Will Putin Finally Accept God's Gift?

Russia's sole carrier Kuznetsov is pining for the fjords and Putin seems unlikely to revive it.

The death watch begins:

That Kuznetsov missed her projected start date for post-overhaul sea trials is an ominous sign for the Russian navy’s dwindling aviation capability. For years, experts have speculated that Kuznetsov would never deploy again. That’s looking increasingly likely as the vessel lingers in port.

Kuznetsov has completed just seven patrols since her commissioning 33 years ago. By the standards of other carrier-equipped navies, that’s not a very impressive deployment rate. 

Honestly, I think Putin should have accepted the gift from God to be rid of that rotting remnant of past naval glories that aren't coming back:

Will Russia waste even more money to fix this smoking tenement with a flight deck despite God reaching out his hand against that POS white elephant?

God, I hope so! Fixing that ship is such a waste of resources that I can't believe Russians bother with the ship.

But it may be more expedient to keep the hull in place and periodically make empty grandiose announcements about new measures to send the glorious symbol of Russian power to sea again. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

Defense Ties to Europe Prevent--Not Risk--War

Letting Europe develop strategic autonomy in the military field at the expense of NATO will just add a new threat to American interests while increasing the existing risk from Russia. 

Saying America should disassociate itself from Macron's threat to send training troops to Ukraine and encourage EU strategic autonomy to avoid getting drawn into a war with Russia is silly:

Discussion of European strategic autonomy peaked during the Trump administration when it became abundantly clear that the U.S. president viewed Europe as not doing enough for its own defense. The ongoing Ukraine crisis is a stark reminder that our wealthy and capable European allies cannot afford to ignore defense matters. While some dismiss the concept as a “pipe dream” or as “dead”, strategic autonomy remains the only, albeit difficult, path to making Europe an attractive partner and thus strategically relevant in the modern day.

Crucially, a conventional—but contained—war in Europe, interminable and destabilizing conflicts in the Middle East, and great power competition across the globe all mean that it is in America’s and Europe’s interest to shore up European defense and enable the U.S. to focus on higher priorities elsewhere.

Oh, please. Europeans recognized they weren't doing enough for their own defense when they pledged in 2014--during the Obama administration--that NATO states, largely European, should increase defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024.

This EU partner foolishness is a variation of the "Dormant NATO" fad that pretends America can safely walk away from defending Europe. The "strategic autonomy" argument pretends that the EU is the proper partner for letting us pretend America isn't walking away from defending Europe. 

And the partner folly uses that "higher priorities elsewhere" argument. It never ends:

I've long noted that the Left has a history of opposing the current threat we are resisting in order to focus like a laser beam on the "next" vitally important threat. Obviously, when the current threat defeats us, that "next" threat becomes the current threat. Lather, rinse, repeat. The "bad war" versus "good war" dance of two decades ago is the most obvious example of this process.

The right has adopted this "we need to focus on the real threat" approach to advocate a pivot to Asia in order to abandon Europe and/or the Middle East to their fates. It'll be fine, they say.

This author's denial that America has pivoted to Asia ignores the departure of hundreds of thousands of American troops from Europe since the Cold War. The denial of a pivot ignores the massive reduction in American military power in the Middle East after winning in Iraq and losing in Afghanistan. As I observed in this post[.]

Walking away from Europe will just cause America to lose influence in Europe through NATO about what Europeans do. 

And if Russia fought Europe, we'd still need to fight. 

I don't mind defense production cooperation across Europe, but that's a means and not an objective for the EU (back to that initial article):

The EU Commission’s strategy aims to create an industrial foundation for European strategic autonomy.

Using that production objective to obscure "strategic autonomy" separation of America from Europe in military cooperation which is now done through NATO is harmful to American national security interests.

And it gets worse. The EU is designed to thwart democracy in favor of a pan-European ruling elite that does what it wants through opaque Byzantine power levers:

Even Brussels insiders can’t predict which European party group the largest national delegations from France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands or Austria will belong to after all the behind-the-scenes deal-making.

And this adds to the disconnect between voters’ choices and EU politics.

Defense ties with Europe through NATO don't create a risk of war. It's designed to prevent that risk. Two world wars when we had no defense ties indicates that, no? That's one reason why I wanted to keep a corps in Europe (see pp. 15-20) back when the post-Cold War peace dividend still had that new car smell. 

The proto-imperial EU bureaucrats and fanboys never miss a chance to strip away the prefix. Nobody who values American security and Western liberty should advocate throwing away a robust NATO insurance policy.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

CSI Kabul: This Time For Sure!

We will analyze our defeat in Afghanistan. Again. As we do so, keep in mind that it has never been American policy to help allies build a military that relies only on indigenous resources.

America needlessly lost the Afghanistan War. Assuming it wasn't just a campaign in a bigger war against Islamist dominance of the Moslem world that is the real war we need to consider. And assuming we didn't change Afghanistan enough in our 20-year stay to make it impossible for the Taliban to control. But those are possibilities for the future. Right now the question is "just what went wrong in the 20-year conflict."

This author blames our leadership. 

The senior officers in charge of the evacuation at Central Command meekly acceded to State Department demand to use Kabul's indefensible Karzai Airport rather than the more secure Bagram Air Base resulting in the ignominious debacle that occurred. It is hard to imagine a George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, or Chester Nimitz condoning or tolerating such incompetence. Whatever war gods created such men seem to have deserted us. What is left seems to be children of a lesser god. 

In reality, the fault is not in the gods but in a system that we humans created. Somewhere along the line, our process for educating and selecting our senior military leaders went badly off the rails and reforming it should be a priority.

It is hard for me to disagree with the big picture. But I disagree with this assessment:

Is it any wonder that for twenty years, general officers educated in this environment refused to admit that they were creating an Afghan army that would not be able to sustain itself once we left?

That is not the metric to aim for. Nor did we create a mirror image of our military. We clearly tried to build a light infantry army:

You will notice from the graphic above that the Afghanistan military had lots of Humvees, trucks, and SUVs; and just a small number of lightly armored vehicles; plus helicopters and propeller-driven aircraft. 

American teenagers have more pickup trucks and SUVs!

There are no 5th generation fighters. No 4th generation. Heck, no 1st generation jets. Just helicopters and prop planes much easier to train to use and maintain.

No heavy armor or self-propelled artillery. No rocket artillery--just older tube artillery.  But lots of trucks. Again, easier to use and maintain.

But lots of infantry weapons. Although I don't even see mortars in the list. Perhaps the threat of them falling into Taliban hands was too high. And with American direct air support and support to the Afghanistan air force, it was perhaps not needed. 

Basically, Afghanistan had a light infantry and paramilitary force. This is not in any way a military built "in our image".

And it was fighting successfully--and dying--to beat the Taliban.

Yes, it required some support for years, especially for the simple air elements--support we denied them in our final "plan" to bug out. FFS, our advanced NATO allies can't sustain a fight without us.

I don't think the mistake was how we armed our Afghan allies:

[The] failure to build Afghan forces is over-stated. We built Afghan forces able to fight with our support. Just as we built Iraqi forces able to fight with our support. Each fought and died every day against our common jihadi enemies. Our troops had little need to fight after years of effort to build up our local allies.

Don't forget that in 2011, European NATO states were unable to take on the forces of Libya--wracked by civil war, no less--without American help. So yeah, of course Afghan forces needed help to keep fighting! But America left, while debating just how long it could take for Afghan forces to collapse. That's a real confidence booster for our allies, eh?

The mistake in local force generation was trying to build a single army and security force (ANDSF) under the banner of a national government--the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (IRA) that few in Afghanistan would die to preserve in adversity:

I think part of the problem was trying to build a professional ANDSF. "Afghanistan" is a territory with rival tribes and not a national government young men are devoted to defending.

Prior to our surges, I wanted a decentralized Afghan security force with American and Coalition support[.]

Blaming the types of weapons and equipment we supplied for our defeat implies that we should have only built an Afghan military that could sustain itself with indigenous resources. Seriously?

Where would that sustainable force objective have led to? To static militias equipped with fire-hardened pointy sticks; with swords, shields, bows and arrows, and hand-made artisanal firearms and mortars for the elite forces on horses and donkeys. 

And what kind of military could have withstood being abandoned?

The original withdrawal plan was for a thousand or more U.S. and NATO troops to remain to advise and train IRA security forces and monitor the corruption. The IRA wanted to survive but to do that they had to keep receiving billions a year from foreign donors, mainly the United States. Refusal to cooperate meant termination of aid and nearly all the foreigners would leave. The Americans got a new government in early 2021 and that led to fatal changes to the withdrawal plan. Everyone was ordered out but were given three additional months to do it. That gave Pakistan and the Taliban an opportunity to increase their pressure on the IRA, which now rightly believed the Americans were going to abandon them.

And we still spend money on Afghanistan. But we spend it to sustain the Taliban enemy.

We lost the war because our senior civilian leaders decided that "ending the war" by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was too good of an image opportunity to pass by. And because none of our senior military leadership had the knowledge to advise the government about the wisdom of that objective or how to draw down our forces; or the honor to publicly resign in protest if good advice was given but rejected.

Can we honestly judge "what went wrong" when the leadership that ordered the skedaddle debacle bizarrely insists it was a success?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

Do Unto Others

Is it really strategic wisdom to refrain from defeating a foe trying to defeat us?

I understand the desire for caution when dealing with China. They're powerful. But refusing to try to defeat the Chinese Communist Party seems kind of retreat-ish: 

The U.S. faces strategic challenges with China, which aims to reshape the international order. The Biden administration's approach involves managing competition rather than seeking outright victory or confrontation. While some advocate for a more aggressive stance, aiming to defeat the Chinese Communist Party, such a strategy could backfire, strengthening the CCP and increasing conflict risks. The preferred strategy is maintaining U.S. dominance through enhanced focus on the Indo-Pacific, innovation, and alliances, while remaining open to engagement with China.

"Managing" China with some amorphous "engagement" gives the CCP little reason to restrain their aggressive stance to reshape the international order or to engage with America or our allies and friends peacefully. Why wouldn't China push until stopped?

And how do we keep allies on the line if they are told to stand guard ... forever? 

It's not like I think we should recklessly pursue war. I'm not even in favor of jamming military assets into bases close to China, which I think tempts more than deters China.

And while China is our biggest threat, it isn't our only threat. My preferred strategy is to get the Chinese pointed inland rather than out to sea where our major allies are located:

Sure, if we must fight I'd rather win, but just going to war is going to cost us in lives and money.

One can say that we hope that by becoming strong enough we deter the Chinese but this is still only second best. A deterred China will always be on the verge of attacking, just waiting for the moment when we cannot stop them for one reason or another and so cannot deter them for even a short window of opportunity.

No, defeating China makes the best of the worst case and deterring China makes the best of the second worst case. We need to shovel the Snow back north. We need to play the Great Game in Asia to achieve our best case--a China pointed away from the south--Taiwan and the United States and our other allies--and pointed toward the north and the interior of Asia.

Distract, deter, defeat--in that order of preference.

And America should be prepared to help allies under threat by using the Army for its core competency, as I explored in Military Review.

But the CCP has banked its legitimacy on economic growth that is running out. And you have to admit that defeating the CCP has a big payoff. Why shouldn't we aspire to repeating the Cold War victory over the USSR that fractured it and sent it reeling from its threat to the heart of democratic Western Europe?

Sigh. Let the Wookie win, eh?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

The Seduction of Short and Glorious War

The Winter War of 2022 drags on and both Russia and Ukraine (and its Western backers) plan for a long war. I was not seduced by thoughts of short and glorious war. 

I doubted Putin could get a short and glorious war against Ukraine because Russia was weaker than thought. Technology hasn't sped up war. And we'd have to prepare to sustain a long war.

In part this comes from following the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. And in 1996, as the U.S. military became overly infatuated with the extreme claims of the Revolution in Military Affairs, I warned that the 1980s war showed that long war was possible:

Iraq's invasion is a stunning reminder of how a quick, cheap and victorious blitzkrieg against an obviously outmanned and outgunned enemy can degenerate into a grueling war of attrition. On paper the Iraqi army was a mechanized juggernaut, but the real army in 1980 was poorly trained, armed with second-rate equipment, and led by officers more concerned with survival in the system than with effectiveness. It was ordered into action by a government that failed to formulate a realistic plan to win and reluctant to expose it to casualties.

Yes, that war was a mix of modern and old weapons that peer states in theory can avoid. But the war dragged on by pausing to rearm and reorganize. Running out of men and materiel was no bar to continuing the war, as I wrote in a summary of the Iran-Iraq War pre-dating that published paper:

The war as a whole showed us that modern war is not inherently brief. Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistani wars since World War II have misled us into thinking this is the norm. Desert Storm has seemingly confirmed this view and America now seeks a small but lethal Army that will strike hard, win fast, and come home. Yet by fighting on for years when most believed the First Gulf War would have to end rapidly, the Iraqis and Iranians have provided us with a much needed lesson that wars do not just end on their own. By simply pausing instead of furiously fighting Lemming-like until all weapons and ammunition are expended, these two states fought for nearly eight years.

Ukraine shows that aspect too as Russia and Ukraine fight with what they can get rather than with what they'd like. I've long wondered if any soldier ever goes home by Christmas.

In 1999 I argued in Army magazine that the Army National Guard had to get a defined role in war because assuming short and glorious "major theater wars" wasn't the way to bet.

So I have a healthy respect for things going wrong in the victory parade.

Yes, I expected a rapid victory in Iraq in 2003, writing a couple days before the war, "We'll be outside Baghdad's western suburbs in a week." Grant me that I was spot on concerning the major combat operations phase. I was agnostic on the issue of resistance after the war and assumed our local allies could defeat any resisting Baathists with our backing but with minimal direct combat support. But I had good reasons for being wrong about the insurgencies--that we defeated.

Just want to be transparent about that assessment.

When war starts, surely soldiers will go home by some Christmas in the future. Well, the survivors anyway. In the fall of 2022 I was expressing worries that Russia was getting the gift of time when its army was at its weakest. Russia used that time and rebuilt. We failed to exploit Russia's weakness to end the war sooner. Let's aim to give Ukrainians that Christmas sooner than it seems possible now. And make the home they go back to part of an independent and free Ukraine. 

And maybe a war that ends that way prevents us from wondering what Christmas our soldiers at war in Europe will come home by.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

The Winter War of 2022 Throws Away a Sanctuary

Unless Russia is serious about going on the offensive in the Kharkiv region, Russia has thrown away their sanctuary inside Russia across the border.

Russia has been clawing at Ukrainian defenses and slowly taking ground, even if the price in lives and weapons is high. Russia attacked into the Kharkiv region in an apparent effort to stretch Ukraine's defenders with even more of these attacks. The Russians said they wanted a buffer zone to protect Russian territory. Some speculated it was just the opening salvo of a major offensive once Russia massed enough forces.

Ten days ago the White House national security spokesman assessed Russia's Kharkiv attack:

“They have been able to thwart Russian advances, particularly around Kharkiv,” Kirby said. “The Russians really have kind of stalled out up there [and] … their advance on Kharkiv is all but over because they ran into the first line of defenses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and basically stopped, if not pulled back, some units.”

The advance stalled after a rapid but shallow advance against weak Ukrainian defenders. Ukraine was hampered in fighting back because American weapons couldn't be used against military targets inside Russia. Those restrictions were largely lifted--except for ATACMS--along with other allied restrictions.

So instead of needing few troops to protect their border against a nonexistent Ukrainian invasion threat, Russia has their troops pushed forward into a shooting gallery inside Ukraine with rear areas now also subject to attack.

And with more ammunition from the re-opened American supply line, Ukraine no longer has to conserve ammunition for only the largest ongoing attacks on their defensive lines. Now, ammunition can be used to degrade and disrupt the Russian attacks before they get going:

Ukraine fired missiles and artillery at 15 areas where Russia troops were concentrated on June 14 as Russia tried to use its advantage in manpower, equipment, and air support to seize territory in eastern Ukraine, Kyiv's General Staff said.

So Ukraine can afford to hit those sanctuaries where once they had to watch troops massing until the Russians in them actually attacked.

Bravo, Putin. Bravo.

UPDATE (Monday): Ukraine is degrading Russia's firepower on this front:

An officer fighting to defend the strip of land Ukraine has occupied on the left bank of the Dnipro River said that US aid has helped reduce the number of successful Russian glide bomb attacks on his squad's position.

Speaking to The Times of London, Major Serhiy Pedenko, the deputy commander of 503 Battalion of Ukraine's 38th Marine Brigade, said that the number of glide bombs hitting their position on the banks of the river had fallen from 80 a day to four.

Interesting. Pushing Russian power back from the river is key for an advance across it one day.

UPDATE (Wednesday): People are complaining that the recent peace conference regarding the Winter War of 2022 failed to provide that precious "plan" such people are so fixated on:

Ukraine summit fails to provide coherent path to peace[.]

Such complaints about a lack of a plan bolster the aggressor, Russia, whose plan is to endure until the West chooses to lose the war.

You want a coherent path to peace? I've got one. To such people I respond with this "plan" for when the future looks bleak:

You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. 

That should be our policy. If Ukrainians decide something less is all they can achieve because the cost is too high, that's up to them. And God help them if they choose that. But lack of Western help should not be the reason Ukraine is compelled to make that decision.

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

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

Weekend Data Dump

When I see a lighted mass drone show, I get a shiver. Because I see a future show that spells out "Allahu Akhbar" before the drones scatter and plunge to the ground where they explode.

Well, one big difference is that we were liberating a friendly city--not taking an enemy city: "Brown and other top officials have cited American operations in places like Mosul, where they believe the United States held itself to a higher standard than Israel is using in Gaza, as they voice frustration with Israel."

Even if Ukraine was getting a couple wings of F-16s right of the bat, they aren't wonder weapons. So don't get your hopes up. Ukraine will compel Russia to be a bit more cautious in using aircraft. And Ukraine will have occasional offensive opportunities. But not a silver bullet.

Sad: "Once more, the Russian GLONASS is in trouble. The problem is a familiar one, too many GLONASS satellites are ending their service lives, usually seven years, and Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, does not have the money to replace all of the GLONASS satellites." But we need good INS.

China's GPS: "China has a long-range plan for Beidou that includes adding new features and somehow achieving market dominance by 2040. China likes to announce long range goals like this, then quietly forget about it when the promised future never arrives." But experts wrongly swoon over their planning.

New car smell stinks: "Chinese military corruption is so bad that China is presently incapable of invading Taiwan. President Xi made the appalling discovery last year that China’s navy and air force were so bereft of spare parts as to be mission incapable, and particularly so for several months of constant combat."

Keep out: "The Eastern Shield will cover Poland's border with Belarus and its border with Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast (on the Baltic Sea)." It's a modern wall to stop weaponized migrants and a quick "take and talk" Russian offensive. Good. As long as it doesn't hinder a NATO invasion of Kaliningrad.

If the traditional parties addressed voter worries, the voters wouldn't have sought alternatives: "Far-right parties rattled the traditional powers in the European Union and made major gains in parliamentary elections Sunday, dealing an especially humiliating defeat to ... Macron." Macron? LOL.

Things in Iran should mysteriously blow up: "Yemen's Houthi damaged two commercial vessels in missile attacks in the Gulf of Aden in the last 24 hours as part of the militia group's ongoing campaign against international ocean shipping, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said on Sunday."

Huh: "[A half dozen Israeli reservists say] Biden’s diplomacy is actually dragging out the Gaza war he is pressing Israel to bring to an end. By restraining Israel, they said, Biden is preventing the Jewish state from defeating or deterring its genocidal enemies." I called that one. 

Yikes: "US and Canadian officials are investigating after a 689-foot ship collided with an underwater object and began taking on water in Lake Superior, the US Coast Guard says."

The U.S. remains on a "break" in its relationship with Turkey and is used to it. I concur. Actively "repairing" relations with Turkey under Erdogan means offering concessions to his Islamist-leaning rule and all that flows from it. Let's wait for the Turks to give us reason to restore our relationship.

Is Islamist terrorism "noise" building up to to major attacks in the West?

Is American naval power on a permanent downward slide? Well, turning that around has a major problem. Losing naval superiority would be very bad for America.

I don't like making a big deal of European Union elections. Talking about how important the results are falls into the EU plan of making the EU important. A more powerful EU with more power for the right will eventually be an all-powerful EU under the left. The proto-imperial EU never wastes a crisis.

Flash Point: South China Sea: "The June 1–June 10 war-fighting exercise began with an air assault on mock enemy forces to allow the deployment of U.S. and Filipino soldiers who secured an area, which served as a staging ground before a major offensive."

Myanmar: "Many of the army generals were surprised at how suddenly and quickly the troops in the north lost their will to fight and either deserted or joined the rebels. These attitudes spread quickly." I hope this will happen to Russia's army. And before our aid resumed, some small worry it could happen to Ukraine's.

Goodlife: "The island nation of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean has, for Russia, been useful as a wretched hive of scum and villainy where local politicians and businesses, especially banks, make a lot of money by allowing Russia to do whatever it wants." Cyprus  backs Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Defeating Daniel Ortega in the 1980s wasn't enough. Communists always need a stake through the heart to make sure.

Oh, I heard the French Mirage-2000 planes going to Ukraine will be able to fire Scalp cruise missiles. That's a good capability for the small number. How long will it take to get them in operation?

A different kind of human wave assault: "Finnish authorities fear the peace and quiet of places like Hoilola could soon be shattered by the arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers - part of what Helsinki sees as a 'hybrid war' being waged by Russia against the West."

No: "American aircraft carriers persevered over the challenge of Imperial Japan’s Kamikaze attacks, Soviet bomber long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, and will likely again over China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles." Our carriers never faced Soviet or Chinese threats. Our one success is 80 years old. This is key.

Defeating a PLA invasion of Taiwan "hinges on quickly building and deploying thousands of new drones that would swarm the Taiwan Strait and keep China’s military busy until more help can arrive, according to the top U.S. military official in the Pacific." Note that drones are to buy time--not be the silver bullet.

Is America losing the Arab world over Gaza? I have my doubts. After 8 months the "street" is less noisy than our college campuses. Given time after major operations end, sympathy will wane. If I'm wrong what are we to do? "Free" Palestine from the river to the sea? Is gaining genocidal "friends" really our goal?

Getting the theory right on what defeating China in a war over Taiwan means. Lots of thoughts and theories. But no mention of driving the invaders into the sea, as I explored in Military Review.

Coping with the birth rate collapse. I've long suspected Europe will seek a solution in clones; Asia in robots; and America in immigration. With some overlap, so no solution is pure. Maybe medical science will extend productive life significantly, buying time. Or maybe birth rates will recover.

Ukraine seems to have damaged one of Russia's few Su-57, where it and other aircraft almost always "sit in the open without any sort of shelter, let alone hardened ones." Thank God we wouldn't be penny wise and pound foolish like that with our planes out in the western Pacific, right? Tip to Instapundit.

Oh, please: "Why is President Biden still treating Iran as if it were our friend or ally? His actions — such as honoring Ebrahim Raisi, ... lobbying [Europeans] not to censure Iran at the [IAEA], and ignoring Iran’s steady march to nuclear weapons — make no sense." Of course it makes sense. Via Instapundit.

Good: "The U.S. has added three more companies to a list that bars imports from firms allegedly involved with Uyghur forced labor in China, according to a U.S. government notice posted online on Tuesday."

I call BS on this one: "If the alliance is to reach its century mark, the transatlantic partners must shift much of the responsibility of continental security to Europeans themselves. " Shifting NATO to Europe doesn't "save" NATO--it just gives Europe to the EU, even if it takes 25 years.

Being fourth on our to-do list saves them: "Around 20 North Korean troops briefly crossed into the southern portion of the Demilitarized Zone over the weekend, prompting South Korean forces to warn the intruders by firing shots and using loudspeakers[.]" But if South Korea and Japan make their own list ...

It's been closed for more than two months: "The Port of Baltimore’s shipping channel, in its entirety, is open for business as of Monday evening." Imagine our problems during war with multiple ports shut down for months. We'd go faster during a war, right?

Congress may demand the Pentagon get supplies through to our forces in the western Pacific over Chinese efforts to disrupt the supply lines.

Good: "The United States will send Ukraine another Patriot missile system[.]" I don't know what "system" means. A single launcher? A battery? I suspect the latter, but I don't know.

Russian manpower shortages. I'm not sure that the description of soldier unrest is significant. Is it enough to affect units? And if Ukraine can't attack on a large scale to exploit shaken units, it might not matter unless unrest escalates to army-level collapse.

FFS, we can even ef up a proven design from abroad: "[A GAO report] into the failings of the US Navy’s Constellation-class frigate programme, detailing incomplete designs and the build of the first-in-class being 'at a standstill', indicate concerning similarities with the ill-fated Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)."

Huh: "Six Russian nationals suspected to have terror ties to ISIS have been arrested in a coordinated sting operation spanning Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia, The Post can exclusively reveal." Our mythical over-the-horizon capabilities didn't stop them "over there." A "Russian" named "Mohammad." 

Chutzpah with Chinese characters: "China's defence ministry on Tuesday warned the Netherlands to restrain actions of its naval and air forces after the Netherlands' defence ministry said Chinese fighter jets approached a Dutch ship unsafely in the East China Sea.

Accepting defeat: "Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said on Wednesday that a peace treaty with Azerbaijan was close to completion but that his country would not accept Baku's demands that it change its constitution."

Welcome wagon: "The U.S. Navy has deployed warships and aircraft to track a Russian naval flotilla after the Russian vessels sailed less than 30 miles off South Florida’s coast on Tuesday[.]" But we won't maneuver unsafely around them. 

Yeah: "The recent arrest of Admiral Robert Burke on corruption charges is an indication of the decline in the quality and integrity of our general and flag officers (GFOs) ... Too many reached that rank by being skilled bureaucrats, not making enemies, and keeping superiors happy." We have a problem.

The European so-called Parliament is "susceptible to the pressure of lobbyists and well-organised vested interests. As a result, even the most well-meaning politicians, once they get to Brussels, tend to get sucked into its bubble." Like I've said, the EU wins just by playing their rigged game. Populists will be absorbed.

Chest-beating Putin's flinging of nuclear poo has predictable consequences: " In a rare reference to the Western nuclear arsenal, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday highlighted the alliance's efforts to adapt its capabilities to current security threats, taking note of Russia latest nuclear rhetoric and drills."

Germany prepares for a larger and longer war by getting more recruits: "'The new model includes basic military service of six months with an option for additional voluntary military service of up to an additional 17 months,' the document said."

The U.S. widened sanctions against Russia: "Wednesday’s package targeted Chinese companies which help Russia pursue its war in Ukraine and raised the stakes for foreign financial institutions which work with sanctioned Russian entities." Move and counter-move. 

Speed bump removed: "NATO defense ministers gathered Thursday hoping to agree on a new plan to provide long-term security assistance and military training to Ukraine amid Russia’s full-scale invasion, after Hungary promised not to veto the proposal as long as it’s not forced to take part."

Start now, the job is big and Western planes will arrive slowly: "Ukrainian forces may be conducting an effort aimed at degrading Russian air defenses, which, if successful, could enable Ukraine to more effectively leverage manned fixed-wing airpower in the long run."

As we watch the Houthi interdict Red Sea shipping with Iranian weapons and help (via Instapundit), remember that this has long been an objective of mullah-run Iran. 

Israel-approved: "Israel has ordered another 25 F-35 fighters, which will give Israel three F-35I squadrons. ... The radars and electronic countermeasures provide the pilot with an integrated view of the surrounding air space. This degree of situational awareness gives the pilot an enormous advantage in combat[.]"

Russian soldiers go to Ukraine to die for Putin. Western intelligence agencies should be all over social media available to Russians praising each and every Russian soldier that dies in Ukraine as a hero lifting the glory of Putin.

We'll soon find out if it works: "Russia has moved one of its S-500 air defense systems, the most advanced it has, to the occupied Crimean Peninsula to protect the Kerch Bridge, Ukraine’s spy boss said Wednesday."

That makes more sense: "A ship that took on water in Lake Superior likely had a stress fracture in its hull, the U.S. Coast Guard said Tuesday, backing off an initial report that the freighter had struck something below the surface last weekend." 

Thanks Russia, but you don't have to go to all this effort. We're willing to sink your ships off your coast: "The U.S. Navy has deployed warships and aircraft to track a Russian naval flotilla after the Russian vessels sailed less than 30 miles off South Florida’s coast on Tuesday" We're thoughtful that way.

The flow continues: "A new wave of Euro-Atlantic armaments are due to flow into the Ukraine’s Armed Forces inventory in the coming weeks and months."

Not everything sucks in Navy shipbuilding. Well, La De-frickin' Da. I'm not soothed. From "Don't give up the ship. Fight her 'til she sinks." to "Don't commission the ship. Change her 'til she's too expensive."

Tar. Feathers: "Aside from a few forward locales, the United States does not invest in robust shelters for its combat aircraft, which is increasingly looking like a stark vulnerability." Are planes are hard to shoot down. It's far easier to see them--and destroy them--on the ground.

And yet when jihadi terrorists kill us at home in large numbers, we'll act all surprised and establish a commission to tell us how the terrorists got into America. We'll probably be told that our border is super secure because only 0.0002% of all the illegals who entered America in the last 3+ years were terrorists.

Canada blames "climate change," but whatever: "Canada looks on track to meet NATO’s military spending guideline by the end of the decade, ... , notably by boosting investment in the Arctic near its shared border with Russia as the region warms quickly because of climate change."

Happy 249th birthday, U.S. Army! "On June 14, 1775, 249 years ago, the Second Continental Congress founded a united army to bring the 13 colonies together in the fight for independence from Great Britain. The U.S. Army was officially born." I know what present I want!

Rather than deep strike missions as I guessed, the French-madeMirage-2000 might specialize in air defense both protecting Ukraine's new Swedish AWACS and exploiting their information.

Spread out the responsibility: "The U.S. and its allies will agree this week to a plan to put NATO in charge of efforts to arm and train the Ukrainian military, marking a shift away from what so far has been an American-led endeavor."

The length of time it is taking to get F-16s in Ukrainian hands is near-criminal. We could have accelerated this process. 

Oh: "[The] Bharatiya Janata Party, is now in decline, reinforcing the theory that the fifth-largest economy in the world is far too diverse for any single political force to dominate. India will now be bogged down by internal political and economic issues that will limit its ability to project geopolitical influence."

The Marines send their replacement for the AAV7 out to exercise: "The U.S. Marine Corps used their new ACV (Amphibious Combat Vehicle) in an overseas training operation in the Philippines."

Blowback: "Russian threats against NATO have forced NATO to become more united and ready for war.  ... [The collapse of the USSR] led many nations to ... reduce their military spending and demobilize many of their troops. The Russian invasion of Ukraine changed all that ... " Strategery.

I'm skeptical: "NATO countries have 'comfortably exceeded' a target of placing 300,000 troops on high-readiness as the alliance grapples with the threat from Russia, a senior alliance official said Thursday." How many are combat brigades? Past commitments relied on sailors for the big number.

Demonizing Saudi Arabia is leaving a mark: "The expiration of the petrodollar agreement represents a significant shift in global power dynamics. ... the global financial order is entering a new era. The U.S. dollar’s dominance is no longer guaranteed." Shocking. This seems like a big deal. Tip to Instapundit.

Resisting Russia risks nuclear war? So Russia might nuke us for helping Ukraine fight Russia's unjustified invasion? I say if Russia is willing to start a nuclear war over that, what makes anyone think we could deter Russia from using nukes if Putin invades and directly fights NATO next? Let the Wookie win ... 

More Europeans are rejecting the far-left/Islamist, anti-Semitic alliance. That's not "far right". That's a survival instinct finally kicking in. 

Even with a legal ruling on Manila's side, Peking has the PLA: "The Philippines has asked a United Nations body to formally recognize the extent of its undersea continental seabed in the South China Sea, where it would have the exclusive right to exploit resources[.]"

Potemkin Putin bravado: "[Ukraine's] foreign ministry said: 'It is absurd for Putin, who planned, prepared and executed, together with his accomplices, the largest armed aggression in Europe since World War Two, to present himself as a peacemaker.'" Russia's big demands lead me to think they are weakening. 

Is Germany the sick man of Europe? "It is now little more than a 'developing country'. Its stock market is a 'junk shop' selling old tat. And its reputation as a place to do business has 'never been so bad’.'" I used to soothe myself that politicians need a long time to wreck a country. Tip to Instapundit.

NATO needs a more powerful Europe? Hard pass. NATO needs more powerful European states. Don't confuse unified political Europe with Geographic Europe of sovereign states. A more powerful political Europe will destroy NATO--which is bad for America and Europeans.

Jihadis, Wagner, and decline at the corner of No and Where.

The Marine armed robot dog.

In a dangerous world, replacing our aging Minutman III ICBMS is vital.

The idea that everything is going according to Hamas' plan is nonsense. Nobody plans to get their asses kicked. Hamas hoped to crush Israel by successfully brutalizing Israelis and inspiring the world to join them in destroying Israel. There's a history of Westerners saying fighting jihadis is counterproductive.

Asian countries may have to adopt the advice to "never start a land war in Asia."

Our new federal holiday, Juneteenth, is on June 19th. It was politically motivated. But Republicans should embrace it. Free, Black, Union soldiers under a Republican president marched into Texas to inform Black slaves that they were free citizens because their Confederate Democrat masters were defeated? No-brainer.

With Ukraine there with its friends, the main value of the recent peace summit in Switzerland is to reject Putin's false claim that Russia--the invader!--is the side interested in peace while Ukraine stands in the way.

People claimed the Iraq War was "breaking" the U.S. Army when it was enduring 1,000 KIA in a calendar year? Yet Russia's army in this war could be losing that many soldiers every week--for over two years now--and is doing just fine? How is that army not fragile? Yet how would we know?

Good grief, they weren't the first things we attacked? "CENTCOM said the US military destroyed seven radars in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, which had allowed 'Houthis to target maritime vessels and endanger commercial shipping.'" We spend too much time sending messages rather than destruction. 

Sad statistics: "Mohanad el-Balal is one of many Sudanese civilians doing everything they can to ward off a devastating famine – and there is one man whose photograph he will never forget." But until they are crowned Queen of the Victim Prom, they'll get no pier, no outrage, and no help for their tragedy.

Given the state of the sainted international community, I'm shocked it's that many: "Nearly 80 countries called Sunday for the 'territorial integrity' of Ukraine to be the basis for any peace agreement to end Russia’s two-year war[.]" Although Ukrainians have to decide to suffer to achieve that goal.

Perhaps Europeans Aren't Ready for Democracy

Are European youth losing faith in democracy? Hard to say because the Definitions Section is oddly missing.

Is democracy in Europe losing support? 

Data from numerous surveys show that consistent support for democracy across Europe is already quite low. And if demography is destiny, it looks like public support for democracy will continue to fall, with Europe possibly reaching an inflection point where nondemocratic forms of government not only take root but flourish.

How do we know this?

According to the Open Society Foundation’s 2023 global poll, which Comms Hub advised on and analyzed in Europe, only 38 percent of Germans aged 18 and up are consistent supporters of democracy. In France, the number stands at a paltry 27 percent, while Italy and Poland clock in at less than 45 percent.

Will the youth view remain that way as they age? That's the worry:

Demography need not be destiny, but without a greater understanding of the problem, democratic decline is a very probable outcome. The question is, what can be done to bolster support for democracy among Europe’s youth before it’s too late?

Oddly, in a story about European demographics, there is no mention of the disproportionate share of Moslem immigrants of both the legal and illegal kind in Europe. Maybe a closer look at the demographics would be revealing.

I mean, if you want to discuss attitudes of the younger demographic, maybe the attitudes of people without the social norms of rule-of-law democracy would be important to note. Which also might explain at least some of the rise of anti-democratic opinions of native Europeans who see elected leaders refusing to discuss this aspect of demographics. And who try to shame and vilify those native Europeans for even worrying about the adverse effects of that trend.

Or maybe demographics is a minor factor as Europeans simply slip back to autocratic norms without robust American leadership:

I had to be reminded by this author that our long period of influence in Europe during the Cold War had a role in making Europe truly democratic:

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.

Of course, since I wrote that Russia invaded Ukraine and American leadership has revived. But Europeans of the EU variety still fret about American leadership. 

Of course they do. Their roots are in nondemocratic norms.

NOTE: The image was made from DALL-E. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

Force Resign 2030

I remain very worried about Marine transformation. It is too broad and even in the Pacific theater where it could make sense fails on its own justifications. Worse, it didn't have to happen to get the needed capabilities.

Force Design 2030: 

How did the United States Marine Corps transform itself from the world’s premier expeditionary force-in-readiness to a poor parody of the French Maginot Line in just four years?

Ruining the Marine ability to fight ashore against tough opponents is a high price to pay for a marginal anti-ship gain:

The Marines have essentially destroyed the combined arms capability of the operating forces to stand up 14 Naval Strike Missile (NSM) batteries and 3 Tomahawk Land Attack Missile Batteries.  The Marines intend to only keep 3 NSM batteries permanently forward deployed, while the sole purpose of the other 11 batteries is to serve a rotational pool of manpower and equipment. The Corps’ contribution to the other services’ anti-ship capabilities is minimal and duplicative. Worse, the other services are all investing in long-range, hypersonic missiles while the Marines are largely buying short-range, subsonic missiles that will be obsolete in the near future, if not already. The end result is that Marines will be marginalized, at best, on far flung island with ineffective missiles.

And that assumes the detachments work.

I've been worried about the weak anti-ship capabilities--on the assumption for argument's sake that killing land capabilities is a price we should pay to help the Navy.

The authors slam the logistics of the situation. And rightly so on operating concept and means. As I recently observed:

I have many worries about the Marine plans. 

In many ways the Marines could be setting the stage for a fight like the Guadalcanal campaign of World War II (in a Land Warfare Paper) when the Japanese expended a huge amount of men and ships to sustain a garrison on Guadalcanal.

The Marines could well be isolated bait that draws in the Navy to try to rescue them while the Chinese use their missiles and planes to hammer the would-be rescuers who don't want to leave any man behind. 

Taking on the Japanese 1942 role doesn't seem wise.

Or maybe the Navy prudently but regrettably lets the Marines wither on the vine the way the Navy had to let the defenders of Bataan be marched off the the deadly prison camps in 1942.

I think the authors' argument about holding islands is the weakest--if true--because clearly the Marine concept doesn't intend their anti-ship detachments to hold their ground. They are supposed to shoot and scoot, however weak those two capabilities are.

The Marine Corps is officially dismissing and ridiculing criticism of their transformation. But nothing said or done so far reduces my worries. 

Tragically, we had an alternative path using the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command that would have ended this risky scheme before it got started. 

UPDATE: Have no doubt, the Marines have devastated those land warfare capabilities:

The United States Marine Corps is no longer capable of effectively conducting combat operations across the spectrum of conflict.

And let me repeat that even if transforming Marine units in the western Pacific to sink PLAN ships is the correct move, why "transform" the entire Marine Corps?

[Oops, I accidentally incorporated this update into the post, thinking it was scheduled rather than not already posted.] 

UPDATE: Huh:

One of the mysteries of the Marine Corps’ decision to concentrate on an anti-ship mission in the South China Sea is whether or not the joint force combatant commander responsible for the region even wanted this Marine Corps contribution. The current Indo-Pacific commander has not yet weighed in on the subject. A recent war game conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the Stand-in Force concept to be duplicative and less effective than capabilities already possessed by other services and unable to contribute “heavily” in most scenarios. 

But other than that, forward ... march!

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

The AFRICOM Queen Works!

United States Navy expeditionary sea base vessels provide AFRICOM with an asset to increase American partnerships in Africa based on whatever the country needs.

USS Hershel "Woody" Williams in action: 

one of the few U.S. military vessels to almost continually transit African waters, as part of collective U.S. government efforts to build and sustain partnerships in a region America considers vital to its national security interests. ...

The crew’s experiences during a recent exercise underscored the challenges the Woody Williams faces as one of the few U.S. military vessels to almost continually transit African waters, as part of collective U.S. government efforts to build and sustain partnerships in a region America considers vital to its national security interests.

International terrorism, drug smuggling, Chinese interest in building an Atlantic naval port and a growing Russian military presence all come into play in this region.

The sailors aboard the only Navy ship assigned to the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility know that their role is unlike many others in the service.

“We’re pretty much a floating embassy,” said Petty Officer 3rd Class Gabriel Gajda, a yeoman assigned to the ship. “We go to countries almost no one goes to.”

It's a whole-of-government effort on one hull. Do read it all. 

I like to flatter myself that I prodded this Navy capability with this proposal in Military Review for the Army to deploy such a ship using modularized auxiliary cruisers.

Because the need for this type of ship to engage African countries across a broad spectrum of activities is greater in an age of great power competition when resources are diverted to other theaters. 

But the Navy has stepped up to provide the capability. Assuming one ship is enough. 

As an aside, I'd pay good money to have one of this class christened The AFRICOM Queen. But my clever names  never  get adopted.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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

What Part of Opposing Enemies and Supporting Allies is Bad?

Withdrawing from the Iran deal wasn't enabling an ally to drag us into a war. It was ending a gift to mullah-run Iran to facilitate its drive to acquire nuclear weapons. It was an attempt to prevent an enemy ("Death to America!") from starting an even more destructive war.

This Geopolitical Monitor analysis is bizarre to me:

A cardinal tenet of realpolitik advises against allowing a minor ally to precipitate a major conflict. Presently, from the perspective of the US security framework, we are observing a disintegration at the very core of what might be termed the emergent US order on a macro scale. ...

Foremost among these was Washington’s unilateral exit from the nuclear accord with Iran, a move that underscored a willingness to forsake treaty commitments — even at the cost of alienating European allies — in favor of aligning with Tel Aviv’s stance.

First off, what treaty commitment is the author talking about? The Iran nuclear deal was not a treaty--by State Department design. Obama didn't want it to be a treaty because it could not have passed the Senate super majority requirement. The deal was just a document that a number of parties picked up off a desk and took home!

The author has a point about not letting a minor ally drag us into war. I've noted that flaw in the Obama era "leading from behind" fad. There's a reason so many of our allies lack sufficient ammunition now. Our plan after World War II was to hobble their ability to wage war on their own but resupply them if we face a common enemy. And allies were happy to offload the cost on America. 

Until now. America's inability to live up to that ammunition deal has killed it. We need allied production.

But tying that reality of alliance management to ending the absolutely horrible Iran nuclear deal is nuts. The deal was based on Iranian and Western lies:

We're willing to pretend that Iran isn't even seeking nuclear weapons. Just in time for the Monday "deadline" for a final agreement.

Which means we won't have leverage to complain that the mullahs are seeking nuclear weapons contrary to an agreement.

And which also means that Iran can portray themselves as an innocent victim of Western aggression that suffered under sanctions for no good reason other than to starve poor Moslem children.

Once we start pretending, what's the limit? I'm sure that we will then pretend the deal worked right up until Iran tests a nuclear weapon (perhaps first in North Korea) and announces that it has already deployed a half dozen weapons of the same design.

And we'll pretend Iran's nuclear status really doesn't matter.

And the deal was aided by media lies.

Hell, the whole point of the deal was to "balance" the Middle East with a strengthened--now with moderation!--Iran on once side and the Gulf Arabs on the other. Ah, Smart Diplomacy!®

The persistent love of Obama and Biden for mullah-run Iran is the most bizarre aspect of this bizarre analysis.

And the two other reasons the author gives to bolster his claim that America is forfeiting its leadership in the Middle East are the American defeat in Afghanistan and America's support for Israel.

Sure, needlessly losing the Afghanistan war hurt us. It may have emboldened Iran and its little pet pyschos like Hamas and the Houthi.

But does supporting Israel against Iran's Hamas and Houthi proxies really hurt American influence?

Doesn't backing an ally despite international and domestic pressure make Arab autocrats a little more confident in American support? Confidence that the author says defeat in Afghanistan shook, remember.

I say America pretends Iran isn't waging war on America and that sucking up to Iran hurts confidence in American support.

Doesn't the lack of a reaction in the Arab "street" to support Hamas show that Israel isn't the real regional problem? I mean, Arab states had to settle for exciting America's street:

Observers stunned at the campus-based protest movement on behalf of Hamas have come to learn that this protest movement is far from spontaneous, but has in fact been lavishly financed and developed for years by leading left-wing philanthropies along with Arab states in the Middle East.

Doesn't all this make Arab cooperation with America to face their historic and now aggressive Iranian enemy more rather than less likely?

Geopolitical Monitor often seems just bizarre to me.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

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