they can damage America for partisan purposes because America is great enough to endure their idiocy while getting partisan objectives. For decades they have been right. How long will that be true? Tip to Instapundit.

Octopolis. Via Instapundit.

How wonderful: "The Army is pushing forward with the procurement and fielding of its new Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) assault buggy despite years of documented issues with the platform, the service recently announced." It fills a ridiculous niche, but it is getting better!

Is Italy secretly sending Centauro heavy armored cars to Ukraine?  It has a minimal-recoil 105mm gun that is better than the low-pressure 105mm gun on French AMX-10 heavy armored cars.

2001 is calling, and it's asking for its aggressively dangerous Chinese assertion of baseless territorial control: "The U.S. military said Tuesday that a Chinese fighter jet flew aggressively close to a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft over the South China Sea, forcing the American pilot to fly through the turbulent wake."

As I've mentioned, some F-16s for Ukraine would be nice--and I'm in favor of this--but not decisive: "The F-16 jets that the Ukrainian military is touting as a potential game-changer in its conflict with Russia will either be restricted to defense or deployed in very high-risk operations, according to people who’ve flown the planes in combat."

Iranians and Palestinian leaders find dead Palestinians convenient. A few dead Israelis are a bonus.

Romania retired the last Mig-21s in Europe.

NATO members mull secret plan to fight Russia "that will detail for the first time since the Cold War how the alliance would respond to a Russian attack"? Wow. How odd that a defensive military alliance would--finally--develop a plan to fight the most obvious military threat in Europe. Note that notwithstanding Russia's paranoid accusations, NATO hasn't had a plan to fight Russia for the last 30 years. I'm not worried about secrecy. During the Cold War, the broad outline of plans became visible. I have several games on the subject. With more media options, we'll know.

Did the West basically decide it will help Ukraine win--and not just avoid defeat? A Ukrainian victory would have been more likely if that decision had been made eight months ago. Russia was given time to recover from its initial debacle.

I'm not against birthright citizenship. I'm against illegal immigration. Ending birthright citizenship creates people who look and sound like an American but who aren't. That creates a dangerous two-tier system that ghettoizes people who have actually assimilated. Which also means that citizens will be as suspect as illegals because many illegals will act like citizens--and actually act more American than recent legal immigrants. Do we want that kind of broad government harassment? The solution to our illegal immigration problem is to control our borders to compel would-be immigrants to go through our legal system--and not to be looking at a dangerous Plan B. 

The neglected--again (after Vietnam and after Iraq)--Navy small boats for operations on rivers and coastal areas. Tip to Instapundit. So what does NECC do these days, anyway?

Maybe this is a good idea for business and consumers: "The Federal Reserve said Wednesday it will launch its long-awaited instant payment service FedNow in July." And maybe this good idea should be in government hands rather than letting the private sector meet what is apparently a need because banks and businesses are too ignorant to work on that. And maybe this isn't a step toward a digital currency. And maybe a digital currency won't eliminate paper currency. And maybe government control of all financial transactions isn't a bad idea that will lead the government to punish people it doesn't like outside of the judicial system. Maybe.

Is the debt ceiling deal bad? Clearly. The question is whether it is as good as we can get with Democrats controlling the senate and White House.

Via Instapundit, is this a threat to America? "The Biden administration has resumed the public disclosure of sensitive nuclear data as part of a treaty with Russia that Moscow pulled out of months ago[.]" Maybe we know all we need to know about Russian nuclear weapons. Say, here's possibly related news (and a warning about American readiness). And perhaps we share because we think it is a good idea to reassure the needlessly paranoid Russians.

North Korea's satellite launch malfunctioned: "Following its malfunction, the rocket tumbled down and crashed into the sea off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula." Off the west coast? 

Prigozhin sure looks like he's maneuvering for the possibility that Russia's ground forces are defeated in Ukraine's counteroffensive.

The Russian BM-21PD multiple-rocket launcher, which fires short-range depth charges.

Avoid war with China by *checks notes* abandoning Taiwan. Another application of the "Let the Wookie win" strategy.

I'm not getting fired up about a study that says left-wing people have some really dark traits. How many so-called studies over the years have claimed conservatives are really awful people--perhaps Nazis? If this convenient study is embraced, are we admitting the past studies were valid? I'm just not impressed with the scholarship of such a biased cohort of academics on anything. Or sure, maybe they finally got one right.

I'm hearing stuff about AI girlfriends. Did Harry Mudd teach us nothing?!

 

The Americans told the family of a killed Iraqi interpreter a lie rather than tell the family he was killed by friendly fire. This is not a scandal. A lot of American families have been told that friendly fire casualties were from enemy action. Friendly fire is common in war. And much more common in the past. But it is bad for morale to tell families that ugly truth.

FFS: "Equipment drawn from the U.S. Army’s Kuwait-based pre-positioned stock bound for Ukraine was not ready for combat operations, the Pentagon’s inspector general has found." We mocked the Russians for similar widespread problems with stored equipment when they invaded Ukraine! This stuff is prepositioned overseas because it is faster to only fly in troops than to also ship the equipment across multiple oceans. But if it doesn't work it is pointless!

Chinese spies pretending to be tourists target American bases in Alaska. How many are here who will take direct action during a war?

Three more states are sending troops to the Mexico border to provide some security.  More than a hundred years ago my grandfather was sent there to protect America from civil war in Mexico. Today's threat is caused by civil divisions here that lead the American government to allow threats to spill over into America.

The U.S. will let General Electric make warplane engines for India in India.

Heads up: "Iran is arming militants in Syria for a new phase of lethal attacks against U.S. troops in the country, while also working with Russia on a broader strategy to drive Americans from the region[.]" Did I call it, or what?

REFORPOL as I've long wanted has begun. Let's make sure contractors don't ef up the prepositioned equipment sets. Tip to Instapundit.

F-16s and DASH helmets for Ukraine.

Interesting: "The Russian military command has likely ordered Chechen Republic Head Ramzan Kadyrov’s forces to begin offensive operations in Ukraine following the withdrawal of Wagner Group forces from Bakhmut."

So, Ukraine invented ... guided torpedoes? "Ukraine, finding that their attack USVs (Unmanned Surface Vessels) were vulnerable to Russian heavy machine-gun fire before the target ship could be hit, decided to try attacking from underwater. This led to the rapid development of the Toloka TLK-150 UUV." I guess the early panty flinging over USVs is over.

Please clap: "French President Emmanuel Macron sought to mend fences with Eastern Europeans at a conference in Slovakia, telling an audience largely from the region that he wants a more collaborative relationship with ex-Soviet states." He has a lot to atone for. Really. Eastern Europeans shouldn't join the other guys.

To be fair, the existence of a document with an accusation of crimes is not proof of Biden crimes. Tip to Instapundit.

The Air Force and MIT demonstrated jam-resistant "AI-enhanced magnetic navigation called MagNav". Tip to Instapundit.

Debating Taliban 2.0. FFS. Don't think measuring whether the Taliban are 10 or 20% less horrible than the original is a great debate to have. Trees, forest.

Biden tripped and fell on a stage. He appears uninjured. Saturday Night Live will ceaselessly mock his clumsiness as a symbol of his poor mental capaci--oh, who am I kidding? SNL will keep giving him affectionate tongue baths. Tip to Instapundit. And now for something completely different:

 

The signal will always get through: "The Pentagon confirmed it has hired SpaceX to provide communications services to Ukraine through the company’s constellation of more than 4,000 Starlink satellites."

The 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment exercised in the Philippines to practice making the South China Sea a living Hell for the PLA Navy from positions on Luzon. I won't be happy until it has more anti-ship missiles.

Yep, Erdogan won reelection in Turkey.

Russia's Kh-101 stealth cruise missile.

The U.S.-China diplomatic struggle for Pacific Island nation friendship. Heartily endorsed.

Huh.

Egad: "Hidden code in many Gigabyte motherboards invisibly and insecurely downloads programs." Tip to The Morning Briefing. I'm totally not really paranoid--just prescient. Say, about infected motherboards.

Griffin Shock is just the first step for the NATO numbers needed in the east. Crawl, walk, run.

Sniffing for nukes: "The U.S. Air Force is updating its radiation surveillance aircraft fleet with three new three WC-135R aircraft." Also, the 2006 North Korean test was likely faked rather than a "fizzle" as I'd heard it. Too little plutonium calculated. From the sniffing aircraft.

Russia isn't cooperating with OPEC in keeping oil prices higher.

Don't let the quest for good be the enemy of the less-bad: "House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) notched a victory for himself and for Republicans with Wednesday's passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The bill will raise the debt ceiling through 2025, claw back pandemic and IRS spending, improve welfare programs, speed up permitting, reinstate student loan payments, and cut non-defense discretionary spending. The bill also has an enforcement mechanism: If Congress fails to pass the required appropriations bills by January 1, overall discretionary spending will be cut by 1 percent." A lot more should have been done. Could it have been done right now? I doubt it.

The Week in Pictures.

Western culture is not white supremacy in action: "Western culture, though imperfect, has produced a wealth of great ideas: that all people are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with natural rights, that truth exists and is discoverable." Show me a less imperfect culture. Most will be truly awful if examined as closely as Western culture is picked apart by the left. Tip to Instapundit. And don't forget America's role in creating the modern, free West.

The left says the right are haters. Who are the haters? "This, of course, is classic projection. No one hates their political opponents or revels in their own imagined superiority like leftists." Via Instapundit.

Taiwan Strait drama: "USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) and HMCS Montreal (FFH-336) were transiting the strait when a PLAN warship cut across the bow of Chung-Hoon, according to a report from Canadian outlet Global News." China illegally claims the strait as its territorial waters.

The Army learns to operate in the Arctic. Russian aggression is not only an eastern Europe problem. Canada has little interest in defending Europe post-Cold War. Although with a huge ethnic Ukrainian population it has leaned forward on helping Ukraine. But surely the Eh Team will show up for the Arctic, right?

LOL! I made my meme before seeing that. Just saying. Tip to Instapundit.

For decades I learned and read that America accepted the "One-China" principle. Only in the last couple decades have I seen that refined. To repeat, "The United States operates under its own one-China policy that acknowledges the PRC’s position towards Taiwan without accepting PRC territorial claims over the island." China would have the world believe America agrees with China.

American interest in Central Asia dropped when we didn't need it for sustaining our forces in Afghanistan. So I agree putting much effort in there is a waste of limited American resources. But saying Russia and China compete on separate planes, so "neither struggles with the other for influence" must be modified with "so far". So stirring the pot to stoke friction between China and Russia would be a great game to play.

I remain perplexed that Democrats' sudden conversion still continues: "[Democratic] U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. repeatedly emphasized the need to stop Russian dictator Vladimir Putin 'at all costs'[.]" I shouldn't complain. Welcome to the party, pal. 

As Putin sent his ground forces to Ukraine in search of Nazi threats, he found he had more enemies inside Russia. 

In addition to Wagner and the Chechens, companies, oligarchs, former military officers, and even the defense minister, Shoigu, have established their own ground forces. Regional governments recruit their own volunteers, too. "Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin himself remarked: 'Everyone is saying that there will be a power struggle at some point, and everyone needs their own army.'" Add in the multiple state ground forces and intelligence services. What is the result of this fractured military power?

We're trying to help Iran and Sunni jihadis gain influence in Iraq, aren't we? "The Biden administration is prepared to shell out up to $12 million to teach Iraqis how to fight climate change and appreciate 'gender diversity,' an effort it says will help strengthen democracy in the Middle Eastern nation." The administration says its initiative will help Iraq deal with global issues. But local issues are a more immediate threat. And also, is the Biden administration saying that an Islamic country isn't already perfect with its own indigenous beliefs and practices? That kind of colonial-mindset Islamophobia is problematic, isn't it? Tip to Instapundit. 

An Egyptian police officer crossed into Israel where he killed three Israeli troops. The officer was killed in the exchange of gunfire. Was this a tragedy during a drug smuggling attempt? Or a case of Moslems Gone Wild Jihadi? Still, what an odd concept that a country would defend its border, eh?

Ceasefires just aren't sticking in Sudan despite American and Saudi urging.

A Tad Late to Search for the Best Strategy to Remove Assad

The long-term project to pry Syria from Iran's orbit begins with the first nudge. Maybe the Arab League effort will fail. Perhaps it is even likely to fail. But the best solution for justice and preventing harm in Syria left the station long ago.

Is it a strategic mistake for the Arab League to think it can pry Assad's Syria out of Iran's orbit? 

Readmitting Syria to the Arab League is a strategic mistake. On paper, the logic behind such a move appears sound. For the better part of the last decade, most of the Arab world hoped that Syria’s uprising would dislodge Bashar al-Assad’s regime. As the dust has begun to settle on that conflict, it is apparent that those hopes were misplaced. In short, Assad won.

The author says the choices are to isolate Assad forever and condemn Syrians to misery in the hopes something better will happen. Or lure Syria into pushing Iran away:

However, the logic underpinning the second option—drawing Assad back into the Arab orbit—is unsound, founded on the faulty premise that there remains such a thing as an independent Syrian regime and Assad to woo back from Tehran.

The Syrian dictator can now be effectively considered the glorified “Mayor of Damascus,” merely ruling that fiefdom at Iran’s pleasure.

Maybe it is futile. Syria has long been West Iran. Or Iran's "Thirty-Fifth Province", as the article notes. I've read that Assad isn't happy about his reliance on Iran. And with internal threats defeated, Assad wants Iran's influence pushed back. The Arab League is a means to balance Iran and perhaps leverage more aid and more tolerable behavior from both.

But America has little to say on this despite the bloody hands of the Assad regime over the last several generations. America said Assad had to resign early in the civil war. But America wouldn't do anything to make him "step aside" no matter how bad the regime was. Why? Well, you simpleton, to avoid "further militarizing" the conflict. Half a million deaths ago, give or take.

Remember, America legitimized Russia's role in Syria in support of Assad. America ensured the chemical weapons deal was a shield against American intervention. And in bonus territory, America thought supporting rebels just enough to pressure Assad into negotiations--not for victory--was the height of strategic genius.  

Ah, finely calibrated nuance!  

Russia once shared the goal of prying Syria out of Iran's orbit. But Russia is too reliant on Iranian weapons supplies to help eject Iran. 

And after the hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees, how many Syrians have the stomach to take up arms against Assad again? Would they really trust the West to support a rebellion for victory this time? 

At this point, however distasteful it is, what's the alternative in the real world to waiting for Assad to die and hoping for the best to at least get Iran out? Isn't the damage done in Syria? Isn't preventing future damage by Iran a higher priority than punishing the past damage?

It's a long journey to defeat Iran in Syria. I'd settle for America doing its part by helping Iraqis defeat Iran in Iraq.

NOTE: The image was created by DALL-E.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Rise of Poland

Poland has had the time to recover from Soviet rule and build a state capable of fighting like Hell if Russia tries to move west at Poland's expense again.

Poland may soon have the best army in Europe along with a standard of living that rivals the old advanced European states. Why? 

"After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Poles were the first former Soviet country to restore democracy, free markets and the rule of law." 

It will be a while before Poland's military expansion and  upgrade will match the paper strength with combat capability. And I can't rule out that Poland's military plans won't match the paper strength.

But membership in NATO has bought a lot of time. And Russia's  self-immolation in its invasion of Ukraine will buy more time. So Poland has a chance.

And America has arrived, pulling NATO with it.

Maybe even the British.

Russia, on the other hand, is going backwards: 

"The head of Russia's federal crime agency on Saturday suggested that key sectors of the economy should be returned to state ownership to support Moscow's war in Ukraine." 

Can Russia really rebuild its military based on the system that already lost Russia its Soviet empire?

What the heck, lose some more, eh? 

This contrast between Poland and Russia is why I want Ukraine to battle corruption and embrace rule of law.

UPDATE: Poland has a new security framework for their growing power:

The revamped approach is ambitious, as befits a country moving more squarely into Europe’s center of gravity. It is crafted to meet the demands of a new global security architecture in the wake of the Ukraine war in which Poland seeks to play a prominent role. It highlights three pillars of Warsaw’s relations with partners and allies for addressing emerging threats to the West: maintaining peace, stability, and security; battling renewed imperialism; and defending the rules-based international order. These are the cornerstones of a long-term national strategy firmly geared toward confronting the growing rivalry between democracy and autocracy.

Okay. Deterring or defeating Russia seems like the basic framework. All else flows from that. But I admittedly lack nuance.

NOTE: The image was made with DALL-E.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

How to Awe Western Analysts

Is it my imagination or do some Western analysts have some type of China-worship complex, believing that old civilization runs rings around ADHD Westerners?

This analysis about the West and Russia is ridiculous: 

To our eternal shame, Xi Jinping has spectacularly outwitted the West, drastically expanded his global influence, and turned Russia into a Chinese protectorate in all but name.

One, China expanded its influence because it greatly expanded its economy, trade, military, and lending. Just like past great powers have done in some combination. We'll see how that translates into lasting influence.

Fear of China's territorial ambitions and debt collectors isn't lasting influence.

And I will concede--barring a massive Western own-goal by choosing to let Putin win his invasion of Ukraine--that Russia accelerated its path to vassal status under China by invading Ukraine (again) in 2022. 

This gargantuan error is all on Putin. The shame--and perhaps punishment--is on him. 

I've long wanted the situation to be otherwise. But throwing Ukraine under the bus was never going to flip Russia to the West. 

And nobody asks if China wants a defeated, weakened, and isolated Russia as a vassal. I'm just not seeing evidence that China outwitted the West. The author does make some good points after that, I concede. 

But the Russia-China relationship is not our fault. And it isn't some deep diabolically clever plan by those Chinese rulers with the magically genetic long-term planning skills.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.