Après Putin, le Déluge?

Is Putin as secure in power as he portrays? Are some Westerners determined to save him?

This story says Putin effed up, tarnishing his and Russia's reputation while inflicting heavy casualties and economic pain on Russians. But Putin is now secure in his position because "Après Putin, le déluge"? 

Is Putin really securely in power as this article argues, after his record over the last year contrary to decades of boasting and bluster? 

Despite a series of blunders, miscalculations, and battlefield reversals that would have surely seen him thrown out of office in most normal countries, President Vladimir Putin is still at the pinnacle of power in Russia. He continues to define the contours of his country’s war against Ukraine. He is micromanaging the invasion even as generals beneath him appear to be in charge of the battlefield. (This deputizing is done to protect him from blowback if something goes badly wrong in the war.) ...

The war has revealed the full extent of Putin’s personalized political system. After what is now 23 years at the helm of the Russian state, there are no obvious checks on his power. Institutions beyond the Kremlin count for little. ...

What is clear is this: after more than two decades in power, Putin is practiced at playing people, groups, and countries against one another and using their weaknesses to his advantage.

At the very end of the piece, a caveat is offered that things can change, even for Putin. But the rest of the article focuses on Putin's control. That's what I get out of the analysis--not the figurative footnote.

I doubt the facade of Putin's chess master hold on power is as solid as it seems given Putin's decision to plunge Russia into war with Ukraine and--as Putin claims, Nazis, NATO, and the Devil itself:

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

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

Bravo.

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

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

Until now I've had little hope Putin could fall and end the war. But if these stories about how indispensable Putin is in the Russian system are a reflection of conventional wisdom, I have to doubt the conventional wisdom. What if Russians around Putin conclude that the war against Ukraine is far more about Putin's survival than it is about Russia's survival?

If one person shot Putin, would a political structure so reliant on Putin's word be able to organize itself in defense of Putinism without Putin? Would that structure be so desperate for orders--and order--that it would accept any reasonable official who stands up and says he saved Russia from Putin's folly and is in charge--and will hold Russia together? 

That's the risk of such a highly centralized and personalized political structure under intense pressure, isn't it?

Should Western diplomacy and information operations focus on blaming Putin for the war and promoting his removal as the route to peace? That would give Russians an escape valve by making Putin the primary scapegoat when things go undeniably bad.

Still, Putin has friends in the West who want to save him from his war and from those in Russia who might want to end that problem. France's Macron says he wants Russia defeated in battle to pursue diplomacy--but not crushed. Ah, nuance.  

The pursuit of that kind of finely balanced outcome is sheer folly. It invites Russia to achieve victory. You remember how our honorary French diplomat tried to do that in Syria, right? Ask Assad if it worked.

The time for nuance is only possible after battlefield victory. Otherwise you risk nuancing your way into an enemy too simplistic to pursue anything other than victory. It is highly comforting to a foe that you aren't trying to destroy their military forces.

See also, Afghanistan where America pretended the Taliban were a peace partner who wouldn't take advantage of America's retreat and abandonment of our local allies.

Russia lies a lot about a lot of things. Why would reports of Putin's hold on power be any different? 

UPDATE: This is a major problem, if accurate:

Vladimir Putin says he learned from his boyhood brawls in his native St. Petersburg: “If you want to win a fight, you have to carry it through to the end, as if it were the most decisive battle of your life.” ...

But so far, Putin’s gamble in invading his smaller and weaker neighbor seems to have backfired spectacularly and created the biggest threat to his more than two-decade-long rule.

Not only can the West not negotiate with a ruler like Putin, but Russians can't bargain with him. If Putin is determined to take Russia on a Viking funeral ride, when will someone in Russia decide Putin has to go? 

UPDATE: And if Putin does win? Look out.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Re-Ignites

Not that there hasn't been a lot of death and destruction over the past four months, but the war had been on a deadly simmer. Ukraine has been training men and trying to accelerate Western weapons deliveries. Russia has been mobilizing people and industry--with unclear results--to rebuild its ravaged military. Russia won that race. The war has re-ignited with a slowly growing Russian offensive intensity in the Donbas.

Russia’s self-proclaimed war on NATO has a certain logical conclusion that Wagner’s leader expressed. Even though it is hyperbolic, it is aspirational:

Prigozhin added that Russian society would need to be drastically militarized for the Kremlin to reach the English Channel, likely either hyperbolizing Russia’s aims of destroying NATO or referring to the Cold War-era Soviet war plans aimed at conducting a rapid blitzkrieg to the Channel coast.

As I've said.

But first Russia has to conquer Ukraine. While Russia has done enough to restart their offensive, there are as yet few signs--with the exception of slow gains around Bakhmut--that Russia is defeating the Ukrainians along the limited front lines of Russia's attacks.

 Russia's rearming to conquer Ukraine appears to have fallen short:

Russia’s costly military campaign in Ukraine has likely significantly depleted Russian equipment and manpower reserves necessary to sustain a successful large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine.

But if given time, Russia can rebuild. Will Ukraine strike before Russia rebuilds?

Ukraine likely continues to have a window of opportunity to initiate large-scale counteroffensives over the next few months, but its ability to do so likely rests heavily on the speed and scale at which the West provides it the necessary materiel, particularly tanks and armored vehicles.

I've worried that promised Ukrainian decisive counteroffensives to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia's ground forces keep getting postponed. Ukraine has pushed Russia back and liberated territory, but Russia's ground forces are the center of gravity. Break them and Russia must retreat to Russia itself.

I believed Ukraine would strike sooner. But clearly Ukraine has been weaker than I expected from its battlefield casualties, despite holding off the Russians. And now we are told that Ukraine will strike in the spring. This time for sure.

Giving Russia time is dangerous. This has been my worry: 

Over the past year, Ukraine has fared much better than expected, and Russia much worse. But major powers have the luxury of early stumbling, their size giving them the resources needed to recover from early defeats. The successes of weaker powers sometimes die on the vine.

Hence my callback to the 1939-1940 Winter War for my current name for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

But Ukraine has--for now--the backing of the West's industrial, financial, and technological might, negating Russia's economic edge. And Russia's 3:1 population edge isn't the direct advantage you might think given Ukraine's much higher motives to avoid defeat. If Russia loses, Russian soldiers go home. If Ukraine loses, the Russian atrocities will go on for a generation to stamp out resistance.

A lot is riding on defeating this new Russian offensive campaign. And if Ukraine wins it, a lot rides on Ukraine's next campaign.

UPDATE: ISW notes that the Russian military is no longer using battalion tactical groups. But the reorganized ground forces seem to lack the personnel and equipment to sustain an offensive for the rest of this winter:

The major phase of Russian offensive operations in Luhansk Oblast is underway, and Russia likely lacks sufficient uncommitted reserves to dramatically increase the scale or intensity of the offensive this winter.

ISW doesn't see the Russian reserves that might get their offensive rolling forward. But they concede they might be there. Again, my fear is that we might not see all that Russia has.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Will the meat keep running toward the meat grinder? 

A year of fighting in Ukraine has left the Russian army defeated, depleted and demoralized. Most of the army personnel available before the invasion have been killed, wounded or missing (captured, deserted or body not found).

Also, Russia's leadership is crippled even as Ukraine's remains intact.

NOTE: ISW coverage of the war continues here.

Weekend Data Dump

Japan needs to shift its military deployments away from the Sea of Japan to reflect the growing threats to the south. Okinawa must be a joint hub.

Strategery: “The war in Ukraine has given China the opportunity to completely replace Russia in Central Asia, where Russia is facing growing Chinese activity. Russia long believed their eastern flank was secure but now there is a potential threat from China and a two-front war if Russia survives the current conflict with Ukraine and its NATO allies.”

NATO wants to upgrade its tripwire battalions in the Baltic states to full brigades. The effort is running into problems despite the author's claim that "the idea looks good on paper." The effort absolutely does not look good. Still, it is a crime that Britain and Canada--and even Germany--can't sustain the deployment of a single brigade forward. FFS.

I heard Tucker Carlson say that our support for Ukraine is destroying Ukraine--a country we're supposedly trying to save by giving them weapons. Huh? So "saving" Ukraine should have involved letting Russia capture Ukraine intact quickly to reduce the damage? That’s certainly a take. Carlson is useful on domestic issues. For me, not so much on foreign policy.

Growing anger at the Turkish government’s slow response to the earthquakes.

Turkey’s Erdogan is already under some pressure in the upcoming election. Will the earthquakes—25,000 dead counted, and rising—topple him? I’m so old that I remember when he was considered a “tame” Islamist.

Could the Russians have sent the second and third aerial targets shot down? I’m just speculating.

On Sunday, an F-16 shot down another apparent balloon over Lake Huron. What is going on?

Suppressing Badthink.

And now for something completely different:

DOD press conference after Lake Huron shoot down.

Wait. What? Nearly a year after Russia invaded Ukraine and claimed NATO is their enemy there are still Americans--other than Edward Snowden--in Russia? Are they eager to be given a rusty AK-47 and sent to Bakhmut?

Will Russia defend Crimea? Sure, if Ukrainian troops get close, Putin will order his troops do defend it. But I don't know how hard the Russian troops will fight to hold it. The story is actually an interesting discussion of tanks and the possible effects of the renewed Russian offensive.

That sounds dangerous: "Moldova's president accused Russia on Monday of planning to use foreign saboteurs to bring down her tiny country's leadership, stop it joining the European Union and use it in the war against Ukraine." And I don't see adding Moldova to Russia's order of battle as significant.

It will be interesting to find out what percentage of the balloons/dirigibles shot down are American private craft. Given that we are only now looking for such craft, this is quite possible.

I'm kind of suspicious about the only person in the world who can't sneak across: "A Russian military bomber engineer drove up to the U.S. Southwest border in late December, asking for asylum and offering to reveal some of Russia’s most closely guarded military secrets, according to an unclassified Customs and Border Protection report obtained by Yahoo News."

Sure: "Air assets and strategic partnerships remain pivotal components to the Pentagon’s basing strategy, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region[.]" We need allies who let us base on their territory. Pivoting to Asia is meaningless without enough bases.

Reminding foes that our nukes work: "An unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile has been launched from California to test the defense system, the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command said."

Yes, this is a problem: "For over a decade the U.S. Navy has been fighting a losing battle to obtain enough cargo and fuel ships to support a major military operation in the Pacific against China." And then consider the Air Force and Army need supply ships, too. We speak of power projection. But without the ability to project power, our power is stuck in North America. Sadly, for some that is a feature and not a bug.

Good riddance to the war on (Islamist) terror? If jihadis still didn't want to slaughter us, I'd join in the celebration. Mind you, he makes an excellent point. That I basically agree with--if that author applied his advice to jihadis and not to certain Americans. But I don't think formally ending the military's recognition of the war on terror gets us there. Too many in America will assume this means the war is over. For a while, anyway.

Despite the fears of a post-mobilization Russian juggernaut, "there is little reason to expect that increased manpower alone will lead to Russian victory. Ukraine’s Western backers should hold their nerve and keep providing Ukraine with what it needs most: modern weapons and the training to use them effectively." That's what I advised in this recent post.

This story says Russia has massed more equipment than used in the initial invasion. Hmmm. According to the Ukrainians, of course. Even if true--and Russia does have lots of weapons in storage--the training, leadership, and logistics backing them are likely to be dramatically inferior. Is anything left to defend any territory not bordering Ukraine? Mind you, I can believe the aircraft numbers. I suspect the Russians may be more willing to risk aircraft to support the offensive.

Well, the best scams involve getting you to beg for what they are selling. Tip to Instapundit. 

China's Belt and Road project is faltering as China cuts back. It did look risky to me. And now China has incentive to defend what it did invest in to prevent this whole project from looking like Xi's biggest failure. Also, so much for China's vaunted long-range planning ability, eh?

Apparently, Russia has committed 80% of their ground forces to the Ukraine war. I assume that means 80% of combat units rather than 80% of personnel. Also, 97% of Russia's army is in Ukraine. Ditto on the caveat. Apparently more paratroopers and marines are being held back to account for the first number. Russia is having enough problems with a one-front war, let alone fighting a second.

Fancy that: "The U.S. intelligence community is considering the possibility that three mysterious unidentified objects shot down by U.S. fighter jets were tied to a commercial or otherwise benign purpose, the White House said on Tuesday."

The Army is reviving short-range air defense abandoned during the post-Cold War era. 

After long negotiations, Vietnam and Indonesia have settled their maritime borders. Now they can focus on China's territorial ambitions.

An American airstrike supported Somali troops in a fight with jihadis.

Conventional warfare requires knowing how to effectively retreat. Yeah. I've long mentioned that fighting COIN left the Army "unbalanced." I was actually pretty impressed by Russia's retreat from the west bank of the Dnieper River at Kherson. Tip to Instapundit.

Secretary of Defense Austin doesn't see evidence that Russia has massed aircraft to throw into the war.

The West is trying to train Ukrainians to use less ammunition. I've noted that the response to ammo running low is to use it more sparingly on priority missions. Of course, you spend more lives to avoid using ammo.

Did the balloons over North America open up the rules of engagement? Or is this normal? "U.S. forces on Tuesday took down an Iranian-made drone that was flying near a base in northeastern Syria in an attempt to conduct reconnaissance of the area."

Of course, intercepting Russian aircraft near Alaska is routine. But the balloon kerfuffle raises their profile.

Limits: "The Washington Post reported on February 13 that an anonymous US government official stated that US government officials are trying to 'impress upon [Ukrainian officials] that [the US Government] can’t do anything and everything forever.' The Washington Post also reported that US officials stated that recent Western aid packages for Ukraine 'represent Kyiv’s best chance to decisively change the course of the war.'" As I warned.

The good news is that Nigeria's jihadi problem is fading. The bad news is that tribal violence is making up for that.

Welcome to Ukraine: "Italy and France pledged to send Ukraine some of their Aster 30/SAMP-T air defense batteries, a European equivalent of the American Patriot."

Japan suddenly asserts its right to defend itself. The process has been going on quietly. But China has really given Japan a sense of urgency. Japan's shield--with a Marine Corps assist--will enable American reinforcements to arrive more quickly. China will regret awakening a sleeping giant.

Russia is stealing Ukrainian children. Russia will draft them as they come of age. It is perhaps the cruelest war crime Russia commits.

The United States needs an aid and trade policy for the Pacific to compete with China. Security agreements are not enough.

I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't shoot at the Chinese tank. That would be racist and encourage anti-Asian violence.

An ode to America's Defense Industrial Base. I guess the Military-Industrial Complex--which Eisenhower said was vital despite clipped quotes--war re-branded for the 21st century.

Climate Panic Porn. 

Gosh! Why don't I trust the left-wing media? It's not that the NYT violated the norms of journalism. The problem is that what the NYT does is exactly in accordance with what the norms have become.

The Marines want 35 Landing Ship Mediums in order to have 9 per regiment at all times. LSM is the new name for the LAW. Which must be unpopular with more people than just me. We'll see if only the name changed. And I'm not that impressed with the MLR, either.

China is shipping parts for weapons to Russia (video).

MoveOn.WHO. 

Yeah, now that we look more closely at the skies, we see more. But I assume we've also decided to stop shooting stuff down because we see them. It has been several days since we fired at anything. Tip to Instapundit.

My worry has been that Russia built a large reserve to throw into the war: "ISW, along with UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace, assesses that the Russian military has already committed a significant number of its available formations to intensified offensive operations in Ukraine and that the lack of large uncommitted reserves will likely prevent Putin from announcing the start of an entirely new large-scale offensive effort." But apparently there is no large uncommitted reserve!

Making lemonade: "The Navy is studying the potential of using Littoral Combat Ships as motherships for unmanned vessels[.]" The basic ships do have a lot of empty space.

Quite right: "it would be disastrous if Vladimir Putin’s failures fooled the West into thinking that hard military power is a thing of the past. His forces have struggled not because they have relied on the massive use of tanks, armoured vehicles, and troops against a nimbler opponent, but because those capabilities have not been deployed effectively."

Russia botched its recent attack on Vuhledar and suffered heavy losses in the rebuilt 40th and 155th Naval Infantry brigades. These are supposed to be among the better quality units. Is this an indicator that the Russian ground forces have learned nothing in the last year?

Naval patrols intercepting Iranian weapons shipments to Yemen's Houthi separatists undermine the Houthi ability to wage war.

After 6 years in Pretend World, South Korea's biennial defense report again calls North Korea the enemy.

For the most part, China's coercive economic sanctions don't work. If enough targets find other customers, China is the one under sanctions. Does the CCP want to run the risk of low economic growth rates that have legitimized its monopoly on power?

Seymour Hersh is a sketchy source and his story blaming America for the Nordstream pipeline explostion makes no sense. I still think it was an accident. And if not, I find it hard to believe America would risk doing that. Just as I doubt Russia did it. But these days I can't rule out that elements in our government leaked easily refuted "evidence" to Hersh to discredit the theory blaming America. Sadly, our federal government has forfeited our automatic confidence in its integrity. In the long run that's a bigger problem than Russia.

The US Coast Guard will deploy a large cutter to the western Pacific to help cope with Chinese civilian naval militias and coast guard ships at the subliminal sharp end of China's stick. 

The British have developed a new undersea surveillance ship.

Is it my imagination or do Democrats refuse to enforce and prosecute gun laws to keep criminals from getting guns because they see criminals as the real victims? And then when a criminal who shouldn't have a gun kills somebody, the Democrats insist on new gun control laws that only harm the ability of law-abiding people to get guns? Because that's what it looks like.

With an eye on the Russian threat, Moldova's new pro-Western government wants closer ties to the EU. If Russia had managed to take Ukraine's Black Sea coast, Moldova would already be part of Greater Russia.

Lukashenko claims Belarus would go to war if a single Ukrainian soldier enters Belarusian territory. I'm sure Putin is working on a "Ukrainian attack" even as we speak. I do worry Putin threatened Lukashenko's life if Belarus doesn't enter the war and this type of fake attack would be all the fig leaf Lukashenko needs. [Later: ISW doesn't think this claim is anything other than rhetoric.]

When the NATO secretary-general tells NATO countries to spend more money on defense--and what was promised in 2014 should be the minimum rather than the goal, it isn't jingoistic or bullying--and likely racist, while we're at it--at all, I guess. This summer, NATO will repeat the promise, but this time with feeling.

Canada will send ships to monitor the gang situation in Haiti. 

Testing of the next American ICBM, Sentinel, continues. With the B-21 and Columbia SSBN, a new nuclear triad emerges.

This is not shocking: "One of the UFOs shot down last weekend by the US Air Force with a $400,000 missile may have simply been a $12 balloon belonging to an Illinois enthusiast club, a report said." Tip to Instapundit.

Chinese imports and assistance for exporting Russian energy, Chinese exports of key components, and North Korean and Iranian military supplies are sustaining Russia's war effort. Russia is paying the price for China's aid notwithstanding its claim to be standing up to subjugation.

Hate: "I’m not sure about Nikki Haley’s odds in 2024, but she’s definitely triggering all the right people. Libs love any excuse to be racist, sexist, and all the other bad stuff they attribute to their political enemies." Remember, the left's loudly proclaimed anti-racism/sexism enable them to be as racist and sexist as they want. And they want to a lot, it seems.

This is what I wrote in December about the Hunter laptop claim by those former intel officers: "The former senior intelligence officials misled Americans about the Biden "laptop" corruption scandal. It was clear at the time that they were lying by wording ("has all the hallmarks of") that the media willfully interpreted in a way friendly to Biden--that Russia did it. Basically the intel people said that if the Russians did it, it might look like this. Which isn't the same as saying Russia did it. One could say it had the hallmarks of any other country's intelligence outfit--or even that it had the hallmarks of the truth." Well, it worked.

Israel is now an oil-exporting nation. Wow. Tip to Instapundit.

More good jihadis: "The U.S. military said Friday a helicopter raid led by its forces in northeast Syria left a senior leader with the Islamic State group dead and four American service members wounded." I assume Rangers and Delta Force for this part of the world.

Not over yet: "Protesters in Iran marched through the streets of multiple cities overnight in the most widespread demonstration in weeks amid the monthslong unrest that's gripped the Islamic Republic, online videos purported to show Friday." Is leadership rising for a potential revolution of reforms aren't enacted? Remember, For more than a year our Revolution was an effort by colonists to claim their rights as English citizens.

How so many overestimated Russia's ability to crush Ukraine. Readers of TDR would not have been confused that way.

When the government can't protect you from criminals or educate your children, eventually the people will take matters into their own hands. How long before the people decide they won't pay for a government that doesn't do its basic jobs? To be fair, the government is recognizing more and more pronouns.

Rumors that Russia will commit their air force to the war. ISW thinks Russia won't--and can't--sustain such an effort. I'm sure that the latter is correct. But given the crippling of Russian ground forces, Russia's air power remains the most potent uncommitted force to throw into the war. I don't know how Putin doesn't commit his aircraft. I mean, Putin says he's fighting Satan, what greater threat is Putin saving his planes for?

Is the lack of apparent interest by our Secretary of Transportation for dealing with transportation problems just ineptitude? Or is it a sign that national security agencies are quietly taking the lead because they aren't actually accidents? Just wondering. Really, it's just wondering at this point.

Putin wants to win and his people won't force him to take an off-ramp from the war even if the West offered one: "Outside opinions and even responses do not matter to the large majority of the population of the Russian Federation. At best, such are seen as bigotry and an attack. At worst, they were not even a consideration. That holds true for the leadership as well. For all intents and purposes, the people of the Russian Federation live in a bubble, and the upper leadership lives in an even more dense and impenetrable bubble." Russia's ground forces must be broken to end this war short of some sort of Russian territorial victory.

Another excellent point: "That their nuclear and nuclear defense forces might be in a shape similar to their other weapons and stockpiles has penetrated few if any bubbles as far as I can tell. How many will work (on either side)? Who knows, and I’d really rather not find out." I doubt that many of Russia's nukes work. And yeah, I have some doubts about ours.

So, Iran is sheltering al Qaeda's leader.

The F-117 comes out of retirement to train American pilots against stealthy-ish foes.

Even as Lukashenko resists Putin's pressure to join the war, Lukashenko seemingly has given ground on Russia's efforts to absorb Belarus in the Anschluss. I think Putin erred in going after Ukraine before getting Belarus. But maybe he'll get Belarus anyway regardless of the outcome in Ukraine.

Did Russia meet with Assad and the Iranians to plan an offensive in Idlib province in the northwest?

Uh oh, the F-35 will get a Windows update. It will help the pilots get the first shot. 

As if Russia needs help: "[The] the Kremlin’s U.N. ambassador claimed that the West is driven by its determination to destroy Russia[.]" Own. Worst. Enemy. I actually want a friendly Russia. But it must be from Russia getting a whack with the clue bat and not by throwing a victim into Russia's jaws. But no. #WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

The growth of Wagner in Russian foreign policy. I think we reached Peak Wagner inside Russia because of the potential of the armed group to be a rival center of power. But Putin still needs Wagner to generate money for Russia overseas and promote pro-Russia views. The U.S. and its allies are trying to contain the overseas threat.

And now for something completely different:

It would be ginormously stupid for the West to offer--or for Ukraine to accept--a deal that leaves Russia with its gains made since 2022 in exchange for Western fighter planes. Russia should be rolled back at least partly to reverse Russia's gains from 2014 and 2015. Ukraine needs to decide how much it is worth to pay to get some or all of its land back. Because if Russia gains, they'll renew the war in the future.

Russia is probably counting on waiting out NATO resolve to defeat Ukraine. I can't say the Russians are wrong. Clearly, if Russia had waged a war on Ukraine from the start rather than thinking it could parade into Kiev, Russia could have achieved what I thought Russia could before the war despite Russian military weaknesses. As we've seen, Russia is actually willing to endure the casualties, contrary to my expectations.

How many of our problems would be solved by dissolving journalism and education schools? Aren't they just Woke finishing schools now?

LOL!

China's military balloon program operates above airplane ceilings but below orbital craft. Enough in the air might help China's anti-ship ballistic missile kill chain, no? Or, as the article notes, just drop hypersonic missiles from the balloons. And remember, our balloon-based cruise missile defense program was halted when Americans got upset when a couple broke loose and floated across America.

No weed suppression there!

To Hell with these fanatics. Don't climate activists have enough conferences? Do people worried about China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran storm climate conferences and demand their issue be discussed instead? Hell, why don't climate activists protest carbon-spewing infrastructure conferences? Or any other futile topic if the world ends in 8 years? Tip to Instapundit.

I really have no confidence in the casualty figures given out for Russia. And no way to even guess Ukraine's. Other than saying "a lot." Do Russia's leaders know their own casualties?

And now for something completely different (RIP):

Fluffers for Democrats. It has nothing to do with her gender, but Andrea Mitchell is totally past her prime.

America's drive to bring chip manufacturing home will benefit Mexico, too. The updated NAFTA makes this easier, I believe.

To be fair, Bing Chat just learned it from watching how reporters treat Republicans: "The update from Bing came after another bizarre interaction with an Associated Press reporter, where the bot called him ugly, a murderer, and Hitler." Tip to Instapundit.

Israel said "all possible means" are on the table to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Hoping Iran won't nuke Israel is not a plan.

The U.S. successfully concluded recovery operations for the Chinese surveillance balloon shot down. However, American and Canadian authorities called off recovery operations for the balloons from Cub Scout Troop 1029 of Wisconsin, The Vancouver Chess Club, and the Alpena Lady Mavericks Bowling Team.

You may recall that Russia and China extended their non-aggression pact for five years. I just ran across this article with this unknown but odd detail: "Putin said the agreement would be automatically extended for another five years after it expires in February 2022." Why bother having a 5-year agreement that automatically extends 5 years? Isn't that a 10-year agreement? I don't think Russia is being fully accurate.

Will programmers make the AI Programs of Engagement as handicapping to U.S. forces as the lawyers make Rules of Engagement? False compassion at the speed of light?

This is an argument for minimizing the breadth and depth of government power: "When you start to notice them, psychopaths seem to be everywhere. This is especially true of people in powerful places." Tip to Instapundit.

Iran builds a CVE based on a container ship hull to carry some helicopters and UAVs used as cruise missiles. This sounds less like a CVE and more like the old Soviet heavy aviation cruisers that had lots of missiles with a small aircraft component. But Iran's aircraft component is token if you exclude the UAVs used as cruise missiles.

Recent updates on my Banned by Google saga.

The idea that Russia has a point about controlling Ukraine because Ukraine was part of Russia longer than it was independent is nonsense. How much of the American southwest can Mexico claim from America on the same logic?

Europe escaped energy catastrophe this winter because of a mild winter. But the summer could be a crisis. My view is that if after more than a year Europe hasn't expanded every energy source within their grasp after a year-and-a-half of warning, their may deserve it. And yes, I can--regrettably because I'm opposed to policies that undermine our energy independence--say the same about America given our stupid policies. But will politicians pay any price? I'm skeptical.

I've added the Military Balance Blog to my daily checks.

Deflating the USV Naval Power Flavor of the Month

Was Ukraine's use of jury-rigged unmanned surface vessels to attack Russian warships in Sevastopol port a sign of a revolution in naval warfare? Not so fast. Don't neglect the tradition of auxiliary cruisers.

This article urging people not to count too much on unmanned (or "uncrewed") surface vessels (USVs) like the Ukrainian vessels used to attack Sevastopol being revolutionary. And even if such USVs can add mass to fleets of conventional crewed vessels, the article notes that USVs aren't the only means to create mass:

Moreover, it would be a mistake to assume that efforts to leverage cheap mass are restricted to uncrewed assets. Auxiliaries, in particular, are playing an increasingly critical role in augmenting the mass of surface fleets. For example, China has legislated that flagged ferries be built to military specifications, enabling them to be used as auxiliaries in an amphibious assault. Similarly, there is evidence of the People’s Liberation Army Navy training fishermen to operate as sentries, using satellite phones to communicate with military units. The containerisation of missiles like the Russian Klub or the Chinese YJ-18 also opens pathways for auxiliary vessels to be used in military functions. China maintains a maritime militia that operates a significant number of vessels, the largest of which – at 750 tons displacement – are comparable to corvettes and could carry containerised missiles (though they have not been used in this capacity). Furthermore, such vessels are numerous enough to provide a persistent harassing presence in the ‘grey zone’.  

RUSI is preaching to the TDR choir on naval auxiliaries--a long-used means of quickly adding naval power--and the use of containerized missiles and systems to make them more lethal. I proposed networked Modularized Auxiliary Cruisers:

We need another option to provide low-cost hulls capable of a broad range of missions in war and peace. The Danish flexible support ship RDN Absalon, built in a civilian shipyard, is designed to use “modularity and scalability” to carry out a variety of combat and support missions at low cost. Using self-contained modules that “contain entire warfighting systems,” Absalon can be quickly reconfigured. Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winters was impressed by the ship, stating:

There are definitely lessons here that we can use in the U.S.

Modularity and scalability applied to civilian hulls could provide affordable Modularized Auxiliary Cruisers.

The system modules for Modularized Auxiliary Cruisers would have to be self-contained because they would not be installed on a ship designed to incorporate the modules, as the LCS is envisioned. This limits capabilities to what the modules contain, but auxiliary cruisers have never been intended to replace warships. Modularized Auxiliary Cruisers would be plugged into our naval network to fight within a task force or for missions not needing the capabilities of a conventional warship.

Armored standard (20' l x 8.0' w x 8.5' h) general purpose shipping containers would be the building blocks for system modules. Other sizes are available as well, including 40' x 8.0' x 8.5' containers, "hicube" containers measuring 40' x 8.0' x 9.5', and 40' x 8.0' x 4.25' half-height containers. Because Containerized Modules would not be stacked to create a Modularized Auxiliary Cruiser, weapons, sensors, or other equipment could extend above the container roof.

Military Review published my paper that adapted the concept from a warship to a power projection platform.

Sexy new silver bullet solutions to replace existing capabilities can distract us from adapting traditional  dull capabilities to bolster combat power.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

A Drift Out of the Jaws of Russia's Defeat?

Russians talk big. Don't let them scare NATO into letting Russia snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat in Ukraine. That's what Russia is counting on.

I don't think NATO is drifting into war against Russia:

The United States and its NATO allies are slowly drifting into a war against Russia. The Biden administration and some of our NATO allies, while feigning caution and prudence, have gradually increased their involvement in Ukraine’s war effort. Some Western strategists talk of defeating Russia and forcing Vladimir Putin from power, even trying him as a war criminal. Victory, they say, is just around the corner as along as we continue to arm Ukraine.

Are some strategists talking about extreme defeats for Russia? Sure. Just as some strategists--like the author and those he mentions in the article--talk about how we should negotiate to let Russia win in Ukraine.

That talk doesn't make it the Western strategy, either.

But back to the drift. First, notice how the accusation is that NATO--which is defending a member state of the UN against unjustified and illegal aggression--is drifting into war with Russia. If there is drifting, shouldn't the charge be that the invader Russia is drifting into that war by continuing its illegal and frankly paranoid aggression? 

Second, the gradually increasing NATO commitment that the author says is evidence of a drift to war is at least in part intended to avoid war. Sending everything we've sent in the first month might very well have overloaded Russia's paranoia and sense. But the increments have made a Russian decision to escalate harder to justify on the individual weapon merits as well as from more Russian losses over time. That gradualism may hinder Ukraine's ability to win, but it does address the author's concern,

Third, none of the author's numerous historical examples to support "letting the Wookie win" are remotely relevant for the Ukraine case. I suspect the fact that so many are cited is intended to dense pack the irrelevance. Surely, a reader may think, all that historical smoke means historical fire, right? Yeah, no.

Fourth, I studied--and actually remember--the Cold War. America and the USSR supported the other side's enemies all the time without drifting into direct war. Hell, Russians operated some of the weapons used against us. NATO isn't likely to intervene in Ukraine. And Russia would have to show zero sense to expand a war against Ukraine it isn't winning into a war against NATO it can't possibly win. 

Further, Russia needs to keep NATO from intervening to have a chance at defeating Ukraine. And if Russia doesn't win, Russia will need NATO to throttle aid to Ukraine to slow them down and get a ceasefire. Needlessly making NATO an active enemy would be an incredibly stupid policy.

Finally on this fourth issue, Ukraine is hardly about to attack into Russia proper and spark a war that provokes Russia into going to war with NATO. And no, I don't count Crimea as part of Russia notwithstanding Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. Claiming Crimea is part of Russia is no more legal than Russia's claim to all of Ukraine. If you think I'm a warmonger eager to go toe to toe with the Russkies, and want some nuance on Crimea instead, I'll give you a nuanced option.

And fifth, Russia counts on sounding scary with all that nuke talk to conceal weakness. That's what they do. And if counting on the West to save Russia from Putin's folly works, Putin salvages his cratering reputation for brilliance.

But no, I don't see NATO drifting into war with Russia over Ukraine. If the Russians are determined to be a super power again, they know the rules of the game. And contra the author's charge, I don't think we're searching for monsters. The monsters created themselves and are coming for us.

Indeed, I think hardheaded American geopolitics actually supports helping Ukraine win.

Hell, I even think hardheaded American geopolitics requires Russia to survive this beating with the clue bat so it can pivot to Asia where the real threats to Russia grow even as Russia screams "NATO! NATO! NATO!!"

UPDATE: Defining victory in this war for Putin. 

I've discussed the time element. And unintended consequences are part of the reality that solving one crisis is no silver bullet. Success just punches your ticket for the next one--nothing is permanent. 

And of course, if Putin claims he won his people may believe him--or be too scared to object. Many of our enemies have claimed victory because they survive a pummeling by us. 

I don't care if Putin claims he won as long as he actually loses. Hell, if that's the situation Russia is less likely to fracture in defeat. So the West can pursue victory over Russia in Ukraine without worrying Russia will fragment or escalate the war. Fighting NATO or using nukes might interfere with claiming victory over Ukraine even after defeat.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Winning!

Even as so many in the West grudgingly or even admirably credited Putin with strategic genius, playing a bad hand well while simultaneously playing 3D chess, I was not impressed. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is exposing the nonsense that was Putin's brilliance.

Ah, the chess master at work!

The West once saw Russia as a country on the path to democracy. Now it regards it as an international pariah and a failed state. Russia’s former Soviet neighbors—members of the Commonwealth of Independent States—are frightened and have politely distanced themselves from Moscow; some of them are successfully exploiting the labor force that has fled Putin. (In 2022, 2.9 million Russians went to Kazakhstan alone, and nearly 150,000 obtained identification papers needed to work there.) China and India, while remaining on friendly terms with Russia at the rhetorical and economic level, have watched in disbelief as Putin descends into a vortex of irrational self-destruction, taking his nation’s economy, workforce, dignity, and soft power with him.

Exactly. Putin is no strategic genius punching "above his weight":

My view is that Putin got the West's attention with his actions and rhetoric, but is otherwise effing up royally. That punching by Putin is getting those with more weight to assume a fighting stance.

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[.] ...

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.

And to add to the evidence, contemplate that Putin has managed to turn Democrats into virulent Russia-haters. We know why, of course. But still, the change is amazing. I bet Putin didn't expect Russia's traditionally useful idiots to stop being useful.

Anyway, stop acting as if Putin is brilliant or a model to follow.

Putin keeps winning NATO recruiter of the year awards.

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

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

Bravo.

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

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

UPDATE: Essentially declaring "mission accomplished" before Russia has lost the war is a good way to redeem Putin's reputation as a strategist:

It’s been almost a full year since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, Russia has lost this conflict both “strategically” and “operationally.”

I mean, if Russia has already lost, why does the West need to keep trying to defeat it?

I'm old fashioned. I don't think a war is over until the fat lady sings. And even then you can blow it by effing up the post-war.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Back to the Future Shock For the Russian Army

Russia's army under stress looks a lot like its Great Patriotic War brethren. Putin perhaps reveals too much with his propaganda push to make his invasion of Ukraine the Great Patriotic War 2.0 to bolster public support. Or maybe Putin just looks at World War II with Stalin-tinted glasses.

Russia boasts advanced weapons and a modern military. But the advanced weapons are running out and the modern military Putin built is looking a bit too traditional:

Despite twenty years of modernization, the nature of the Russian military, particularly the Russian Army, bears some of the same characteristics of its World War II predecessor. At the core of the problem are endemic issues within the Russian armed forces that have endured since WWII. Now, as then, risk adverse leaders allow junior leaders no initiative at the lower echelons. Poorly trained conscripts are unable to operate and maintain modern military equipment or conduct required complex maneuvers on the ground. Artillery and air support are used as mass terror weapons rather than as coordinated supporting arms for ground maneuver forces.

This leaves Russia expending lives to overwhelm an enemy today, just as it did in World War II.

Contrast that with the American way of war that spends money to avoid shedding blood*:

[Always] remember that we spend money to avoid spending blood--ours and the enemy's. Let me know if you want to send our troops in without body armor or MRAPs or top-of-the-line M-1s. Let me know if you think it is acceptable for wounded troops to wait hours before being evacuated to get medical help. Let me know if you think it costs too much to train them. Heck, let me know if you want to get rid of expensive precision weapons and rely on dumb bombs and shells that get more of our people killed running many more shells and bombs to the shooters, kill more of our people with friendly fire and more effective enemy fire because we move slower and the enemy isn't dead or suppressed, and even kills more of the enemy and innocent civilians.

Russia might still win if it can mass enough men and firepower. But while the character of the Russian army may not have changed much, Russia's demographic and industrial base isn't as good as it was in World War II.

Nor does Russia have the massive military and economic aid that the Allies poured into Russia after actual Nazis invaded Russia in 1941. Unless China steps up to provide trucks, ammunition, and the raw materials to produce weapons, how will Russia keep up that pace if Ukraine doesn't crack?

But that is what is driving Putin's vision for some sort of victory. I only almost feel sorry for the Russians at this point.

*And really, spending money instead of blood is necessary sustain our willingness to fight overseas. It is one more cost of playing "away" games far from our shores.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Reject Fortress America

America kept Europe in the West and expanded the West in two world wars and one Cold War. Let's not throw away what we achieved with shortsighted urges to to "come home." Threats will follow us home.

We don't want Russia or any other hostile government to control the people, industry, technology, and military power of Europe. 

Should America tell Europe to have a nice life and best wishes?

The U.S.-European security relationship has therefore become progressively divorced from reality. If it is to change, what Europe needs is not more resources but greater political will and self-confidence. Washington, for its part, must jettison the axiom that it has no choice but to serve as Europe’s perpetual protector par excellence.

Such a shift is nowhere on the horizon. It will happen only when foreign-policy experts in the United States and Europe rework their assumptions and have an honest, fact-based strategic discussion about the obsolescence of the current trans-Atlantic security relationship.

The idea that Europe can defend itself without American help is wrong on two counts. 

One, Russia's faltering in Ukraine shows America can for now view Europe as an economy-of-force front.  But European countries need America to knit together their separate military elements into a coherent whole and be able to surge reinforcements. Otherwise Russia can pick off one country after another over time, gathering their resources and preparing for another lunge west for an ever larger buffer. 

Don't assume Russia can't learn from their mistakes. And Russia hasn't lost their invasion of Ukraine yet. Let's not get ahead of ourselves by assuming too much.

And two, the issue isn't only whether Europe has the resources to defend itself. Europe doing the job isn't just an America-less NATO. We should not want the proto-imperial European Union to do that job of consolidating European defense assets. Don't forget that Europe is an objective and not a charity case.

Remember, too, that Western Europe is the home to so many democracies because of America:

It is easy to forget--and this was a useful reminder to me--that Europe with its autocracies and monarchies was not fully part of a free West (although obviously part of the Western tradition) until we rebuilt Western Europe in that template after World War II. And NATO expansion after defeating the Soviet Union was more explicit in demanding democracy and rule of law for new members.

Don't assume that friendly and allied democracies in Europe are a constant and that the variable of American military presence and leadership can be set to zero without consequences. Will we really risk seeing Western Europe slide back on democracy and build bad old habits?

Keeping Europe friendly is a longstanding American security interest that letting Europe defend itself would undermine in the long run. Keep NATO and keep American forces in Europe. It's a wise and relatively inexpensive precaution in a dangerous world. 

And if I may be so bold, it is an honest, fact-based strategic conclusion.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Calls In the Diplomacy Fairy

Putin is determined to defeat Ukraine. Can the West negotiate with the Russians to truly end the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Not on whatever planet Putin inhabits.

Russia has committed its ground forces to the offensive again. While not yet all-out, it may be premature. Will Westerners jump the gun trying to get negotiations going that will ratify Russia's gains?

It would be a massive failure of Western diplomacy to negotiate with the Russians for Ukraine: 

Lavrov’s and Putin’s statements are indicative of ongoing Russian information operations that aim to reject Ukraine’s sovereignty and delegitimize Kyiv’s right to negotiate, shifting the onus for negotiations onto Western officials, whom the Kremlin believes to be more willing to offer concessions that Ukraine could not accept and could seek to compel Ukrainian officials to negotiate on terms more favorable to Russia.

Russia and Ukraine have to make the deal directly with each other for it to last. The West can provide guarantees. But it cannot negotiate with Russia for Ukraine.

If the West negotiates with Russia, Ukrainians won't see it as a legitimate deal; and the Russians will have their view that Ukraine is not a legitimate political entity ratified by the West. Either result guarantees that both arm up for another round of war. But at a higher level of armament and initial intensity.

We cut out the Afghanistan government to negotiate directly with the Taliban. And we see how well that worked out. 

And when you spin your plans for how diplomacy can save us from nuclear war, don't forget that the Russians are several fries short of a Happy Meal. 

I mean, how can anyone negotiate with Putin, as he made clear early in the month?

Putin now says his war in Ukraine is a war and one that must be one to rescue Russia from Western efforts to destroy Russia as a country. While many Eastern Europeans considered that a fine idea, it was also seen as impractical and never seriously considered by any European government. To deal with that reality, Putin describes the Western effort as unpublished in the West and part of a very real conspiracy that Vladimir Putin recognized and is now exposing. 

Good grief. How long before Putin is sporting a tinfoil cap with tail fins?

I mean, the fact that Russia is issuing nuclear threats not to protect Russia from invasion but as a means to ratify their invasion and conquest of Ukraine should make that obvious. Russia will simply issue nuclear threats for something else if he gets away with this threat. 

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

To be clear, Russia threatens nuclear war if Russia loses on the battlefield inside Ukraine. And we've also seen Russian claims that NATO is trying to commit genocide on Russia. To sum up: Russia has to conquer Ukraine to avoid NATO's genocidal goals. And if Russia can't defeat Ukraine it will unleash nuclear Armageddon. That's quite the rational peace partner.

And if you don't realize this basic problem, I don't want any of your advice on ending the war with a magical diplomatic deal.

Putin has made it clear he wants no deal that truly ends this war in any meaningful way. Russia resumed a large conventional offensive in the east. It may end up having all the subtlety of a bulldozer, but it will be large and loud. And Russia may have learned some lessons to enable its forces to push forward. 

Don't panic. Don't think that saving Ukraine requires selling them out by going over their heads to cut a deal with the Russians.

Ukraine needs weapons, ammunition, training, and intelligence now. Ideally, Ukraine bleeds and slows the Russian ground forces down until the offensive falters and Ukraine can mount a counteroffensive somewhere to break a Russian army in the field.

But for now, Russia has the initiative.

UPDATE: ISW discusses Russian information operations to divide the west from Ukraine.

UPDATE: Russia appears to have struck a bridge at Odessa with a suicide USV.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Russia's offensive seems to have ramped up at Bakhmut. 

UPDATE (Thursday): General Milley is already calling in the Diplomacy Fairy:

Gen Mark Milley, chair of America’s joint chiefs of staff, has said neither Russia nor Ukraine is likely to achieve their military aims, and he believes the war will end at the negotiating table.

FFS. I truly have lost confidence in his ability to lead. Perhaps it is unfair. But I truly have no confidence in him after the last 2-3 years.

NOTE: ISW updates continue here.