Category: Military Strategy

Saturday Soother, Nordstream Clues Edition – October 1, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Kalalau Valley Lookout, Waimea Canyon, Kauai, HI – September 2022 photo by Alex Skoz

Who sabotaged the Nordstream pipelines? We’re forced to speculate, but it’s a near certainty that the US Navy knows who did it. In perusing Stratfor’s publication this week of where in the world US Navy fleets are located, Wrongo saw this map:

The map breaks the Navy’s fleets into Carrier groups (four in orange) and LHA and LHD Amphibious Assault groups (two in blue). The map shows the location of these groups over the last four weeks. The one of interest is LHD3. It spent most of the past four weeks in the Baltic Sea, including a great deal of time very near the Nordstream pipelines.

LHD3 is the designation of the USS Kearsarge, what the Navy calls a Multiple Purpose Amphibious Assault Ship, shorthand for a small aircraft carrier. The Kearsarge left the Baltic Sea a few days ago. Part of the reason the Kearsarge was in the Baltic was to participate in Baltops 22:

“This year, more than 45 ships, over 75 aircraft, and 7,000 personnel are tasked to execute a series of complex events throughout the two-week exercise.”

Seapower Magazine reported that one element of the Kearsarge operations in the Baltic was to test special sub-sea mine destruction technologies: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“A significant focus of BALTOPS every year is the demonstration of NATO mine hunting capabilities, and this year the US Navy continues to use the exercise as an opportunity to test emerging technology….Experimentation was conducted off the coast of Bornholm, Denmark….”

Bornholm is where the first breaches of Nordstream Two were discovered. Stratfor reports that:

“On Sept. 26, the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Administration warned of potential ”deliberate attacks” after energy companies reported multiple cases of unidentified drones flying near offshore oil and gas installations. Just a few hours later, officials in Denmark warned they had found a gas leak along a section of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline off the coast of the Danish island of Bornholm.”

The following day, the Swedish Maritime Administration announced it also detected two gas leaks on the Nordstream One pipeline in a nearby area. A fourth leak was discovered subsequently. While the Baltops 22 operation finished in July, the US Sixth Fleet didn’t begin leaving the Baltic Sea until September 22.

So it’s highly likely the Navy knows what happened and maybe who did it.

A head-scratching question is why would anyone do this? Damaging Nordstream is a direct terror attack on both Russia, and the EU, Germany, and the western European nations indirectly connected to the pipelines.

It is impossible to believe that it was done undetected. This type of clandestine operation requires deep water explosives, submersibles, divers and digging through the sea mud to attach explosives to the concrete shell that surrounds the steel pipeline.

Let’s take a brief look at the leading characters. Western governments say Russia did it, but why would it? One benefit to the Russians is that it forced the price of natural gas even higher (it went up 7%). It might have propaganda value; Russia can blame the US and thereby further turn Russian civilians against the West.

One old myth may apply: According to legend, Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés ordered his men to “Burn the boats” as they began their conquest of the Aztec empire in 1519. The idea was that there would be no opportunity to retreat, and winning the battle was all that mattered. For Putin, could it be he purposefully destroyed billions of dollars of Russian energy infrastructure and their “cash cow”, believing that Europe will never again want Russian gas? If so, that means Putin intends to win WWIII.

Could it be China? Closing Nordstream means China would get all the gas it needs, and possibly at even cheaper prices. Rendering Nordstream useless forces the Russians to tie their currency more tightly to the Chinese Yuan. And the newest Chinese submarines might be able to do the deed.

Could it be the US? We have the technology and were in the area. But what goal of our foreign policy would be served by drastically hurting our NATO allies? If we did it, we’ve gone from a passive participant arming Ukraine to an active participant, possibly engaging in an Act of War.

Could it be a smaller state in the rabid anti-Russian west such as Poland?  The US Navy knows. Will they tell anyone?

On to the weekend, where we ignore what Gini Thomas told the Jan. 6 Committee or, whatever Judge Aileen Cannon is thinking about Trump’s documents. It’s time for our Saturday Soother! Start by brewing up a hot steaming mug of Kahiko ($47.95 for 8oz: expensive, no? Thanks Biden) from Hawaii’s Hula Daddy Kona Coffee. It is said to be richly chocolaty, harmoniously juicy, and bright.

Now, grab a seat by a south-facing window and listen to George Gershwin’s “Lullaby for Strings”, written in 1919, although it was first performed as an orchestral piece in 1967. It’s played here by the New York Philharmonic String Quartet in 2016:

BTW: Stop watching cable news.

 

Facebooklinkedinrss

Is Putin Bluffing?

The Daily Escape:

Sunset, foothills of the Superstition Mountains, Phoenix, AZ – September 2022 photo by Gary Robinson

Wrongo is a life-long peacenik. That started with his opposition to the Vietnam War, which didn’t prevent him from being drafted and spending his service time in Germany running a nuclear missile site for the US Army. His anti-war stance went forward through Grenada, Iraq (twice), Libya, Syria and of course, Afghanistan.

Curiously, he’s in favor of the US assisting Ukraine, largely because if Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unchecked, it will create a continuing threat to Europe and to world peace. The fallout from NATO assisting Ukraine to date has been immense. Now, Russia appears to be trying to add holding Europe hostage to a nuclear threat to his already holding it hostage for energy.

In a speech Wednesday morning, Putin announced a partial mobilization of his military, saying the goals of his invasion of Ukraine had not changed and that the step was “necessary and urgent,” and effective immediately. They’re going to mobilize 300,000 troops who have prior military experience.

Contrast this to the 200,000 troops he used to invade Ukraine.

This is Russia’s reaction first, to getting bogged down in what was supposed to be a quick operation in Ukraine; and second, by Ukraine’s successful counter-offensive that has caused a significant Russian military retreat.

Russia’s plan is now to absorb the Donbas region into Russia after a sham referendum in the next few days. Once Russia annexes the Donbas, Putin says that part of Ukraine will henceforth be a part of Russia. He made his strategy explicit:

“If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people….This is not a bluff.”

From a Russian perspective, any further Ukrainian attacks in the Donbas could be construed as attacks on Russia. That means Russia might consider themselves free to interdict NATO resupply operations to Ukraine even within NATO countries.

We’re now in a situation that’s fast-moving, and potentially dangerous. Putin is reminding the West that he has his finger on the nuclear button. He also said:

“I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and some components are more modern than those of the NATO countries…”

Even though Putin said he isn’t bluffing, we have to ask: Is this a bluff?

The answer may turn on whether we’re talking about Russia attacking the West outside of Ukraine, and whether they use nukes or conventional weapons in that attack. If they use nukes, the question is whether they use tactical nukes (usually 2-200 kilotons) or heavy ballistic missiles. The Hiroshima bomb was 15 kt. The US has deployed about 100 tactical nuclear bombs, called the B61, in Italy, Germany, Turkey, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Russia going nuclear would confront NATO with two unpalatable choices: One, back down and accede to Russian demands with the near certainty of having to face additional attempts at nuclear blackmail farther down the road. The other option would be for NATO to hit back with its own nuclear arsenal with the obvious risk of having the Ukrainian War escalate into a general nuclear war.

A third possibility is for NATO to retaliate with a large conventional weapon strike. If NATO wants maximum shock value for their nonnuclear counterstroke, striking Crimea would be a serious response.

But whether there is a conventional or nuclear response, the possibility of escalation seems high. OTOH, if Putin used a tactical nuke in Ukraine, it could signal the start of the end game for him. Even the most opportunistic of Russia’s allies would cut them off, both diplomatically and economically.

But the problem with playing chicken is that sometimes the other guy just holds the wheel straight, presses the accelerator, and closes his eyes.

What counters this is that the people surrounding Putin have as much to lose as anyone in the West in the event of an escalation that brings NATO into the fray. Will Putin actually resort to using nukes in Ukraine or Europe? Nobody knows.

Putin knows that everyone knows he knows that he can’t actually win using nukes. The threat is that he will tip the geopolitical board over in a tantrum. Putin’s actual use of nukes will result in a tremendous blowback of either retaliatory nuclear strikes or large-scale conventional weapons strikes, depending on how he actually used his nukes.

Something to consider is speed of response. Putin can nuke Ukraine with a transit time of around 8 minutes from launch to detonation for a ballistic missile, and slightly longer for a cruise missile. Rest assured that the US/NATO have some nuclear-armed submarines in the Arctic that could hit Moscow in 8-10 minutes if it came to that.

Sitting in the comfort of the US, Wrongo can’t support adopting a Chamberlain-esque policy of appeasement with Russia.

Facebooklinkedinrss

US Military Needs Recruits

The Daily Escape:

Old Victorian farmhouse between Santa Cruz and Salinas, CA – photo by Dave Alvin

The NYT has a report about how hard it is for the US military to find new recruits:

“Almost across the board, the armed forces are experiencing large shortfalls in enlistments this year — a deficit of thousands of entry-level troops that is on pace to be worse than any since just after the Vietnam War. It threatens to throw a wrench into the military’s machinery, leaving critical jobs unfilled and some platoons with too few people to function.”

More:

“The Army is the largest of the armed forces, and….As of late June, it had recruited only about 40% of the roughly 57,000 new soldiers it wants to put in boots by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.”

Still more: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Less than a quarter of young American adults are physically fit to enlist and have no disqualifying criminal record, a proportion that has shrunk steadily in recent years. And shifting attitudes toward military service mean that now only about one in 10 young people say they would even consider it.”

This is shocking. You don’t have to be a competitive athlete to join the Army. Too many young men have prison records. The military should seriously consider issuing waivers for criminal history. A willingness to die for one’s country should be seen as a gigantic step towards rehabilitation.

And since just 10% of potential recruits are willing to consider serving, young people have obviously understood the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why would young people want to die for wasteful wars of choice that have nothing at all to do with protecting their country?

These shortfalls put pressure on the military to bring in people who are either marginally qualified or unqualified. Wrongo ran a US Army unit in Germany during the Vietnam war. Back then, the US Army couldn’t recruit enough people who met its basic standards. The DOD came up with a program called Project 100,000 in October 1966 to recruit new soldiers who previously had been below the military’s mental or medical standards.

Project 100,000 personnel died at higher rates than other Americans serving in Vietnam. In Germany, more of our Project 100,000 soldiers served time in military jails than did our regular recruits. The project was ended in December 1971.

It looks like the Army is currently walking toward implementing a similar solution to the same problem it had 45 years ago.

Since jobs are plentiful in America, and wages have increased, the military has to compete by sweetening their deal with signing bonuses (up to $50,000). The military has also downsized. The number of active-duty service members is now about half of what it was in the 1980s and it’s projected to keep decreasing.

Also, the shabby way we treat our veterans hasn’t gone unnoticed by young people. The Watson Institute researches the cost of the Afghan war. They say that more than 40% of the troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have already been approved to receive lifetime disability benefits. This is what happens when you continually redeploy the same soldiers into a 20-year long battle. Many get permanently injured.

And most of the costs associated with caring for post-9/11 veterans have yet to be paid, and will continue to accrue for years into the future.

July marks the 40th anniversary of doing away with the draft. We instituted the all-volunteer army because during the Vietnam War, significant numbers of draftees didn’t want to serve. The all-volunteer army was a bad idea then, and it’s still a bad idea. The post-9/11 wars were the first major test of our all-volunteer military.

Leaving aside their bravery and personal sacrifice, which was profound, how do you think they did?

On September 11, 2001, roughly one in every four American men were military veterans. But over the past two decades, the number of veterans in the population has declined to fewer than one in eight.

We need to re-institute the draft to spread the responsibility for our defense to all Americans. Barring reinstituting the draft, the number of military in our population will continue to decline. The Census Bureau projects that the number of veterans will be just 1 in 14 by 2040. By 2050, when the costs of providing medical care and benefits for veterans of the post-9/11 wars reaches its peak, few Americans will have a direct relative who was involved in those wars.

The other benefit of a draft is that it exposes young people to others of all races, ethnicities, and beliefs, and forces them to find ways to get along to accomplish a mission.

That would be both a refreshing and necessary change.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Helplessness Isn’t Solved by Playing Nuclear Chicken

The Daily Escape:

Sunset, Lake Waramaug, Warren, CT – February 2022 photo by Dave King

We’re feeling helpless as we watch what’s happening in Ukraine, because America and NATO won’t step up and stop Putin from laying waste there. Last week, Biden declared:

“I want to be clear: We will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full might of a united and galvanized NATO….But we will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III. And something we must strive to prevent.”

Biden has drawn a red line. Unfortunately, he’s signaling to Putin the things we won’t do. The catch is that Biden’s red line doesn’t cover several non-NATO European countries that Putin might be interested in taking over. It creates a couple of strategic problems.

First, it puts a target on non-NATO countries. NATO fought for Kosovo and Kuwait in similar circumstances. And what about Finland or Taiwan? Second, what should NATO do if Putin uses WMD in Ukraine? Biden’s statement is a failure of strategy. Every time the US says, “We will defend every inch of NATO territory,” Russia hears, “It’s OK to take the rest.” When Putin learns that NATO will do nothing directly to stop his invasion, it decreases his costs of war, and increases what he will demand in the “peace” negotiations.

Back to helplessness. When we feel helpless, our level of anxiety goes up. When our anxiety is high, we say “We have to do something.” It doesn’t take long for us to say, “This is something, so let’s do it.”

That has led Ukrainians and Americans to talk about a No Fly Zone (NFZ) over Ukraine. Robert B. Hubbell had a practical take on what an NFZ requires: (brackets by Wrongo)

”…the no-fly zone over Washington, DC after 9/11 required twelve fighter jets in the air continuously…. DC is 68 square miles, and Ukraine is 233,031 square miles….Ukraine’s [landmass] is 3,400 times larger than DC….it would require a massive commitment of fighter jets to enforce a no-fly zone.”

Hubbell points out that jets on patrol must refuel every two hours, requiring KC-135 tankers to refuel them in mid-air over Ukraine. Our KC-135 tankers would be easy targets. The KC-135s can only stay aloft for six hours, requiring a constant rotation of multiple refueling tankers to keep our combat jets in the air.

We would have to establish air traffic control for our hundreds of aircraft over Ukraine. That would require AWACS aircraft to manage the airspace and detect oncoming threats from Russian jet fighters. Our AWACS would also be targeted by Russia’s advanced S-400 air defense systems that can see deep into Ukraine.

To maintain a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the first action necessary to protect US jets would be to attack S-400 missile systems on Russian territory — an act of war.

The threat of using nuclear weapons is palpable. We know that Putin has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, while NATO has less than 100 in Europe. Putin declared two years ago that Russia reserved the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks. Nuclear weapons are real and deadly threats. We’re in a tight spot with Putin and he seems more willing to use the threat of nuclear weapons than is NATO.

Shay Khatiri offers a different view:

“It would be wrong to assume that, if the US military enters the conflict in Ukraine in some capacity, nuclear war would inevitably follow. First, it wouldn’t be the first time that Americans and Russians have killed each other. The Soviets reflagged their aircraft during the Korean and the Vietnam Wars and directly engaged with their American enemy. They also launched missiles at American aircraft during the war. The United States, on the other hand, has killed Russian mercenaries as recently as 2018 with no ramifications.”

There have been just two conflicts between two nuclear-armed states, (between China and Russia in 1969 and India and Pakistan in 1999). Both were border disputes rather than major wars, partly because the parties were wary of a nuclear escalation.

Nobody knows for sure how Russia and the US would react if they fought in earnest.

Direct military confrontation doesn’t always mean war, much less World War III. Remember that Turkey shot down a Russian warplane on the border with Syria in 2015, without setting off a global conflagration.

Is there a point when NATO will show Putin that it’s not afraid to act? Don’t count on that.

The pressure to act in the coming days will become enormous. The images of Ukrainian suffering already stirs the public, and the images will get worse. The calls for Biden to act will grow louder. American and NATO support to Ukraine has helped the country to resist so far. But Washington and its allies must be honest about the limits of that support and whether we have the willingness to step up to support Ukraine’s needs.

How will Biden handle the great dilemma presented by our feeling of helplessness in Ukraine? Will he play annihilation chicken with Putin?

Watch Fiona Apple’s cover of the Lennon/McCartney song “Across the Universe”. See if it provides you with any insight into Biden’s dilemma:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Russia’s Repeating its Syrian Strategy in Ukraine

The Daily Escape:

Quiet stream, rural NH – March 2022 photo by Betsy Zimmerli

There are lessons from history that inform what Putin is doing in Ukraine. First, Syria demonstrates how Putin intends to operate. Putin got Russia involved in Syria in 2015 and helped Bashar al-Assad take back control of most of the country.

One part of Syria that isn’t under control is Idlib Province. That’s because Russia’s Syrian strategy was intense aerial bombardment of cities, followed by the establishment of temporary “humanitarian corridors”. That pushed civilians and fighters eventually into Idlib.

During the Syrian civil war, the Russian and Syrian militaries systematically besieged opposition-held cities, towns, and districts. They rained destruction on the populations with airstrikes, artillery and rockets blasting residential districts, hospitals, and infrastructure.

Eventually, the Russians and Syrians offered humanitarian corridors, allowing civilians and fighters to leave, and be funneled into the northwest province of Idlib. Idlib remains today the last opposition-held part in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of people used the corridors to get out of the war zones. The largest and most notorious example was the evacuation of Aleppo City in 2016, ending four years of siege. These internally displaced Syrians now make up about two-thirds of the 3 million people living in Idlib province. It is still surrounded by Syrian forces and is still hit by Russian airstrikes.

It’s now clear that Putin will bomb Ukrainian cities much like the carpet bombing of Grozny in Chechnya, or Aleppo in Syria. What’s happening on the ground in Ukraine should sound familiar to anyone who watched Russia in Syria. Here’s an up-to-date map of the military conditions in Ukraine from the UK Defence Intelligence Agency:

The map shows that despite many setbacks, Putin’s forces are close to (if they are not already) surrounding Kyiv. If you note the map legend showing “Assessed Encirclement” areas, those are places that the Russians have either captured, or are close to surrounding. They include most major Ukrainian cities.

In response, the Ukraine government in conjunction with the Russian military, have announced humanitarian corridors to allow civilians to leave cities where there is fighting between the Russian and Ukrainian armies.

In Syria, this strategy was effective. The Syrian government regained control by removing large opposition populations, many of whom remain unable to return to their home cities and towns.

This is Putin’s plan for Ukraine. Create a pocket within Ukraine that can be cut off from most resources, a rump state where most of the opposition is located. Damage or destroy most of its infrastructure. Leave it as a broken state unable to exist without outside humanitarian support. That rump state might be as small as a province, or as large as the majority of Ukraine west of the Dnieper river, as Wrongo has suggested.

A second lesson was learned by the Soviet Union’s military in Hungary. Russia’s military won’t repeat their Hungarian experience in Ukraine. In 1956, Hungarians attempted to overthrow their pro-Soviet leadership. In October 1956, the Soviets sent tanks into Budapest to crush the uprising. Many Hungarians, (called “freedom fighters” by the West), rose up against the Soviet invaders. From History.net: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Incorrectly assuming that the sight of Soviet armor rumbling through the Hungarian capital would quickly cow Budapest’s restive population, Kremlin leadership sent in tanks without the support of infantrymen….Over the next several days, small teams of Hungarian freedom fighters throughout Budapest took on the Soviet tanks, sniping at…crewmen or destroying the vehicles with Molotov cocktails.”

The freedom fighters’ most effective tactic was the “decoy and ambush,” where a decoy team fired at a Soviet tank to attract the crew’s attention and then fled down a side street to lure the tanks into a predetermined “kill zone.” This hubris on the part of the Soviets was a mistake that wasn’t repeated in Grozny and will not be repeated in Ukraine. Hungary didn’t achieve its freedom until 1991 when the USSR collapsed.

But have the US and NATO learned any useful lessons? The West has two conflicting goals in Ukraine. First, imposing strategic defeat on Russia. And second, defending Ukraine’s sovereignty. If our only goal was protecting the sovereignty of Ukraine, then our available options might include putting boots on the ground or imposing a No Fly Zone. But we’re not willing to do either one.

Peter Pomerantsev, a Soviet-born British journalist said the West:

“is doing an AMAZING job…of responding to 2014. That’s when we needed sanctions and arming Ukrainians. We’re ‘winning’ the last war. Not sure we’ve quite caught up with this new one yet.”

The US has discussed an arms lend-lease program for Ukraine. Alexander Vindman asks where are the: (parenthesis by Wrongo)

“…medium- and long-range air defense systems, antitank weapons (beyond the Javelins that have already been provided), advanced extended-range antiarmor capabilities, coastal defense systems, high mobility artillery, and critically important UCAVs” (drones)?”

The West is dithering on the correct level of support for Ukraine. If the US and NATO provided lethal aid via lend-lease, there’s a risk that Russia will escalate. But there’s a better chance that they will not.

It would be a gamble for Putin to escalate, and it’s a gamble for Biden to provide the weapons. Our reaction so far says that the US has lost its nerve without saying the US has lost its nerve.

Sorry Ukraine, we can’t follow your example.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – February 28, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Wiggly Bridge, York, ME – February 2022 photo by Eric Storm Photo

Wrongo intended to write about domestic issues today. One domestic issue is how Republicans and the Right-wing media pivoted over the weekend from being pro-Putin and his War, to now saying Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine. Is that proof that the sanctions are working?

It’s hard to turn away today from Ukraine news, despite knowing that Biden’s State of the Union (SOTU) speech is tomorrow night. The Republican reply will be given by Iowa’s Governor Kim Reynolds. This happens at a time when there are big differences of opinion about the most important issues facing the nation by Democrats and Republicans.

According to a Pew Research Center survey, 71% of US adults rated strengthening the economy as a top policy priority, followed by reducing health care costs (61%), addressing the coronavirus (60%), improving education (58%) and securing Social Security (57%). The survey was conducted between Jan. 10-17, 2022 among 5,128 adults.

But as expected, the top issues were very different for those who identified as a Republican or as a Democrat. When asked which issues “should be a top priority for the president and Congress to address this year,” the top five regarded as most important by Democrats were:

Top 5 priorities, according to Democrats (percent saying issue should be a top priority)

  1. Dealing with the coronavirus outbreak (80%)
  2. Reducing health care costs (69%)
  3. Improving the educational system (66%)
  4. Dealing with global climate change (65%)
  5. Strengthening the nation’s economy (63%)

Here’s the Republicans’ top-five list:

Top 5 priorities, according to Republicans (percent saying issue should be a top priority)

  1. Strengthening the nation’s economy (82%)
  2. Dealing with the issue of immigration (67%)
  3. Defending the country from future terrorist attacks (65%)
  4. Reducing the budget deficit (63%)
  5. Reducing crime (60%)

Strengthening the nation’s economy is the only priority that both Democrats and Republicans rank among the most important. Two of the Democrats’ top priorities are among the five lowest-priority issues for Republicans. Only 11% of Republicans think global climate change should be a priority (vs. 65% of Democrats). Just 35% of Republicans think dealing with the coronavirus outbreak should be a priority (vs. 80% of Democrats).

Conversely, two of the Republicans’ top priorities are among the five lowest-priority issues for Democrats. Only 35% of Democrats think immigration should be a priority (vs. 67% of Republicans). Just 31% of Democrats say the budget deficit should be a priority (vs. 63% of Republicans).

All of this may be on display at the SOTU and the Republican reply on Tuesday.

Returning to Ukraine, it’s reported that Ukraine and Russia have agreed to have low-level delegations meet, hosted by Belarus, to discuss ending the war. It’s unclear what exactly might be achieved from these negotiations, given that Putin’s War appears to be aimed largely at removing Zelensky from power.

Finally, assuming that Russia wins either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, that will almost certainly be followed by a Ukrainian insurgency supported by NATO. The US military knows a lot about how many troops it takes to hold ground when most of the locals want you dead.

Many military studies say that the number needed is 10 troops to one insurgent. From The Dupuy Institute (TDI): (Brackets by Wrongo)

“…TDI amassed data on 109 post-World War II insurgencies, interventions, and peacekeeping operations between 2004 and 2009. [TDI]…found that….While overwhelming numbers were not required to defeat an insurgency, force ratios above 10-to-1 nearly always produced a counterinsurgent victory. Conversely, lower force ratios did not preclude success, but conflicts with two or fewer counterinsurgents per insurgent greatly favored an insurgent victory.”

Remember in this case the insurgents would be Ukrainians, and counterinsurgents the Russians. More from TDI:

“When force ratios were assessed together with the nature of the motivation for the insurgency, TDI found that….when facing broadly popular insurgencies, counterinsurgents lost every time they possessed a force ratio advantage of 5-1 or less, failed half the time with odds between 6-1 and 10-1, but succeeded three-quarters of the time when outnumbering the insurgents by 10-1 or more.”

Ukraine’s pre-war population was 44 million. Let’s assume that 20% would support an insurgency, and that 2% would participate in an insurgency. That would be 176k Ukrainian insurgents. Following the 10-1 ratio would mean Russia would need to keep 1.76 million troops on the ground to win, an unsupportable number. Cutting the number of insurgents in half would mean Russia would need 880k troops to occupy Ukraine, still an unsupportable number.

This could mean that an insurgency in Ukraine could succeed as easily as it did in Afghanistan.

Time to wake up Putin! You might win before you lose in Ukraine. To help you wake up, watch the Saturday Night Live open, where the Ukrainian Chorus Dumka of New York performed “Prayer for Ukraine”:

Kinda makes you tear up.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Saturday Soother – February 26, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Sedona, AZ dusted in snow- February 2022 photo by Valentina Tree

Late on Friday, the US, Britain and EU said they will sanction Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This is the third round of Biden’s sanctions, and blocks the Russian president from any economic activity within the American financial system. White House press secretary Jen Psaki indicated the US would also implement a travel ban for Putin.

These sanctions effectively place Putin in the same category as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.

As with other Russian sanctions, it isn’t clear how effective the Putin asset freeze will be. According to the Pandora Papers investigation, Putin appears to control assets in Europe, but the amounts are trivial compared to estimates of his wealth. The travel ban is significant. It says that the West considers Putin to be an international pariah. Earlier, Biden also announced a second round of sanctions against Russia.

The challenge facing Biden is how to avoid either starting or losing, a World War. He’s done a decent job rallying other nations towards a common viewpoint about Putin’s War. Putin believed he could at least neutralize certain allies within both NATO and Europe, along with some politicians and the public in a few EU countries.

But thus far, Biden’s had success at undercutting Russia’s efforts. He has been able to achieve broad unity by making it clear that Russia is an unprovoked aggressor. Yet Kyiv may soon fall to the Russian invaders. Addressing his nation, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said the Russians are coming after him specifically:

“The enemy has marked me as enemy number one.”

He told EU leaders on a Thursday night zoom call that “this might be the last time you see me alive“.

We can’t ignore what’s happening, but the US won’t risk all-out war over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We hope to avoid these choices by imposing sanctions that might turn the Russian people against Putin, by depriving Russia of cash and other resources. The sanctions are impressively multilateral.

However, the new sanctions have some loopholes. Adam Tooze reports that the sanctions specifically exclude energy: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Energy is the really critical issue in the sanctions saga for both sides. It is what will hurt Russia most. It is also what is most critical for Europe. And, on energy… Biden…made this aside:

‘You know, in our sanctions package, we specifically designed to allow energy payments to continue.’”

Really Joe? The sanctions say that as long as your energy-related transactions are channeled through non-sanctioned, non-US financial institutions, for instance a European bank, buying gas from Russia is peachy. So, all of the payments for Russian gas will be paid free of problems for as long as sanctions are in place.

The political pressure for an energy carve-out comes from Germany. Bloomberg reported earlier:

“The German government has pushed for an exemption for the energy sector if there is a move to block Russian banks from clearing US dollar transactions….other major western European nations hold similar views.”

It gets worse. The carve-out isn’t limited to energy, it also applies to Russia’s agricultural commodity exports. So long as those transactions run through non-US, non-sanctioned banks, the US sanctions will not apply.

This shows how dependent our European partners are on Russia for gas and agriculture. It also shows how hollow the sanctions are, and how they will not be the “punishing” sanctions Biden promised.

It’s useful to remember that Germany’s use of Russian gas has been a completely tenable and a mutually beneficial relationship for 40+ years.

Finally, Biden didn’t announce excluding Russia from the SWIFT global financial payments system because Italy, Germany, and Cyprus weren’t willing to do it. Part of this has to do with buying Russian gas. It also has to do with how dependent their economies are on exports to Russia. Although, as Biden noted, full blocking of Russian financial institutions should achieve the same, or even greater, effect as a SWIFT ban.

Except for that gas and agriculture thingy, so not the same at all.

The question is whether the EU and NATO are truly willing to bear the costs of inflicting pain on Russia in order to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As of today, it seems that they are not.

Time to take a break from geopolitics and whether Lindsay Graham will support Biden’s new Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. It’s time for our Saturday Soother, where we turn away from the news and focus on trying to calm the f down.

Today is a typical winter day in Connecticut. It’s chilly and there’s snow on the ground, but far less than predicted.

Since Putin is acting like the Honey Badger, let’s start by upping your honey badger game by brewing a mug of Honey Badger Espresso from Intelligentsia Coffee. They’re a Chicago-based chain with locations in Chicago, Los Angeles, Austin, Boston, and NYC. Leave the intelligentsia and take the honey badger.

Now grab a seat by a window and listen to Handel’s “Ombra mai fu”, known as Handel’s Largo of Love, it’s the opening aria in the 1738 opera Xerxes. Here it is performed in 2017 by  Czechoslovakia’s Janacek Chamber Orchestra with soloist soprano Patricia Janečková:

Beautiful voice!

Facebooklinkedinrss

Putin’s War

The Daily Escape:

Rio Grande, near Taos, NM – February 2022 photo by Augustine Morgan

“God created war so that Americans would learn geography” ― Mark Twain

Yesterday we woke up to a new world order created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Details are still sketchy, but it seems that Russia attacked from the north, east and south. Cruise missiles hit targets even in western Ukraine. The NYT provided this early map of reported Russian attacks:

The shaded areas on the right are Donetsk and Luhansk, the Ukrainian provinces that Russia recognized a few days ago as independent republics. The smaller area inside is the area currently controlled by the Russian separatists.

This news and Putin’s kabuki play leading up to the invasion obscures the fact that we’re now seeing the revival of war as an instrument of statecraft. History shows that wars of conquest used to be common. In the 19th century, that’s what strong states did to their weak neighbors. Since the mid-20th century, wars of conquest are the exception not the rule. Russia has now brought wars of conquest back on the geopolitical stage.

Putin’s attack has the goal of regime change, plus the annexation of the breakaway provinces. While NATO and the US seem to have no real countermeasures, other than sanctions. That demonstrates another of Russia’s goals: exposing NATO’s impotence.

NATO’s late-stage impotence has many causes.

The collective defense provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Charter has held the alliance together. It provides that if a NATO ally is attacked, all members of the Alliance will consider it an armed attack against them and take action to assist the attacked ally.

For much of the Cold War, (including when Wrongo served in Europe) NATO had a standing army prepared to deter an attack by the Soviets and/or its Warsaw Pact allies. NATO also maintained significant air and naval forces to confront Soviet aggression. NATO’s forces were anchored by a massive US military presence in Europe, including hundreds of thousands of troops, tens of thousands of armored vehicles, thousands of combat aircraft, and hundreds of naval vessels.

All of this gave Article 5 teeth.

When the Cold War ended in 1990-91, this combat-ready military force was gradually dismantled. Now, if there were to be a conventional fight in Europe, the Russian military is much stronger. It would defeat any force NATO could assemble.

Today the ability to deter a potential adversary from considering military action against a NATO member is no longer a certainty. That means the notion of NATO providing European collective self-defense is questionable.

In the past, NATO planned on countering the Soviet Union’s weapons and manpower superiority with tactical nuclear weapons. But The Heritage Foundation says that we can’t do that because there’s an imbalance in our nuclear arsenals:

“While the US and Russia have a similar number of deployed strategic (i.e., high-yield) nuclear weapons as limited under New START, Russia has a 10:1 advantage over us in nonstrategic (i.e., low-yield) nuclear weapons—aka tactical or battlefield nukes.”

They report that Russia has about 2,000 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, while the US has about 200. Half of them are in the US and half are with NATO, so we have about 100 tactical nukes on the ground in Europe. You might say no one is ever going to use nukes in Europe, but on Wednesday Putin warned: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Anyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history.”

Putin’s threat could mean anything from cyber-attacks to nuclear war. But Global Security Review reports that the current edition of Russian military doctrine says that Russia:

“…reserves the right to use nuclear weapons to respond to all weapons of mass destruction attacks…on Russia and its allies.”

That significantly lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. The idea is Russia might employ tactical nuclear weapons during a conventional conflict with NATO forces to prevent a defeat, to consolidate gains, or to freeze a conflict in place without further fighting. The last two could happen in Ukraine.

Given that the disparity between Russian and European tactical nuclear weapons is so large, Moscow probably thinks any potential NATO nuclear response to their threat of using nukes isn’t credible.

This means NATO today can no longer stave off a Russian threat in Europe without using strategic nuclear weapons, a major escalation. That would be a very unlikely scenario if Russia is taking small bites of Western territory, as in Ukraine:

(hat tip, Monty B.)

Since World War II, the US has reserved the right to the “first use” of nuclear weapons should the need arise. But in January, several Democrats urged Biden to promulgate a “no-first-use” policy for US nuclear weapons. Eleven Senators and 44 House members signed a letter urging Biden to accept the policy. Imagine the consequences if a policy of no-first-use was in place, given what’s happening in Ukraine. Or what might happen if the fight was with a NATO member.

We’re now in a place where the West either accepts Russia’s new European order, or we gear up to make them recalculate Putin’s strategy.

If we choose to oppose the new Russian order, the US and Europe will incur costs. It will hurt our economies, since while sanctions will hurt the Russians, we’re hoping they will not hurt us as much, or more. Russian cyber-attacks may seriously hurt our infrastructure. The West will be forced to provide large levels of military and humanitarian support to a damaged and smaller Ukraine, possibly for years.

We will see increased defense spending. Our military will once again be deployed to Europe where they will serve as a tripwire against Russian aggression like they did in the Cold War.

This will require a unified NATO to work together for many years. Is that a realistic plan, given that different US presidents, like Trump, may not support the goals of this new NATO?

We’re in a different world now. This war will almost certainly be transformative for Europe and the world. The full effects of Russia’s attack on Ukraine will play out not just for years, but for decades.

Let’s close with the Beatles “Back in the USSR”:

Lyrics:

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out,
They leave the West behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia’s always on my mind

Facebooklinkedinrss

Biden Must Take the Gloves Off

The Daily Escape:

Delicate Arch, Arches NP – 2022 photo by Nannette White

(The hosting service for the Wrongologist continues to have intermittent problems with the RSS feed that sends subscribers an email version of the column in the morning. Please go to the website to see earlier columns.)

The tense standoff between Ukraine and Russia took an ominous turn towards war when, as Wrongo forecasted on Feb 14, Putin recognized the independence of the two breakaway eastern Ukraine provinces:

“Wrongo has no crystal ball but thinks that Russia will formally recognize Ukraine’s disputed Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states….But Ukraine doesn’t recognize these provinces as independent….Ukraine could be lured into trying to regain control of both provinces. At that point Russia would help defend them against Ukraine, most likely assuring that they would remain independent, although still technically part of Ukraine.”

Putin also said that he was ordering “peace-keepers” into both provinces. That effectively blunts most military responses that Ukraine might attempt.

One way to look at the situation is that Putin didn’t “invade” Ukraine. Instead, using this pretext, Russia is prepared to fight on behalf of two independent Republics who asked for Putin’s help. By recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk, Putin is following the model of how Western nations handled the 1990s breakup of Yugoslavia into three separate republics, ending communist rule in the nation.

This is a watershed moment for European security. Russia has dared Ukraine and the West to attack the breakaway provinces in the face of Russia defending them. The absolutely central question is: What aid and comfort are NATO and the US going to give Ukraine?

Biden has announced what he called the “first tranche” of sanctions on Russia, targeting two Russian banks, VEB and Russia’s military bank, along with the country’s sovereign debt. That means Russia can no longer raise money from the West and will not be able to trade its debt in US or European markets.

Biden also said sanctions on Russian elites and their families members would be rolled out starting tomorrow.

Wrongo doubts that Russia will move significant numbers of its forces into the two “independent” regions unless Ukraine attempts to re-occupy them. If Ukraine does that, it’s likely that a general war between Ukraine and Russia will begin.

Americans (specifically Republican chicken hawks) should remember that eastern Ukraine is very remote in logistical terms. Even if the US wanted to help defend Ukraine’s east, the logistics of movement and supply would be absurdly difficult.

We should immediately implement our strongest sanctions. Biden shouldn’t meet with Putin, although Blinken and Lavrov should meet. Diplomacy should determine if recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk is what Putin will settle for. If so, the task is to see if Ukraine would be fine with that. If both agree, so should the West and the US.

One thing NATO could do is close the Bosphorus, the narrow straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. NATO member Turkey controls access to the Bosphorus under a 1936 treaty called the Montreux Convention. In wartime, Turkey is authorized to close the straits to all foreign warships. It can also refuse transit for merchant ships from countries at war.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently has emphasized his support for Ukraine. Erdogan has said Turkey will do what is necessary as a NATO ally if Russia invades, without elaborating. But Turkey is also reliant on Russia for energy and tourism. It has forged close cooperation with Moscow on energy and defense, even deploying Russia’s S-400 missile air defense system.

Imagine the pressure on Putin if Russia couldn’t send warships or merchant ships through the Bosphorus so long as the Ukraine crisis is hot.

In effect, Ukraine lost its Eastern territories along with Crimea, eight years ago. If Russian forces now start patrolling the line of contact with the new “Republics”, that will probably end the shooting. People on both sides of the border could then get back to a more normal life.

It would still leave an unstable Eastern Front for NATO and an unstable Western Front for Russia. That is something diplomacy could work on solving. Russia would have to deal with a Western-facing Ukraine integrating even more deeply into the EU. NATO would remain in Eastern Europe from the Baltics to the Balkans. NATO would then have a true mission, rather than floundering around without purpose.

Putin won’t be totally happy with this. But right now, he isn’t getting his demands met, even though he has more than half of his army on the Ukrainian border.

Let’s close with a tune. Here’s 1974’s “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” from Bachman Turner Overdrive, because in Ukraine, you ain’t seen nothing yet:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – February 14, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Red barn, white snow, in Spatford, NY – 2022 photo by Michael Erb

In last night’s Superb Owl, the LA Rams won. Your guacamole was probably better than the commercials.

Today is Valentine’s Day, a marketing triumph for the greeting card industry. There are no other triumphs to celebrate this morning, so let’s talk about a less than triumphal situation: Is something big about to happen in Ukraine?

Biden says America won’t fight for Ukraine; that would lead to “a world war.” Putin reads that as saying he’s got a free hand there assuming that he’s willing to take on whatever pain the West’s sanctions bring. Assuming Russia has economic support from China, Russia will probably be able to cope with the strain of new sanctions.

Wrongo has no crystal ball but thinks that Russia will formally recognize Ukraine’s disputed Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. Today, Russia acts as if they are a part of the Russian Federation. The people living in these ethnically Russian provinces already speak Russian and carry Russian passports.

But Ukraine doesn’t recognize these provinces as independent. That has been a stumbling block in the current negotiations between France, Germany Russia, and Ukraine around what were formerly known as the Minsk accords, agreed in 2015, but never implemented.

Ukraine could be lured into trying to regain control of both provinces. At that point Russia would help defend them against Ukraine, most likely assuring that they would remain independent, although still technically part of Ukraine. That would be a huge win for Putin since its long been clear that NATO will not accept any new member that has a substantial Russian population.

That would achieve what Putin wants without the US having to put it in the form of a written guarantee.

Finally, it is hard to believe that Russia really wants to become responsible for the economic basket case called Ukraine. Here’s a comparison by Adam Tooze, of Ukraine’s GDP per capita compared to Russia, Poland, and Turkey:

From Tooze: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Ukraine’s performance between 1990 and 2017 was not just worse than its European neighbors. It was the fifth worst in the entire world. Between 1990 and 2017 there were…only 18 countries with negative cumulative growth and…Ukraine’s performance puts it in the bottom third…. amongst the four countries that delivered less growth for their citizens than Ukraine were the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Yemen.”

Why are things so terrible in Ukraine? It’s due to corruption, demographic decline, and lack of investment in most industry sectors.

Disputes are negotiated when each side can call it a “win”. It’s obvious that an invasion of Ukraine would not be a win for Putin, so what he’s doing now seems more like a negotiating tactic. If he declares these two breakaway provinces to be an independent part of Russia, look for Belarus to be next.

Since the US and NATO have put up such a big stink, Russia probably won’t try to overthrow the government in Kyiv. OTOH, Putin doesn’t want to be seen as losing in this standoff over Ukraine, so recognizing the disputed provinces is an available middle ground.

And the US has already tacitly agreed to this once before when Russia annexed Crimea.

A Morning Consult Poll — done on February 7th that sampled 2,005 registered US voters showed that if there was a complete Russian occupation of Ukraine, then 42% of Americans support sending in troops. That’s a plurality, but not a majority.

The Morning Consult found a different response in Europe. Respondents in France (31%), Germany (37%) and the UK (37%) support the primary sanction, closing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Interestingly, in Germany, another 37% also opposed closing the pipeline if Russia invades.

So viewpoints are more nuanced the closer you get to the front lines.

Time to wake up America! Ukraine isn’t core to US strategy in Europe or in NATO. Yes, Ukraine’s right of self-determination is at stake. But given the GDP rankings above, you could say it’s already a failed state. And what about US support in other low income countries looks like the ticket out of failed state status for Ukraine?

To help you wake up, listen to Billy Bragg perform “Ten Mysterious Photos That Can’t Be Explained” from his 2021 album “The Million Things That Never Happened”.

Sample Lyrics:

I’ve been down rabbit holes
I’ve seen the rabid trolls
Cackling in the twilight
Of the Age of Reason
One thing I’ve noticed
As I get older
Common sense like art
Is in the eye of the beholder

Facebooklinkedinrss