Analysis 08-08-2022


Chinese Threats Towards Taiwan
Sound and Fury for the time being

As US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi landed in Taiwan, China was engaged in several military exercises that took place around Taiwan.

27 Chinese aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defense zone on Wednesday.  Chinese naval and air forces conducted live fire exercises in six zones around Taiwan, clearly threatening a possible blockade.  Conventional Chinese missiles are expected to overfly Taiwan for the first time and Chinese forces entered within 12 miles of Taiwan’s shore.

Is this the beginning of a conflict between China, Taiwan, and the United States?  Or is this merely a show of strength?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who visited Taiwan as Speaker in 1997 says China’s threats are a bluff.

Speaking of his visit in 1997, he said, “They [the Chinese] backed down…Their current bluff is just that.”

Discounting the unsubstantial war talk, the evidence is with Gingrich, while China then was” far weaker economically and militarily”.

First, investors, who usually make sound financial decisions, have moved back into the market as it became obvious that China hadn’t planned anything serious like an invasion or actual attack on Taiwan’s military forces.

Second, although military exercises seem threatening, all militaries conduct exercises all year.  This is the best way to conduct training and test weapons systems.  Live fire is a regular part of these types of exercises so the military leaders are sure that their soldiers know how to use the weapons systems and are sure that they will work in a conflict.

The fact that China held 6 exercises around Taiwan in no way guarantees that the Chinese Navy can carry out a long-term blockade in a war.

Blockades rarely occur because they require a major naval presence that can stay at sea for long periods of time.  They require large warships that can stay on station for months at a time.  They require logistics ships that can carry out underway replenishment.  And they require 24 hour a day air superiority to defend lightly armed logistics ships.

An excellent example of the difficulty of carrying out a blockade is the German blockade of England in WWII.  Despite better submarine technology, Allied air and naval superiority in the Atlantic prevented the German U Boats from cutting Britain off from its Commonwealth allies and colonies.  German attempts to conduct surface warfare with battleships like the Bismarck also failed.

Although the Chinese navy has a larger number of ships, they are lighter, have fewer weapons, and are too small to maintain station in rough seas or far from the Chinese mainland.  This includes the Chinese aircraft carriers.

Not only does the US have the nuclear supercarriers that outclass any other navy’s air wing, but it also has several allies with carriers that match or surpass China’s aircraft carriers.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth class carriers are larger and better than all but the American nuclear supercarriers.  It is the largest Royal Navy ship built and it displaces 66,000 tons.  That makes it larger than the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle at 42,500 tons, and the domestically built Chinese carriers of 50,000 tons displacement.

Just as important, these ships will interface with US carriers and Britain has pledged to support Taiwan in a war.

Japan and Australia also have aircraft capable ships.

Consequently, there is a serious question if China can maintain a naval blockade of Taiwan.

China’s air force is also questionable.  China’s aircraft are based on old Russian designs.  The Chinese Shenyang J-11, which is the backbone of the Chinese air force and the aircraft regularly used to violate Taiwan’s airspace, is based on the Sukhoi Su-27.  It is a high maintenance aircraft that has a shortage of spare parts.  Its primary role was to defend the USSR from long range American bombers like the B-1 Lancer and the B-52 Stratofortress.

Given the Su-27’s performance in Ukraine, there is a serious question if the J-11 can outperform Taiwan’s air force.

Taiwan’s air force is hampered by older American and French aircraft.  However, they have been able to purchase the American air defense Patriot PAC 3 missile system.

China’s Type 99 tank is also developed from the old Soviet T-72 tank.

The fact is that the Chinese military is stronger than Taiwan’s.  However, it is not a certainty that China can defeat Taiwan easily in a major conflict.  True, China could take some of the smaller islands controlled by Taiwan, but at a serious economic risk as most Western nations would impose sanctions.

China has threatened economic sanctions against Taiwan by blocking shipments of food like fish or sand for its semiconductor industry.  However, as China is in the middle of an economic downturn, the question is who would suffer more – Taiwan or China.


American Politics

Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan posed several problems back in the United States.  Clearly, this was Pelosi’s idea, not Biden’s.

The fact is that with elections coming up in a few months and Republicans expected to win control of the House of Representatives, Pelosi’s reign as Speaker is likely to end.

By going to Taiwan, Pelosi can cap off her speakership with a major diplomatic win.  She is also supported by most Republicans, some of which joined Pelosi in her trip to Taiwan.  This gives her bipartisan cover.

Biden opposed the trip on the advice of his military advisors, who were afraid of a confrontation with China.  They countered this with the movement of the nuclear carrier USS Ronald Reagan to the area and American fighter aircraft to Japan.  Two amphibious assault groups, including the F-35 fighter aircraft capable USS Tripoli and USS America, are also in the vicinity, The USS Reagan is southeast of Taiwan, the USS Tripoli is northeast of Taiwan, and the USS America is northeast of Taiwan, and close to Japan.

The problem with following the military’s advice was that backing down would show weakness to the Chinese and probably encourage them to take more aggressive moves in the future.

The future is more problematic.  How far do the US and its allies support Taiwan?  Korea appears to be remaining neutral as South Korea’s president refused to meet with Pelosi this week.

Several nations like Germany, Britain, Australia, and Japan have made it clear that they view Chinese aggression with concern and will support Taiwan.

If China continues to increase pressure on Taiwan, the US can start selling modern fighter aircraft to the island nation.  Currently Taiwan suffers from an aging air force of older F-16 fighters and French Mirage 2000s.  F-35 or F-18 fighters would be of great help, although it takes time and considerable training to make the pilots proficient in air combat in these new aircraft.

The US has sent Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Taiwan – the same that have recently devastated several Russian ships in the Black Sea.  More of these missiles would make it harder for the Chinese to invade Taiwanese territory or logistically support Chinese forces after a landing.

A more advanced air defense system would benefit Taiwan as well as US naval forces sailing the waters around Taiwan.  Although China claims to have fielded a hypersonic missile, there are probably few in the Chinese arsenal and it is uncertain if they are effective in a combat situation.

Meanwhile, the Chinese air defense system is questionable.  The Chinese HQ-9 is derived from the Russian S-300, which is showing limited success in Ukraine that the Russians are using it for a crude surface to surface missile.  The Chinese HQ-22 has a shorter range than the S-300 and is cheaper.


The Future

Of course, China can counter with economic sanctions or even a threat to closely ally itself with Russia.  However, Russia is currently tied down in Ukraine and can offer little to the Chinese in terms of weapon systems or spare parts.

In the end, it appears that much of China’s talk is merely a pressure buildup.  China will undoubtedly continue military exercises, especially air incursions that are designed to wear out Taiwan’s air force.  They will also try to show that they can blockade Taiwan if they choose.

However, as we have seen, China’s threat is more pressure than actual intervention.

The US appears to be calling China’s bluff and making it clear that US forces can intervene should China take an aggressive step.

A Chinese media outlet reported that RT criticized Pelosi for Taiwan trip and encouraged China with a saying “revenge is a dish best served cold,” which is similar to a Chinese saying, “it’s never too late for a gentleman to take his revenge.”

It seems China will be able to use the Pelosi trip as a catalyst to strengthen its position and display  readiness to use force if necessary to control Taiwan, but still prefer

to create the conditions to gain such control by peaceful means over time.

We must remember that the Chinese Communist Party has always made clear that reunification of Taiwan and mainland China is its “historical task” and, since coming to power in 2012, Xi has steadily underscored his commitment with active military maneuvers around Taiwan.

Analysis 07-28-2022


America’s Electrical Infrastructure
on the Verge of Collapse


 Europe isn’t the only region worried about a mass failure of its electrical power network.  America is also in the throes of an electrical power crisis.  In Texas, high temperatures have forced conservation measures, including cutbacks at some factories in the state. The electrical grid, however, has not failed as it did two winters ago – although it has been pushed to its limits.

However, there is a greater threat to the nation’s power system, along with the threat to the water supply of millions of citizens.  It is the 86-year-old Hoover Dam system, which borders Nevada and Arizona.  A long-term drought has caused its reservoir, Lake Mead, to drop to historically low levels, which threatens the electrical power of the American Southwest as well as water for millions of people in the West.  It also provides critical irrigation water for many farmers in the desert Southwest.

Despite the critical nature of this dam, little of the infrastructure money allocated in the past few years has gone to the dam or its reservoirs.

The Hoover Dam is responsible for the unprecedented population growth in the Southwest in the last eight decades.  Over 50% of the electricity supplied by the dam goes to Southern California municipalities.  Los Angeles, itself, uses nearly as much electricity as Arizona.  Los Angeles and Southern California take over 50%.

The dam system is so critical that after 9-11, the US government diverted US Route 93 to prevent possible terrorist attacks on the dam.

The US Army also stationed troops at Hoover Dam during WWII.

The current threat is more long term – drought.  The Southwest has been in a historical long-term drought.  Although some have blamed manmade climate change, archeologists have recorded many long-term droughts in the past – droughts so severe that it changed population movements in the region and led to the disappearance of the Anasazi civilization around 1300 AD.

“We are in the 23rd year of drought here in the Colorado River Basin and Lake Mead (the largest reservoir in America, which stores the water for the dam) has dropped down to 28 percent,” says Patti Aaron of the US Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the dam.

The lake is currently 1,200 feet above sea level, but if it drops down to 1,050 feet, it will be unable to produce electricity.

The lake is currently dropping about a foot a week.

If Lake Mead drops too much, the government can release water from other dams upstream of the Hoover Dam to keep the generators running.  However, that only delays the problem.

The short-term answer is to cut back on water demand, especially in populated areas like Southern California, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.  Reducing water for farming in the region would only exacerbate the food shortage currently driving up prices.

But America’s electrical infrastructure has more problems than the Hoover Dam.

The Midwest is at risk in addition to the Southwest and Texas.  The North American Electric Reliability Corporation warns of a high risk of its energy reserves falling short of its energy needs this summer.  Energy generation capacity has dropped 2.3%, while demand has gone up by 1.7%.

The Western US is currently at an elevated level of risk.

None of this has been helped by the Biden Administration’s attempt to regulate the fossil fuel industry out of business, the reduced supply of fossil fuel from Russia, and America’s attempt to supply its allies with a backup supply of gas for this winter.

Some power companies in America and abroad are reactivating coal powered power stations.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2000, there were fewer than two dozen major power failures.  In 2020, it increased to over 180.  Yet, the recent infrastructure bill only allocated $27 billion to the electrical grid, although experts say over two trillion dollars is needed – an amount of money that would have to be paid by consumers who are already facing crippling inflation.

Part of the problem is the administration’s demand for reducing fossil fuel as a source of electricity.  Renewable sources like wind and solar are unreliable, especially during extreme weather like cold weather.

That means electrical demand is expected to grow as more consumers buy electrical vehicles and move away from heating their houses with natural gas.


Will America Muddle Through?

America is facing several problems that could push the nation’s power industry into a crisis.  If there isn’t enough snowfall in the Rockies this winter, the Colorado River may not provide enough water to keep Lake Mead at a level to produce energy.

The same problem can occur if the Midwest experiences high temperatures that drive up electrical demand – as well as damaging crops.

The East is not immune, and a bad hurricane season can ruin the aging infrastructure of the East Coast.

One problem in the US is that the Biden Administration is tone deaf to the signs – which is why Biden’s poll numbers are at levels lower than Lake Mead.  While European nations are moving back to fossil fuel to survive the upcoming winter, the Biden Administration seems fixed on forcing US consumers to spend more on energy – both for their homes and vehicles.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said high energy prices wouldn’t impact consumers with electric vehicles, although studies show that the cost of powering an electric vehicle is four times the cost of air conditioning one’s house.

Even Transportation Secretary Buttigieg has noted that the current power grid can’t handle the increased demand for powering electric vehicles.

There has been discussion that Biden can move America dramatically towards a “clean energy” infrastructure by declaring a national emergency.  However, given the recent Supreme Court Ruling (West Virginia vs. EPA), there is little likelihood that such a national emergency will be declared constitutional.

And, given the response of the Saudis to the idea of a massive increase in petroleum production last week during the Biden Salman meeting, it appears that the Middle East will not save him.

This leaves the Biden Administration with a difficult balancing act.  They can roll back their energy policies like many European nations and not risk the anger of American voters.  Or they can use executive regulation, face higher inflation in the energy sector, risk the loss of the Senate and House in November, and a possible failure of the electrical infrastructure.

Given Biden’s past behavior, he is heading towards a major midterm election loss.  If a crisis breaks the US electrical infrastructure, civil unrest may be on the horizon.

Analysis 07-21-2022


The Crisis of American Diplomacy


There were once two truisms of an American president travelling overseas on a diplomatic mission.  The first was that politics stops at the border to show a united front to the outside world.  The second was that the President would get a boost at the polls as he showed himself to be presidential.

Neither are true today.  American presidents are regularly criticized by political opponents while overseas.

The second truism, which is true for Biden, is that physical problems and diminished mental capability are highlighted, which gives the president a reduced impact both at home and overseas.

Even members of his own party admit that Biden is suffering from senility.  Obama and Trump’s White House doctor, Ronny Jackson, said on Twitter, “Everyone knows he’s [Biden] unfit for the job.  His mind is too far gone.”

When Jackson first questioned Biden’s cognitive ability, Obama sent an email that chastised him for bringing Biden’s mental Ability to the public.

Biden’s condition has progressed so far that the White House staff is unable to hide the gaffs anymore.  When the staff decided that using fist bumps instead of handshakes (supposedly because of the risk of spreading Covid) would prevent Biden from being photographed shaking hands with Prince Mohammed Salman, Biden forgot and proceeded to do handshakes with other people in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

There were other instances of Biden looking confused and physically uncoordinated during the trip.

These gaffes only confirmed for foreign leaders that Biden is suffering serious cognitive problems and is only a front man for others who are making decisions, and is unlikely to finish his term.

A president who can’t make decisions and is unlikely to finish his term has little chance of convincing other national leaders to accept American foreign policy.  The fact that former White House Doctor Jackson has called for Biden’s resignation only emphasizes the problem.

The second problem with Biden foreign policy is that he is following a political agenda rather than a pro-American agenda.

There is no better example than the Khashoggi assassination.  Although frowned on in diplomatic circles, assassination is used.  In fact, Israel practices assassination when it comes to Iranian scientists – very likely with American help and approval.  There is no fuss when Israel helps assassinate an Iranian.

However, years after Khashoggi was killed by the Saudis, it is still an issue for Biden.  He called Saudi Arabia a “ pariah” state during the presidential election and he refused to shake the Prince’s hand.

Why?  Although he wasn’t a member of the Washington Post staff, Khashoggi occasionally wrote articles for them.  And, as the Washington Post has considerable power in the White House, they apparently can dictate foreign policy.  In fact, after the fist bump, the Washington Post attacked Biden by calling the action “Shameful.”  The Washington Post said in a statement that it, “projected a level of intimacy and comfort that delivers to MBS the unwarranted redemption he has been desperately seeking.”

Biden later said that the Crown Prince said he wasn’t responsible for the murder.

While Americans are unconcerned about an assassination by the Saudis, and more concerned about skyrocketing oil prices and getting Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, the Washington Post is dictating American foreign policy that is contrary to the wishes of American voters.

The whole of American-Saudi relations seems to rotate around US domestic policy rather than US interests.  The Biden Administration has focused on regulating the American oil industry to force Americans to buy electric cars.  It has also been hostile to foreign oil producers.

However, now that domesticated oil prices have skyrocketed – pushing inflation through the roof, Biden is now forced to come to a country that he called a “pariah” and ask for more oil production from a prince that he was unwilling to shake hands with.

It didn’t help that the US House of Representatives passed two amendments to the Defense bill that limits arms sales to Saudi Arabia even as Biden was flying to Riyadh.

Even a student in international relations would see the problems with that policy.

A bipartisan foreign policy also has advantages.  When the US and Soviet Union signed the SALT treaties, the presidents sought bipartisan help to get these controversial treaties approved.

That is no longer the case.

Obama signed the Paris environmental agreement, knowing full well that it had no chance for ratification in the US Senate.  He did the same with the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Since neither treaty was ratified, Obama merely tried to change US law through administrative regulation.  These regulations were eliminated when Trump was elected.

Biden has continued the same practice and is now observing the Paris Accords even though they have never been submitted to the US Senate for ratification.

Foreign leaders who meet Biden and receive a promise, must realize that without bipartisan agreement in the US Senate any promise made to a foreign leader will last only if Biden is president.  Even a Kamala Harris presidency would be unable to keep a promise as her ascendency to the presidency would automatically mean she is no longer President of the Senate and empowered to cast the deciding vote in a tie.  This would give the Republicans de facto control of the Senate until the Democrats regain the majority.

Given the current polls, it appears that the Democrats will then have to wait until 2024 – or longer.

Biden’s political and foreign policy agenda is seriously crippled.  And it’s not just with allies like Saudi Arabia.  Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi are aware of Biden’s weaknesses.  Although Biden has come out in support of Ukraine and Taiwan, his declining cognitive ability means he is more likely to hesitate in a crisis or even be overruled by one of his advisors.

A sign of this concern is that consulting firms are being regularly asked about the war risks between China and Taiwan.  The FBI director said of the Ukraine war, “There were a lot of Western companies that had their fingers still in the door when it slammed shut.”  “If China does invade Taiwan, we could see the same thing happen, at a much larger scale.”

Biden’s mental condition is also a factor for Israel’s new leadership.  Biden has promised to go to war with Iran to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Can they really rely on such a promise?  What would the American voters and US Congress think?

Although the American media will try to highlight the positives of the trip, the foreign leaders Biden will meet will get a different impression.

As a result, an American president with cognitive problems and falling popularity back home is trying to regain his power as president and world leader.

The situation was best described by the former Saudi intelligence chief.  Speaking on CNBC, Prince Turki Al-Faisal called Biden a “much diminished president.”

The prince continued, “As an example, on energy issues, he came with a policy to stop completely fossil fuel usage not only in the United States, but worldwide, and now he is finding himself having to rely on fossil fuels as a means of meeting the energy shortage that has come about not only because of the Ukraine war, but also because of US policy that itself shut down pipelines and stopped issuing…discovery of oil on US soil.”

This isn’t the quality of foreign policy usually expected of the US.

Analysis 05-30-2022


The Changing Vision of Gun Ownership in America
Gun controls a losing issue in America


Gun violence in Buffalo, New York, and the killing of 19 children and two teachers this week in Uvalde, Texas has raised the issue of gun control once again, and more Americans advocating universal gun background checks.

But the political chemistry has changed.  Senate Majority leader Senator Schumer promised a vote on gun registration on Wednesday, only to step back as it became evident that too many of his Democratic senators were from pro-gun states and could very well lose in November.

This is a far cry from 31 years ago.  Retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger called the idea that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution granted a personal right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud.”  A couple of years later, the US Congress passed a law that restricted so-called Assault Rifles.

The issue has changed dramatically.  The Assault gun ban is no longer in effect and the Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to Bear Arms is a personal right granted by the US Constitution in the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.  The case McDonald v. Chicago expanded that right in terms of what the states could or couldn’t do.

Meanwhile, half the states have passed laws that say any adult who can own a firearm can carry a weapon when he is out in public.  This is called Constitutional Carry and it doesn’t require any permit from the government.

Some other states require a permit to carry a firearm, but mandate that the police issue a permit to any law-abiding citizen that requests one.

Now there is another case that will be ruled upon in the next few weeks – New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that court observers think will push the right to own and carry a weapon even further, by easing licensing requirements.

So, what do the American people think?  Polling is suspect as many pro and anti-gun organizations craft polls that will show that Americans support their ideas.  However, a Rasmussen Poll released this week, before the Texas shooting, but after the Buffalo shooting showed that 50% of Americans don’t think stricter gun control would help stop mass shootings.

There is a better judge of Americans’ ideas about firearms.  That is the FBI instant background check that shows the number and demographics of buyers of firearms from licensed firearms dealers.  What it shows is that Americans are becoming more firearms “friendly” and less prone to believe in gun control.

No wonder the United States has more firearms than people.  Organizations estimate America has about 400 million firearms in private hands.

However, these changes have taken decades.  In the 1980s and 1990s, there was an increasing look by scholars at the Second Amendment and how it was viewed by the writers of the Constitution.  The evidence that they viewed the right as a personal one has grown so much that even gun control supporters admit the pro-gun views of the Founding Fathers.  Now they argue that the Second Amendment doesn’t fit in the modern age and its urban setting.

The view that the writers of the Constitution saw firearms ownership as a personal right was at the center of the Heller ruling in 2008.

But it is more than the Supreme Court that now holds this opinion.  The American people have taken gun ownership to heart in the last generation.

2008 opened many American’s eyes that the economic systems that are taken for granted were fragile and could disappear.  If emergency services and systems break down, then the only person who can defend one’s family is oneself.  Self-protection always outweighs issues like gun control.

Next was the Covid virus and pandemic.  Government mandates, passports, lockdowns, etc., reinforced the need to protect one’s family, especially since there was a breakdown in essential services.  There was also the concern of government tyranny in the heavy-handed way the epidemic was handled.

Many saw the potential need to escape from Covid infested urban areas and recognized that a firearm was not only a protector, but a potential food provider when the supply chain broke down.  Others, who had fled gun control states like New York ended up in gun friendly states like Florida and discovered that guns were much easier to buy and, consequently, became pro-gun. The BLM protests and the violence occurred in some places convinced many big city residents that a firearm was the only thing that stood between one’s home and rioters.

As a result, the profile of the typical American gun owner is changing.  This is seen in the data from the FBI’s firearms background checks.

In 2020, the FBI reported that about 40 million guns were purchased by American citizens.

In 2020, nearly 40% of gun purchases were from new firearms owners.  That was 8.4 million Americans.  Nearly 30% of the firearms sold in 2021 were to new gun owners.  That is 5.4 million Americans.

In 2020, there was a 58% increase in Blacks buying firearms over the previous year.

Of the new firearms owners in 2021, one third were women.  Of the new female firearms owners in 2020, 23% came back in 2021 to buy another firearm.

42.2% of all gun owners are women.  This is a dramatic increase as previous information showed that only 10% to 20% of women were gun owners.

The idea that only whites own guns is going away.  37% of Black and 26% of Hispanic households own firearms.  The biggest firearms sales in terms of percentages were from black men and women (58.2% increase in 2020).

Gun ownership is becoming popular across races and genders.

As gun ownership has increased in the US, old ideas of gun control are now challenged.

Advocates of gun ownership are claiming that universal gun registration is impractical.  Not only is the idea of successfully managing 400 million firearms in a bureaucracy unthinkable, the idea of registering something that is considered a personal constitutional right is probably unconstitutional.

Red flag laws are also unlikely to pass constitutional muster although they are being considered due to the recent shootings.  In America, a person is innocent until proven guilty.  This means that to take someone’s right to bear arms away, there needs to be some legal proceeding where the gun owner can defend himself.  Letting police, relations or other professionals arbitrarily decide who can own a gun strikes at American legal principles.

Others suggest that any sale of a firearm should require a background check.  At this time, that is impossible given the laws surrounding the FBI instant check.  The current system is frequently overloaded and forcing the same system to handle 400 million firearms would be unmanageable.

Others say anyone on the airline terrorist threat list should be unable to buy a firearm.  However, putting someone on that list is easy and doesn’t require any proof of guilt.  There have been cases of well-known politicians like Senator Ted Kennedy being put on the list accidentally.

Pro-Gun advocates argue that allowing teachers to carry firearms in school would stop many school shootings.

There is very little area for agreement.  That is why Biden is using regulations and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and firearms (BATF) to restrict firearms.  However, since many of these regulations violate federal law, it is likely that these regulations will inevitably be declared unconstitutional.

How much Congress will do is questionable?  Senate Minority Leader Senator McConnell has asked Texas Senator Cornyn to meet to find a bipartisan bill that could pass the Senate.  However, the legislation will be narrowly focused.  Senator McConnell stated that he wanted, “legislation that directly addresses the circumstances of the school shooting in Texas and does not advance the Democratic agenda.”

That will limit the scope of any legislation since the Democrats are talking about drastic gun control legislation.

Despite the outcries of politicians and world leaders calling for gun control in the US, Americans will continue to cling to their guns.  Not only that, given the changing demographics of gun owners and the movement by states to loosen restrictions on carrying a firearm, gun ownership will probably blossom soon.

In fact, the call for gun restrictions this week will likely boost gun sales this month.  As has been seen in the past, the best way to boost gun sales is for the government to threaten to take American’s guns.

Will anything change with the latest killings?  As far as dramatic gun control goes, no.  Americans are a different breed and firearms ownership is the ultimate sign of sovereignty.

Americans will not give that up.

Analysis 05-27-2022


Turkey Balks at NATO Membership

for Finland and Sweden


One outgrowth of the Ukraine War is the desire of Finland and Sweden, formerly neutral nations, to join NATO.  The desire to join the Western alliance has been met with near universal approval.  The US has said it will move legislatively to rush the memberships through Congress.  Biden said on Thursday that NATO expansion was needed “now more than ever.”

Not universal approval.  Turkey has made it clear that it has problems with NATO membership for Finland and Sweden.  Turkey’s President Erdogan has said Turkey will, “say no to Finland and NATO membership.”

Is that a hard no?  Probably not.  Several Turkish officials have left the door open, and NATO Secretary Stoltenberg has indicated that it isn’t unusual for member nations to have differences of opinion.  Erdogan’s chief foreign policy advisor spoke to several NATO leaders this week and noted that concrete steps must be taken to address Turkey’s national security concerns.

That indicates that Turkey will probably sign on to their NATO membership after there is some sort of agreement on Sweden’s support for Kurdish rebels fighting Turkey and the lifting of the weapons embargo on Turkey by Sweden.

This is not that unusual when a nation wants to join NATO.  Greece opposed North Macedonia’s membership for years because of a dispute on the country’s name (Macedonia is the name of a Greek region).

Setting aside talk of Kurdish rebels and arms embargos, there are serious geopolitical reasons why Swedish and Finnish membership in NATO is a benefit to Turkey.

Despite some warm talks between Erdogan and Putin, the nations of Russia and Turkey have been bordering on open hostility for centuries.  In the last 350 years, the two nations have fought 13 times – the latest in WWI, when Russia was one of the Allied powers and Turkey was Part of the Central powers.

Some of the reasons for fighting are Russia’s desire for a warm water port, influence over the Caucasus region, control of the Balkans, and influence in central Asia.

Although times have changed, many of the reasons remain.  Russia doesn’t like Turkey’s control of the only entrance to the Black Sea.  There is Turkey’s concern about Putin’s attempt to bring the Caucasus nations back into the Russian sphere of influence.  And there is the issue of who will have the biggest influence in Syria.

NATO membership for Sweden and Finland will force Russia to refocus its geopolitical eyes further to the north.  Just as the war with Ukraine has forced Russia to redeploy some of its troops from Syria, the expanded NATO will force Russia to redeploy forces to the long Russian-Finnish border.

Contrary to Erdogan’s speeches, anything that focuses Russia’s eyes to the north is a geopolitical benefit to Turkey.



The two critical issues for Turkey are arms embargos and the Swedish support for the Kurds.  Turkey and most NATO nations have been in opposing camps concerning the Kurds fighting in Syria.  Turkey is most concerned about the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party, which has fought Turkey since the 1980s and is considered a terrorist organization by most NATO nations.

The IssuesRussia, however, hasn’t identified the PKK as a terrorist organization.

However, Sweden hasn’t been as opposed to the Kurds and Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde has met with leaders of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party.  How, Turkey argues, can NATO nations protect each other if one of those nations (Sweden) provides some support for turkey’s enemy?

Turkey notes that while it has waited decades to join the European Union, Finland and Sweden are being “fast tracked” in joining NATO.

The issue of Kurdish support may cause a split on how fast Sweden and Finland will become NATO members.  Turkey has suggested that both memberships be reviewed separately since Finland has supported membership for Turkey to the European Union.

The Finnish President, who met on Thursday with President Biden and said Finland condemns terrorism in all forms and noted that Finland is already talking with Turkey on the issues troubling Turkey.

Turkey is also aggrieved due to arms embargo imposed on Ankara.  In the mid-2010s, American made Patriot missiles were sent to the Turkish-Syrian border.  When they were withdrawn in 2015, Turkey asked to buy its own air defense system – a request that was denied.

Turkey then turned to Russia to buy its S-400 air defense system.  This caused the US to remove Turkey from the F-35 fighter program, even though Turkey has spent money to acquire the 120 fighters it had planned on receiving.  The American reason was that they were concerned that Russia might acquire some of the secrets of the F-35 from Turkey, which would make the air defense system better able to defeat American aircraft in a future conflict.

The F-35 wasn’t the only weapons system that was denied to Turkey.  Turkey wants to upgrade its F-16s too, but the request has been shelved.  Other NATO nations have refused to sell Turkey weapons, especially since Erdogan has suppressed domestic dissent.  In fact, several Turkish officers assigned to NATO defected rather than go back to Turkey.

Although Turkey has remained in NATO, it hasn’t been on the best of relations with its fellow members.  However, the applications of Sweden and Finland to join have given Turkey a second chance to reinvigorate its NATO ties.

Obviously continued opposition to Swedish and Finnish membership and refusal to negotiate with NATO will only hurt Turkey.  Turkey could avoid the NATO weapons bans by buying from the Russians, but the war in Ukraine clearly demonstrates that some Russian weapons systems aren’t in the same class as those fielded by NATO.  In addition, replacing its NATO weapon systems with Russian ones would cost billions of dollars and years.

In addition, continued opposition to Sweden and Finland will only increase Turkey’s isolation within NATO.

So, it makes sense to use this opportunity to get the weapons it needs, while becoming a “member in good standing” in the western alliance.

The most sensitive issue will be the F-35s.  The US is opposed to selling the advanced jet fighter to a nation that uses Russian air defense systems.  If Turkey allows the increase in NATO membership, the US could offer the F-35 fighters and the Patriot air defense system in return for scrapping the Russian S-400.

The US might also benefit by learning more about the S-400 and its weaknesses.  And Turkey could share some secrets on how they have become very effective in drone technology, which has benefited the Ukrainians in the war.

No doubt, Sweden, which has an advanced defense industry, would be more than willing to sell arms to Turkey once they become a NATO partner.  The Saab Group produces a wide spectrum of weapons like the Carl Gustaf anti-tank missile, which has proved itself in Ukraine, as well as the NLAW light anti-armor weapon.  They also produce guided mortar rounds and several air defense systems.

With the eyes of NATO on Ukraine, a new degree of respect for Turkey, new weapons systems provided by NATO, and Russia moving some of its soldiers out of Syria, this is Turkey’s chance to regain some status as the regional power.

If Turkey decides not to support NATO membership for Sweden and Finland, Turkey will remain a pariah amongst NATO nations.  They can also be sure that the advanced arms that they want will not be forthcoming.  That leaves them with the same Russian arms, whose wrecks are littering Ukraine.

Meanwhile, several nations, including the US and UK have indicated that they will militarily support Sweden and Finland during the time the two countries are in the process of joining NATO, in other words, Turkey standing in the way of Swedish and Finnish membership will not benefit them and will only worsen relations with NATO.

Turkey will make carefully crafted diplomatic noises about Sweden and Finland.  However, in the end, they will use this unique advantage to improve its standing in NATO.

Analysis 05-18-2022


Sweden and Finland consider NATO Membership


Peace sure isn’t the favored foreign policy this year.  Ireland is considering its policy of neutrality after Russia held naval maneuvers off Ireland’s coast a few months ago.  It’s only military cooperation currently is to allow US troop aircraft to land in Ireland to refuel.

Switzerland, the benchmark of neutrality for centuries is sanctioning Russia, Even Sweden, which last fought a war in the Napoleonic era wants to join NATO along with its neighbor Finland.

This is a far cry from a few years ago, when analysts argued that NATO should dissolve as it had no use in the 21st century and statesmen regarded President Trump with distain as he asked NATO nations to increase their defense spending as he warned about Russia’s ambitions.

Now NATO nations are voluntarily increasing defense spending and two traditional neutral nations, Finland, and Sweden, want to join NATO.  Formally neutral Finland has seen public support for joining NATO going from 53% when the war in Ukraine started to 76% today.

The Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto stated, “But the Russian invasion of Ukraine changed the mindset of many Finnish people.”

Finland’s parliament is expected to approve plans to join NATO next week.  It will take from 4 to 12 months to complete the process.

Sweden could follow in weeks, although there is some opposition to the move in Sweden’s parliament.  Sweden’s Social Democrats are currently split on the issue and discussing the issue behind closed doors.  However, Sweden’s Foreign Minister Ann Linde said, “Finland is Sweden’s closest security and defense partner, and we need to take Finland’s assessments into account.

Both Sweden and Finland are close to NATO.  Both nations have held maneuvers with NATO troops and Finland has sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the move to merge two nations that have worked with NATO in the past means more than additional maneuvers with NATO and meeting goals on defense spending.  There are both political and military issues that impact Europe as a whole.


Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, NATO has evolved dramatically.  The decades of a lukewarm Cold War of the 60s, 70s, and the 80s are gone.  The war is now taking on the heat of the NATO-Soviet confrontations of the 1950s.

In the early days, West Germany was the shield of NATO.  It would be the battlefield of WWIII and the West German Army was one of the best in NATO.  Today, the German Army is smaller than many other NATO nations, it has spent less on defense than what it has promised, and Germany is addicted to Russian natural gas.

When Ukraine asked for munitions, Germany said that it didn’t have any to spare.  It even refused to send obsolete armored vehicles at first.  It took political pressure from other NATO nations to convince Germany to change course.

While Germany has abrogated its leading role in NATO, a former Warsaw Pact nation is stepping up.  Poland, which has centuries of enmity with Russia has taken on a leading role with NATO.  For year, it has spent more than required on defense and has asked the US to station combat units inside its borders.

Today, Poland is at the center of the rearming of Ukraine.  It is more than a transfer station and has helped quietly move former Warsaw pact equipment out of Eastern NATO nations and into Ukraine.

If this conflict heats up to WWIII, it will be Polish tanks (including the American M-1 Abrams tank) that will be fighting on the frontline.

Another nation that has evolved is a reinvigorated Britain.  In the Cold War days of NATO, Britain was an empire shedding colonies and pulling its forces from “East of Suez.”  Although it was a nuclear power and a center of technology, it was seen by many as a “toothless tiger.”

Today, Britain has taken a more active, leading role in NATO and the rest of the world.  Her new aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales is the command ship of NATO’s Maritime Readiness Force.  She spent March and April off the coast of Norway as a part of Operation Cold Response.  Her sister ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth showed the flag in the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and China seas, visited military important allies, and showed her support for Taiwan.  She is clearly renewing her role as a world power and serious naval force.

Great Britain has also taken the lead in sending arms (including high tech anti-air and anti-tank weapons) to Ukraine.  It also signed agreements with Finland and Sweden to come to their assistance militarily if Russia should decide to attack them.  This provides a bridging agreement until both countries are fully integrated with NATO.

On the other side, Russia has suffered politically.  Five months ago, Russia was seen as a major military power with vast supplies of natural gas.  Today, Russia’s military is facing difficulties in Ukraine and Europe is considering how to stop using Russian natural gas.

One possible hang up to the expansion of NATO is Turkey.  Turkish president Erdogan has voiced opposition to Swedish and Finnish membership because they allow Kurdish groups to live there.

However, this is probably a negotiating point rather than a solid opposition.  First, NATO expansion would weaken Russia, a traditional opponent of Turkey for centuries.  Second, agreeing to expansion would help Turkey improve its standing in NATO, which has suffered with somewhat chilly relations with NATO allies since Erdogan has been Turkish president.  Third, Turkey has been supporting Ukraine by supplying drones to fight Russia.  Fourth, the expansion of NATO would force Russia to redeploy its military forces to the north and away from Turkey.  Finally, any military redeployment necessitated by a larger NATO would probably mean reducing Russia’s military presence in Syria, which would benefit Turkey’s ambitions.

It’s possible that some negotiations will address the problem.  Sweden especially is regretting its liberal immigration policies, which have led to more crime.  The Scandinavian nations are likely to tighten immigration by militant Kurds, as a prerequisite to join NATO.

The US can and might add inducements for Turkey to allow Finnish and Swedish membership by allowing Turkey to rejoin the F-35 fighter program.


Putin’s decision to launch a military operation into Ukraine has been considered by western analysts as one of Russia’s failures, alongside the Battle of Tsushima in 1905, when Czar Nicholas II ordered the Russian Baltic fleet to the China Sea to defeat the Japanese – only to lose 35 of its 45 ships.

The disastrous war with Japan weakened the Russian monarchy and led to the Russian Revolution – something westerners like Putin to remember.

Putin’s war on Ukraine has changed the military balance in Europe.  Europe (and the US) viewed Russia as a massive conventional army with high tech weapons.  This was one reason why NATO nations didn’t want to send troop into Ukraine.

What NATO are claiming now is that Russia was a “Paper Bear.”  Russia’s massive, armored units suffered from poor maintenance, poorly trained soldiers, and poor logistics.  High tech equipment didn’t operate with the reliability demanded on the modern battlefield.  The modern Russian ships that Putin hoped to challenge US command of the seas proved to be lacking in damage control.

Militarily, NATO is improving with the addition of Sweden and Finland.  Sweden has a vast, modern defense industry that can produce world class tanks, tactical missiles, and fighter aircraft.  Since the end of the Cold War, Finland has bought modern NATO weapons like Germany’s Leopard I main battle tank and the American F-18 fighter.  Finland is also buying the American F-35, which is scheduled for the first deliveries in a couple of years.

Finland’s joining NATO doubles the NATO-Russian border since Finland’s border with Russia is 1,300 km.  This forces Russia to stretch it forces from the Mediterranean to the Arctic Ocean if war comes.

NATO naval operations also benefit.  It makes it harder for the Russians to control the Baltic Sea since the entire coastline, except for Russia’s small part, belongs to NATO nations.  NATO ships can move up the coast to support Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.  Since modern NATO warships have large anti-air footprints (as well as cruise missile range), they can provide support if Russia decides to attack the Baltic nations.

In a war, the fact that both Norway and Finland are close to the Russian naval facilities at Murmansk will make it harder for it to deploy its naval forces or defend its base.

With Russian naval forces in the east at Vladivostok hemmed in by the Japanese islands and the Black Sea Fleet (or what remains of it) hemmed in by Turkey’s control of the Dardanelles, Russia finds itself unable to move its fleet into the open seas to challenge NATO’s naval supremacy.

Sweden and Finland provide NATO with a defense in depth that it didn’t have in earlier decades.  The traditional Russian attack across Central Europe with massive, armored columns would now face an air and naval threat along the northern flank.

It’s obvious that Putin’s strategy to invade Ukraine, cause divisions amongst NATO nations, and precipitate a breakup of NATO didn’t work.  As in the post WWII era, it seems that Russian threats have merely unified NATO, not divided it for now.

Analysis 05-10-2022


The Ukrainian War – An Early May Update


The Ukrainian War has gone on for 10 weeks.  The promised Russian offensive that was to take Donbas is described by US and British defense officials as “lackluster.”  Under the barrage of heavy artillery, the Russians have managed to advance in some places on the front like the city of Izyum.  However, the advances have been slow, and the ground gained has been generally limited to the roads, as “General Mud” has made armored movement through the terrain difficult.

Here are the main issues:

Mariupol.  As this is being written, Ukrainian forces continue to hold portions of the steel plant, which has a maze of bunkers underground to support civilians during a nuclear war.

Putin has called on the defenders to surrender, however, the chances that the defenders will surrender to the Russians has declined.  Russia may capture the rest of the steel plant in the next few days or weeks, but the siege of Mariupol has been a Ukrainian sign of resistance.  While Ukrainian forces were deployed to defend Kiev, the Maripol defenders kept Russian forces tied down.  Now that NATO supplies are coming in, the Ukrainians are better able to fight the Russians in the east and south.

There are reports that 10 Russian Battalion Tactical Groups have been heavily targeted in the battle for Mariupol and have been sent to the rear for refit and rest.

The focus of the war is now on Izyum, a city south of Kharkov.

Putin’s plan is to move his forces south from Izyum and north from Donbas to encircle Ukraine Army forces.  However, reports from both the British and Americans indicate that the Russian army has hardly advanced in the face of Ukrainian defensive positions.

One problem is that the Russian forces are ad hoc units cobbled together from Russian units that were heavily damaged in the battle for Kiev.  These units have been quickly merged and moved back into combat.  Usually, combining several units that have been damaged in combat require months to refit and maneuver as a single unified military unit.

Another problem for the Russians is that Ukraine forces have gone on the offensive around Ukraine’s second largest city Kharkov.  In the past week, the Ukrainian forces have advanced as much as 40 kilometers east of Kharkov and are posing a threat to the supply lines that are supporting Russian forces in and around Izyum.  This will force Russian forces to reinforce this flank, which will make the slow Russian advance even slower.

If the Russian units protecting the Russian flank around Kharkov break, much of the Russian offensive in the east could fall apart.

While the Russians have been attacking the middle of the Ukraine battle line in Donbas, the Ukrainians have been attacking the flanks at Izyum and Kherson.

The Kherson region is important if Russia has any hopes of taking the Ukraine port of Odessa.  However, the Russians have carried out few offensives, while the Ukrainians have launched some successful counter attacks.

Another issue in the war is the unrecognized nation of Transnistria, a part of Moldova, which is occupied by Russian forces.  Although the number of Russian forces in this undeclared nation only total about 1,500. Putin may use them to try to tie down Ukraine forces that would normally shift to the battlefront in the east.

The Logistics War

A few weeks ago, we mentioned that while amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

Apparently both Ukrainians and Russians have decided that logistics is an important part of war.  The Russians have started to take out the Ukrainian logistics of war – electrical power stations, rail lines, weapons repair facilities, and weapons manufacturing factories.  These attacks are usually made with smart missiles, a dwindling part of the Russian arsenal.

The Ukrainians have also carried out attacks.  Since the war started in February, the Ukraine military has carried out attacks on fuel and supply depots in Russia with helicopters, long range missiles, and possibly Ukrainian Special Forces.  This week, Britain promised long range missiles to help Ukraine reach further into Russia to attack supply centers.

One advantage for Ukraine is that much of their supplies come outside the country from NATO nations.  Although these supplies become “fair game” for the Russian military once they reach Ukraine, the supply lines from the Polish border to the front lines aren’t that long and are covered with the still operational Ukrainian Air Force.

How effective the attacks on factories and other logistical targets will be is questionable.  During WWII, the Americans, and British sent hundreds of heavy bombers to attack critical parts of Germany’s supply system.  However, when the Germans rebuilt the factories, they made them smaller, scattered them throughout the country, and camouflaged them.  Thanks to this, some of the highest production of armored vehicles and aircraft came in the last months of the war.

Expect Russia and Ukraine to do the same.

Allied Training

Much was made of the withdrawal of American trainers like the Florida National Guard in the days leading up to the Ukraine War.  US and UK Special Forces were also ordered out of the Ukraine.

That has changed.  According to reports, the British SAS are back in Ukraine training soldiers.  And, the Florida National Guard unit, which is based in Germany and “other locations,” is once again training Ukrainians in the use of high-tech American weapons like the Javelin and Stinger.

The Florida National Guard also changed the Ukrainian way of fighting.  The US teachers taught Ukrainian junior officers to be more flexible in a combat situation and not wait on orders from above.  They also taught aggressiveness in infantry combat and less reliance on heavy weapons like artillery and armored vehicles.

NATO teachers said that the Ukrainians took their lessons to heart and are operating like a modern European army.

What Will Putin Do?  Will He Start a Nuclear War?

There is no doubt that Putin has committed himself to the Ukraine War.  And, to show his commitment, the Russian government has made several aggressive comments that imply that Russia may use nuclear weapons.

Is that a bluff?

Limiting the war to Ukraine and using only professional soldiers is the best way forward.  Mobilizing for war and drafting Russian men will hit Russian households and might create opposition to Putin.  If he wants to stay in power, it makes more sense to keep the war limited to Ukraine and not try to expand it.

“Going nuclear” would be risky as it would risk bringing the war to the average Russian family.  It would also be of limited use as a tactical nuclear weapon designed to counter a major armored spearhead in open terrain like Central Germany.  Given current circumstances, we shouldn’t expect any massive Ukrainian armored spearheads.

This doesn’t consider the ramifications of using nuclear weapons.  It could very well bring NATO soldiers into Ukraine itself.

A more likely move by Putin would be to seek an armistice and pull back by Russia.   Putin could paint the armistice as a victory.

It would also reflect the thoughts of Field Marshal Foch, who said of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI, “This is not peace.  It is an armistice for twenty years.”

Analysis 05-04-2022


Are the Belligerents
Running out of

Although running out of missiles has been a concern for a while, that problem came to the fore on Tuesday when Raytheon CEO Hayes spoke about the production of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which Raytheon produces.

Hayes replied to a question by the media that although Raytheon is producing the missile for an international customer, “We have a very limited stock of material for Stinger production.”

“DoD hasn’t bought a Stinger in about 18 years,” the CEO said.  “And some of the components are no longer commercially available.”

He didn’t see any replenishment contracts until 2023 or 2024.

Now the question is: have the 1,400 Stinger missiles sent to Ukraine depleted the US war reserves?

Probably not.  However, there is every reason to assume that procurement specialists underestimated the need for Stingers in a major conventional war in Europe.

There are also concerns about the stockpiles of Javelin anti-tank missiles.  These have been shipped to Ukraine since the Trump presidency and it is estimated that one third of the US Javelin stockpile has gone to Ukraine.

Underestimating the need for munitions in a war is a common threat.

This principle was evident in WWI, when the shortage of artillery ammunition caused the collapse of the British government.  France was running out of artillery ammunition within 6 weeks.  By November the British and Germans were also running short on artillery shells – thanks in part to the trench warfare that required more and larger artillery shells.  In May 1915, just 10 months after the start of the war., the British government fell because of the ammunition shortage.

Are the NATO countries and Russia having the same problem?  Germany excused its failure to support Ukraine with arms with the claim that it had no more to spare.  NATO pressure changed the German government’s position and ammunition, and heavy equipment is now moving from Germany to Ukraine.

Although they aren’t talking about it, the Russians are probably running short on missiles as the number of cities being hit by missiles every day has declined.  Now, much of their firepower is based on traditional bombs and artillery bombardment.

But, what about the high-tech munitions of the West?  Are they running out of the missiles that stalemated Russian aircraft and tanks?

Stockpile numbers of ammunition are secret.  We do know that the US government is activating some small arms ammunition factories that are kept in mothballs for a military emergency.  They aren’t producing missiles, but they are producing some of the small-arms ammunition that Ukraine is running short of.

But, what about the high-tech missiles?  Is NATO running out?  Are they not needed as much as they were in the opening days of the war?

The Stinger and Javelin missiles were designed in the Cold War when NATO was expecting a massed tank attack through Germany.  They were designed to give small units being overwhelmed by the Russians a potent way to fight back.  Given how well they worked in Ukraine, it appears that they were well designed for the mission.

Although the Russian attack on Ukraine was large, it wasn’t as massive as what would have been unleashed on NATO in a conventional WWIII scenario.  That means that there should be sufficient supplies left – a concern since this war is slowly sliding into a major world conflict.

A review of other sources indicates that there are more missiles in US and NATO reserves.

A 2020 press release by defense contractor Aerojet Rocketdyne may give us a clue about how many Stinger missiles have been produced.  In celebrating the production of its 5,000Stinger rocket motor at its Camden Arkansas plant, they noted that they had delivered 60,000 rocket engines for the Stinger program.  Current production is to increase the missile’s shelf life by 10 years, so some of those rocket engines are likely replacements for earlier models.

th Even if every Stinger has been updated with a new rocket engine that means there were about 30,000 Stingers produced.  Although some were used in the Afghan war against the Soviets, the 1,400 Stingers given to the Ukrainians is not enough to endanger the US or NATO.

There is also the question if Stingers and Javelins are the best weapon for the current Russian offensive against Ukraine in the east.  Remember that they were designed for the envisioned mobile battlefield of central Europe.

The current battle is slowly heading into a stalemate.  The Ukrainians are generally controlling their airspace with their air defense and fighter aircraft.  It also appears that they currently have more tanks in the theater than the Russians.

Although the Russians are making slow advances, they seem unable to take urban areas or well defended Ukraine defensive positions.  They are also sticking to roads, which means that there are large areas still controlled by the Ukrainian Army.  Since they have made a dent into their missile arsenal, the Russians are relying more on artillery bombardment in this offensive.

This change in tactics wasn’t unexpected.  The push to resupply the Ukrainians has not been for portable missiles, but heavy equipment.  Soviet era anti-aircraft missile systems have been exported by NATO nations to Ukraine.  Soviet tanks and armored vehicles have been shipped to Ukraine in return for promises by the US that they will “backfill” those NATO nations with newer American armor and air defense systems.

There also remains talk about sending Russian made fighter aircraft from nations formerly part of the Warsaw Pact.

The US has also changed its resupply of Ukraine.  It is sending millions of dollars of small arms ammunition.  It is also focusing more on artillery.  Howitzers are being sent, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition.  They are also sending counter battery radar, which allows the Ukrainians to determine where incoming artillery is coming from so they can immediately return fire to destroy the Russian artillery batteries.

Obviously, the US sees the current battle as more of a trench war of the WWI style than the Blitzkrieg of WWII.

Meanwhile, in the US, politicians and Defense Department procurement officials are trying to speed up weapons production.  In a bipartisan move, the House Armed Services committee wrote to the Defense Department, “We believe this is a matter of the highest urgency.”

They continued, “Events in Europe have demonstrated the importance of such a capability and the need for the Army and Marine Corps to develop a plan to invigorate the industrial base.”

It appears that any future legislation to give Ukraine more arms and supplies has a readymade majority in both the House and Senate.

The fact is that the US industrial base can react quickly if needed.  Weapons that would usually take years to field can take months or weeks when needed.  The Switchblade Drone sent to Ukraine is an example as it took months to produce instead of the usual years.  Another example was the armored vehicle that was designed to survive roadside bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The Defense Production Act helped to field these in about one year.

With Putin showing little desire to back down in Ukraine, we can expect to see the Defense Production Act to be used frequently soon.  No doubt other NATO nations will do the same.

We can also expect to see more nations go into their war reserves to activate older equipment to send to Ukraine.  There are reports that the UK will send its older Chieftain tanks to Ukraine.  And the chances that the Ukraine will receive more fighter aircraft are only growing.

Don’t expect this demand for more munitions to cease.  On Thursday, Biden asked for $33 billion for more aid to Ukraine.  This was on top of the $13.6 billion aid package passed last month for Ukraine and Western allies.  Although this package was to last the Ukraine for five months, half of the approved money for weapons and equipment for the Ukraine military has been drawn down already.

Of course, as it becomes obvious that more nations are willing to go further to support Ukraine, the question remains at what time this evolves from the Russo-Ukrainian War to World War Three?

Analysis 04-26-2022


How US Military Analysts Assess
Russia’s Latest Offensive


On Thursday, Russian President Putin declared that the Ukrainian city of Mariupol had been “liberated,” even though about 1,000 Ukrainian troops continued to resist the Russians and still held the Azovstal steelworks.  The Russians intend to hold a Victory Day parade in Mariupol to celebrate the victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 and the liberation of Mariupol.

In addition to declaring the battle of Mariupol over, Putin also ordered troops to seal off the Azovstal steel works so tightly that even “a fly cannot pass through.”

So much for moving the troops from Mariupol to the front.  Historically sieges are hard to maintain, and they require more soldiers than the defense.  Since the steel plant is bordered by the Kalmius river and the Sea of Azov, it shouldn’t be hard for soldiers and civilians to escape from the plant if they wish to.

Of course, from Putin’s point of view, his forces control the roads in the Mariupol area, so he does have the coveted land bridge from Russia to Crimea.

There are reports coming out about a partisan resistance between the Crimea and Mariupol.  Information is scant about this force, but it reportedly operates in an area larger than Mariupol and is closer to Ukrainian lines so supplies can reach them.

Russian commanders may have another front to worry about after refitting their Mariupol units.

Meanwhile, the battle for control of the Donbas continues.  The US Army has told reporters in press briefings that the Russians have made probing attacks but have not made any major breakthroughs.

The Russian strategy appears to be to cut off the eastern part of Ukraine by driving north from Donetsk, which is north of Mariupol, and south from Izyum.  If successful they will capture an important coal mining region.  If the Ukraine army continues to fight along the current battlefront, they will be surrounded.

Of course, if the Ukrainians retreat from Donetsk, they will be surrendering a large part of the country.

According to US analysts one major problem for the Russians is that the jumping off point for the northern part of the Russian pincher is Izyum.  Russian supplies run on a road that goes from Belgorod, Russia, skirts the Ukrainian held city of Kharkov, and ends up at Izyum.

This road has become a target for Ukrainian attention, including destroying Russian rail bridges and attacks on Russian villages near the border.

As we have noted in the past, modern conventional warfare requires a continuous supply of parts, fuel, food, and other things necessary for modern warfare.  It doesn’t help that the modern Russian Battalion Tactical Group (BTG) is very reliant on logistics, even though it is considered superior to the American Brigade Combat Team.

Ironically, the Russian BTG was created by the Russian Army to move away from the Cold War military structures of divisions and armies.

After the Cold War, NATO’s interventions in the Balkan nations, Iraq, and Afghanistan caused their armies to evolve into smaller, more mobile units for fighting insurgencies.  In the case of the US, they developed the Brigade Combat Team, which became the basic unit of maneuver for the US Army.  There are three types of teams: infantry, Stryker, and armored.  They are light enough to be deployed anywhere in the world by air transport and operate on their own.  They were ideal for insurgencies like those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

In 2008, Russia moved away from its conventional organization of divisions and transitioned into the BTG.  These units were lighter, easier to deploy around the world, and self-contained – including everything from tanks to mobile air defense.  They were considered superior to the American Brigade Combat Tea, (BCT).  They proved their worth in Syria.

Ironically, their problem was manpower.  Relatively untrained conscripts were 25% – 50% of the Russian BTG manpower.  They were usually kept in non-combat roles like maintenance and logistics.

However, thanks to the large number of heavy weapons attached to the BTG, much of the professional soldier strength was dedicated to operating and protecting the weapons systems.

After subtracting the conscripts and the professional soldiers attached to their heavy weapons that left about 400 to 500 infantries.  After further subtraction of patrol and security, about only 250 soldiers were available for infantry assault tasks.  Given the 3 to 1 ratio of an attacker to defender, that means that a company of about 80 soldiers could possibly hold off a BCT infantry attack.

Another weakness of the Russian infantry is their reliance on fighting inside an armored infantry vehicle.  Unlike their American counterparts, they are not trained in dismounting and carrying out aggressive infantry attacks.

In nations like Syria, the Russians were able to supplement their lack of infantry by using Syrian infantry units.  That’s one reason why the Russians are trying to sign Syrians and others from the Middle East.

The BTG also suffers from the fact that it is designed for insurgencies in remote areas.  It isn’t designed for a large conventional war in Europe, which it is required to fight today in Ukraine.  Large conventional wars require staff of officers to handle the complex problems of conventional warfare.

Although staff have been considered an unnecessary bureaucracy in the military, in warfare on a grand scale, they can solve problems of transportation, logistics, and supplies.  This leaves the generals to develop strategy and the junior and field grade officers to direct the fighting.

Without the staff, the senior officers must frequently visit the front to handle what staff officers once did.  This is one possible reason that the Russians have suffered so many losses in their flag officer ranks.

Although the Russian BGTs are capable, they have been designed to fight in places like Syria, instead of Ukraine – especially Ukraine with some of the most modern weapons available.  They also need large amounts of supplies like fuel, ammunition, repair parts, and food.  Without the constant stream of supplies, the BGTs are limited in what they can do.  Traditional Russian military doctrine of massive artillery bombardments before pushing through enemy lines seems quite difficult.

At this point, the battle of Donbas is in the balance.  Russia’s BGTs lack enough trained manpower.  Their units require a secure logistics system.  They lack the aggressive infantry manpower and tactics that are necessary to support their armored units.  And, if they do advance, there is no guarantee that their supplies will keep up with them.

Pentagon officials like to highlight what they claimed to be a weakness of the Russian Navy, which has lost a cruiser – the biggest Russian navy loss since World War Two.

NATO nations are aware that the key to victory is keeping up the supply of ammunition and man portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.  To keep Ukraine in the field will mean hundreds of millions of dollars per week of munitions.

It also appears that NATO is willing to step up its contributions.  The US military has admitted that modern military aircraft have been shipped to Ukraine, along with tanks and armored vehicles.  NATO nations have also ordered their civilian weapons providers to gear up to wartime status.

This leaves Russia in a tight position.  Critical parts for their weapons systems are produced in the West and are now unavailable.  And, although they have a war industry to supply consumables like ammunition, they can’t hope to keep up with NATO’s resupply of Ukraine.  They can try to stop supply convoys from reaching eastern Ukraine, but that will require using its overstretched air force and rapidly disappearing smart munitions.  They can’t use the guerilla tactics the Ukrainians used to attack the Russian convoys in the north of Ukraine.

Again, US and NATO are aiming for a long war of attrition, where Ukraine will continue to resist thanks to the logistics support of NATO.

Analysis 04-12-2022


Cyberwar: Fad or Weapon of War?


For all the talk about cyber warfare in the past few years, the first major conventional war in Europe since WWII is raising some questions about how important cyberwar capability really is.

It seems that the most important weapons of war are anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.  The Ukrainian President keeps asking for more missiles but has hardly mentioned cyber warfare systems.

Then, there is the perceived poor performance of Russian units, even though Russia is considered a leader in cyber warfare and has a large cyber warfare group that regularly hacks into Western computer systems.

So, what is the truth?  Is cyberwar a fad or a powerful part of modern warfare?

Admittedly, a Russian tank being blown up by a missile makes for a more exciting video than the quiet infiltration of computer systems.

Computer experts say that Ukraine has been hit by more than 150 cyber-attacks in this war.  On the opening day of the war (February 24), Microsoft said its Threat Intelligence System detected “destructive cyber-attacks directed towards Ukraine’s digital infrastructure.”

Microsoft said that the malware used that day, called FoxBlade, was designed to wipe data from connected Ukrainian devices.  However, while there have been successful attacks on Ukrainian networks, there haven’t been any dramatic attacks on infrastructure that have changed the direction of the war.

There are three major methods of cyberattack.  The first is a “wiper,” which deletes data from a computer network.  This keeps people from using the network and accessing their own data.  Wiper cyber attacks are part of Russian cyber warfare doctrine and are taking place right now, but they aren’t impacting the war as the Russians hoped.

One of the wiper malwares used before the attack was WhisperGate, which was injected into Ukrainian government systems on January 13th.  It was like the cyberattack malware used by the Russians in 2017.

A wiper that was used in conjunction with the beginning of the war was HermeticWiper, which hit on February 23rd, the day before the war.  It has spread to some of the Baltic countries.

A Russian wiper deployed the day the war started was IsaacWiper.

Another type of cyberattack is DDoS (Denial of Service).  This simply overloads websites so they can’t respond.  Although it is a simple method of attack and can be easily countered, it is effective.  This was what was used to crash the Ukrainian defense ministry’s website during the early hours of the war so Ukrainian citizens couldn’t get any information from government sites.

Another cyberattack method is defacement attacks and fake news.  This is where websites are attacked to change the information on the site.  This can be used to report defeats to ruin civilian and military morale. Western analysts are claiming that this method is being used by the Russians against their own population and military to keep bad news about the war from them.

Although the Russians have more sophisticated cyber warfare technology, it appears the Ukrainians are winning the cyberwar by effectively spreading its view of the war to its citizens and other nations.

The major Ukrainian factor in the digital battlefield is its President Zelenskyy, who was a former actor and knows how to communicate to people.  His daily reports to his citizens and speeches to politicians and parliaments around the world have galvanized support for Ukraine.

Private cell phones have become a major part of cyber warfare as Ukrainians have taken pictures and videos of destroyed Russian armored vehicles and aircraft – strengthening the narrative that Ukraine is winning.

Cell phone imagery documenting “Russian atrocities” has only strengthened support for Ukraine and will likely mean more arms shipments to the Ukrainian military, including tanks, air defense systems, and possibly combat aircraft.

Which brings us back to the question; is cyber warfare a fad or a useful aspect of warfare?

Ironically, the most effective piece of cyber warfare is spreading information, which is only a digital replacement of propaganda spread through radio, printed media, and television.

The rest of the cyberattacks have merely spread chaos for a short time.  It doesn’t appear to be changing the direction of the war.

The reality is that what happens on the real battlefield is more important than what happens on the digital battlefield.

That’s why shipments of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles have proven to be more devastating than all the Russian cyber-attacks.

Military fads have come and gone over the decades.  After WWII, everyone thought that nuclear weapons would control the battlefield.  Then it was “push button” warfare.  After that, it was going to be ballistic missiles.  The military has also gone through remote control drones and sophisticated “command and control.”

The reality is that winning wars depends on something older – infantry.

When writing about the infantry, the Fort Benning program on the use of infantry says, “The role of the American infantryman has remained constant since the earliest days of American military history: to close with and destroy the enemy.”

Although technology has changed the tactics and the lethality of the battlefield, the role of infantry has remained the same – to take and hold ground with the infantryman.  Aircraft, ships, ballistic missiles, and even tactical nuclear weapons can’t take and hold ground.

Although cyberattacks can cripple computers, it can’t take the place of the basic infantryman.  This was proved in the Battle around Kiev.  Ukrainian infantrymen held the ground off the roads and in the marshes, where they could launch missile attacks against Russian vehicles and aircraft.

It was Ukrainian infantrymen dug in around Kiev that were more important than Russian missile and aircraft attacks.  While the missiles and bombs could kill and wound the Ukrainian infantry, it was the fact that they continued to hold the ground after the attacks that proved the winning factor in the battle.

Clearly cyber warfare has a place on the modern battlefield.  However, at best it can only hold the digital battlefield.  In the end, the war is won by soldiers who can take, hold, and defend the real battlefield.