We could start by ending the war against Russia. Unfreeze her assets. Drop the indictments. Cease the hostile propaganda. Also, stop the witch hunt against Americans who treat Russia with respect.
Biden and Harris undid Nixon's greatest accomplishment of separating Russia and China thereby uniting the entire Eurasian landmass against us.
The Russia China alliance is unnatural and will fall apart the moment we stop antagonizing Russia. I suspect China will be a bit less aggressive without a Russian ally. Iran, too.
Ah, but we aren't in a war. Ukraine was invaded, and helping Ukraine fend off a brutal invader is not involvement under international law. Like it or not, what you are proposing is nothing more than appeasement, and the major takeaway for Chamberlain was that appeasement does not work.
Yes, and we have an obligation to help, and Putin had an obligation not to invade. Putin was looking for a pretext to violate Budapest from the beginning of his regime.
Whatever you may think about NATO expansion, freely chosen membership by the countries to protect themselves from Russian aggression, it was not a sufficient cause to invade Ukraine and Putin is not some benign actor that would just be a little kitten but for big bad NATO defending itself.
Those assets will never be unfrozen, and/or they'll be used to repair Ukraine once this thing is over. I think there is probably a settlement to be had. Russia leaves, Ukraine has control of the borders, but Eastern Ukraine is a DMZ. Also, the Russians have to leave Crimea but they get to keep Sevastopol as a base (like GITMO) with open land routes across the Kerch Bridge to keep it supplied.
Putin and Russia has shown you who they are. It is best to believe them.
Last time I looked Ukraine was not in the North Atlantic.
I don't think Russia will settle for anything less than Crimea plus the four or so provinces in dispute. If the fighting continues then Russia will not settle for anything less than Eastern Ukraine and Odessa.
Again, my point is that we either make some comprise with Russia or face the combined might of Russia, China, NK, Iran, etc.
Neither is Germany or Poland or France or Sweden or Denmark or....I hope you get the point. What Russia will or won't "settle for" is yet to be seen. I think once you make the point to them that they are going to grind themselves into mush in a war of attrition - and they are - and that if they DON'T come to the table and make an agreement there is going to be MORE pressure, sanctions, and support - they'll get the hint.
In fact, I'd do what Biden should have done in the first place. I'd put all the subs out, send out the fleet, mobilize the 101st and 82nd along with the 10th Mountain Division, 25th Infantry Division, and 75th Rangers along with armored personnel to man prepositioned stocks in Europe. Once they were all moving and the troops landed in Europe, THEN I would call Vlad and say "Let's talk". He can't handle Ukraine, he doesn't want NATO involved.
The "combined might" of those countries is just silly. Russia is landlocked and can be handled by combined arms Air Land Battle in Europe with the Europeans. China would be a naval war, and while it might be costly, they are not going to defeat us - we don't have to invade the country, just blockade them and introduce economic sanctions. Iran? A few stealth sorties and they aren't doing anything. They can sow trouble, but it will be much the worse for them - a side show. North Korea? Please.
They can stretch our resources, make it a logistical problem to cover everything, but they would not win in a war on any one of several levels.
And, no, they aren't going nuclear because they all know where that will go. Under MAD doctrine, you operate as if nuclear weapons do not exist and proceed with conventional operations accordingly. All the actors know there are no limits once you pop a nuke, there is no such thing as a "tactical" nuke in reality, and so you aren't, and can't be, subject to nuclear blackmail in this regard. Otherwise, they'll take whatever they want in future and make the same threats and then where are we?
A rogue, crazy, nihilistic terrorist regime? Maybe you have to worry. But just once. Then they cease to exist and they aren't on parity with the West in terms of nuclear weapon arsenals. And if they are associated with China and Russia, who have a lot more to lose, they aren't letting Iran or NK off that leash with their ass on the line.
In the macro, wars and strategic issues are easy to define in broad parameters. The devil, as they say, is in the details - and the costs in blood and treasure. But, again, it isn't OUR side that wants all of this. It is Putin and Xi pushing our hand and creating the situation. If they will only accept THEIR end points, and we don't and can't agree to them, they are only going to get one result.
Got to visit Tallinn this fall and saw first hand how Russia treats its neighbors over the centuries. We want to condone or even encourage that via a treaty with Russia. No way!
There was nothing wrong with the execution of the wars, they were over pretty quickly and we won. What we lost was in our attempt at nation building, which we shouldn't even have tried. Taiwan and Ukraine are different, substantively and strategically.
Yeah, we did. Long ago. They couldn't remove us by force of arms and the resistance was not sufficient to remove us if we didn't want to go. But it was never worth it since there was no way we were going to change their society. So, we achieved our aims in force of arms and could have maintained a light SOF footprint and controlled the area until we got bin Laden in Afghanistan. And, while it isn't perfect, Iraq is a lot better off now - even given the "oh, woe is me, the Shia somehow are in control of what was always a majority Shia nation" in Iraq. Blame execution and decision making, but there is no doubt we achieved our military objectives - just not those of our state department and social scientists in their hubris.
We're in Cold War 2.0 which includes a prickly attitude towards Russia. Assets remain frozen, Ukraine, like Yugoslavia in the 90's is the purview of Europe, EU needs to get its act together and decide if their world is worth fighting for. Does the Visgrad Group grow as more countries start to lean Right and buck EU conventions....who knows but, they're a better option than NATO getting involved with Eastern aggression.
What you are calling "hostile propaganda" is simply the truth about Russia and Putin's regime. The US is not fighting in Ukraine and has no skin in the game, so ending the war is not in our purview. Trying to force Ukraine to quit fighting would be forcible suicide for them.
China and Russia really did not separate. They had differing interest on some things, but Xi is working with Putin and supporting him in his war against Ukraine.
Also against Iran. It's time to let the hostage crisis go.
The Iranians reached out after 9/11, even worked in sync with the USA to help get rid of the Taliban then, but then were rebuffed and even insulted in the "Axis of Evil" speech.
Since then, there has been a steady trickle of "bomb Iran" op-eds and overt and covert initiatives to overthrow the IR. Americans being Americans, they can't see anything from Iran's or anyone else's point of view and consider why Iran might have degraded US operations in Iraq after that.
Effectively sidelining over 10 percent of the MSC's fleet may not lose the Great Pacific War in and of itself, but it pretty much guarantees we won't win.
This doesn't even account for the lack of escort ships to ensure a large chunk of the remaining fleet isn't sunk during the first few weeks of hostilities.
CDR Sal, your beginning is the conclusion: "Weakness invites aggression. Appeasement accelerates it."
You note the timeline (it's long and crosses several administrations), so not "all blame falls upon one side". It took a couple of decades to build this mess. End results likely getting here quicker than we expect (that is really ungood). Getting out of it is an exercise in deterrence. If "threat" equals "capability times intent", we've got a bit of convincing to do on the world stage that we "mean" anything at all when we say "DON'T". "DON'T" has recently elicited yawns and humiliation in front of our enemies and (likely former) allies. Convincing people we mean what we say will not be fixed overnight. Convincing ourselves we mean what we say may take longer than that, as the systemic rot is deep.
Latvia and Estonia could do themselves a favor by more closely aligning themselves with Poland economically, militarily, and politically. There is the history of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth.
Easily solved. We go in with the Philippines and build on the various shoals then base a DESRON out of the Philippines. If Vietnam et al want to do the same, we include them. We can provide the Philippines with decommissioned LCS ships to cruise with us (have to work with them on the fixes, of course). Involve Australia, as well, and Japan. Develop resorts and radar bases on the islands. Put part of the SOSUS network there (just as an extension to say it is there - too vulnerable to base it there). Then station some Marines as logistical hubs to support EABO concept and weapons systems. A few MLRS in range of the Chinese island should put a bee in their bonnet!
Well, if they wanted us I suppose...some history there of course. Just getting Port of Call for the fleet or DESRON at Cam Ranh Bay (and kicking out Russia and China) would be a huge logistical step.
Admittedly, I am no longer entrenched with the PRC problem (over a decade). That being said, I have long held the opinion that those who believe Reunification of Taiwan is the desired endstate, are taking a rather myopic view. Rhetorically I ask, why stop at 90 miles if you could occupy and colonize the Philippine Archipelago? Encirclement would effectively choke the life right out of an armed resistance and while greater distance for PLA, Manila may prove to be a softer target overall.
The Philippines are very vulnerable to an internal coup due to their fragile and corrupt political system and the oligarchy dominated by Chinese-descent Filipinos. The struggle between Marcos and the Dutertes is an aspect of this.
The Chinese won't need to invade, they will bribe their way in and we'll wake up to a "treaty of friendship and cooperation" with PLA Navy at Subic. To be fair, the USA hasn't done much for the Philippines in the last 50 years, while the Chinese might deliver things the Philippines need.
Send in a squadron of tugs fitted with firefighting monitors and crewed by hungover Coasties. They'll shove the Chinese auxiliaries aside in no time, restore freedom of navigation to the islands, and impregnate any women within an hour's walk of the pier. #AgeOfAquarius
Won't work unless you get the women drunk first. Coasties are far too ugly to sweep them off their feet. I oughta know as Coasties were also students at QM 'A' school and we had two Coastie Chiefs as instructors.
Just thinking out loud and I promise you I have not over-thought this. China hasn't invaded and taken Taiwan yet, which hasn't provoked a war. Most folks say they will eventually, but they haven't yet. Does this mean China is not ready yet? If that is the case then even if we are now not fully ready to stop them in Taiwan or stop them in their South China Sea expansionism, does anyone think we'll be better able to stop them in the future than we are able to right now? Our options? Lollygag, admit defeat, roll over and die and carve out another big peace dividend or draw a line in the sand and be willing to back it up with iffy resources, even knowing that will be very painful. Tough choice, but if we do nothing (soon), we lose. Not making tough choices makes future choices either tougher, or easier. IMO, we are about at the point where the easy choice is the only one we'll have...quit the field. We sort of get to choose our level of humiliation if we decide quickly.
I haven't followed RoC politics closely, but I've wondered if PRC strategy has included a combination of buying the government, as they've done with minimal but non-zero success here) and with that government's cooperation using Taiwan as a gateway for western business that is hesitant in China proper.
Last week the MoD announced getting rid of 1/3 or their refuelling fleet on the promise of future ships and crew. Everyone here knows how that goes. Yes, those oilers had been pierside for a while which requires minimal maintenance to keep them functional. Better than sending them to the breakers though.
"Why should they stop?" qualifies as THE question to ask. China sees the shift from wise old Biden to the unstable Trump as an opening to step through the chaos into their desire to own all the good that Taiwan has created.
We could start by ending the war against Russia. Unfreeze her assets. Drop the indictments. Cease the hostile propaganda. Also, stop the witch hunt against Americans who treat Russia with respect.
Biden and Harris undid Nixon's greatest accomplishment of separating Russia and China thereby uniting the entire Eurasian landmass against us.
The Russia China alliance is unnatural and will fall apart the moment we stop antagonizing Russia. I suspect China will be a bit less aggressive without a Russian ally. Iran, too.
But the Dems and Never Trumpers wouldn't allow that.
Think, we still have "Navalists" proudly thumping that they supported Romney, echoing the mainstream US media's exaggerations and Democrat propaganda.
The Democrat party hasn't learned from their recent thumping-they're digging in on "it's Russia's fault".
Witch Hunting Americans who don't hate on Ivan enough is part of the 2026 midterms already.
Dole, McCain, Romney, etc. were all gracious losers.
Brandon is bought and paid for by China so there could be no resistance from The US. We are "blinded" by Russian aggression, and big pay checks...
Sensible people would never allow that.
Welcome Comrade Chamberlain!!
Not everyone who wishes to avoid war is Neville Chamberlain.
Not every treaty is Munich 1938.
Ah, but we aren't in a war. Ukraine was invaded, and helping Ukraine fend off a brutal invader is not involvement under international law. Like it or not, what you are proposing is nothing more than appeasement, and the major takeaway for Chamberlain was that appeasement does not work.
From Russia's point of view, we are the aggressors having fomented a coup in Ukraine.
The coup accusation was always a lie. Russia's "point of view" is the sort of rubbish we saw during the days of the USSR.
Well, we did guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum when they gave up their nuclear weapons.
Yes, and we have an obligation to help, and Putin had an obligation not to invade. Putin was looking for a pretext to violate Budapest from the beginning of his regime.
Whatever you may think about NATO expansion, freely chosen membership by the countries to protect themselves from Russian aggression, it was not a sufficient cause to invade Ukraine and Putin is not some benign actor that would just be a little kitten but for big bad NATO defending itself.
Those assets will never be unfrozen, and/or they'll be used to repair Ukraine once this thing is over. I think there is probably a settlement to be had. Russia leaves, Ukraine has control of the borders, but Eastern Ukraine is a DMZ. Also, the Russians have to leave Crimea but they get to keep Sevastopol as a base (like GITMO) with open land routes across the Kerch Bridge to keep it supplied.
Putin and Russia has shown you who they are. It is best to believe them.
Last time I looked Ukraine was not in the North Atlantic.
I don't think Russia will settle for anything less than Crimea plus the four or so provinces in dispute. If the fighting continues then Russia will not settle for anything less than Eastern Ukraine and Odessa.
Again, my point is that we either make some comprise with Russia or face the combined might of Russia, China, NK, Iran, etc.
Neither is Germany or Poland or France or Sweden or Denmark or....I hope you get the point. What Russia will or won't "settle for" is yet to be seen. I think once you make the point to them that they are going to grind themselves into mush in a war of attrition - and they are - and that if they DON'T come to the table and make an agreement there is going to be MORE pressure, sanctions, and support - they'll get the hint.
In fact, I'd do what Biden should have done in the first place. I'd put all the subs out, send out the fleet, mobilize the 101st and 82nd along with the 10th Mountain Division, 25th Infantry Division, and 75th Rangers along with armored personnel to man prepositioned stocks in Europe. Once they were all moving and the troops landed in Europe, THEN I would call Vlad and say "Let's talk". He can't handle Ukraine, he doesn't want NATO involved.
The "combined might" of those countries is just silly. Russia is landlocked and can be handled by combined arms Air Land Battle in Europe with the Europeans. China would be a naval war, and while it might be costly, they are not going to defeat us - we don't have to invade the country, just blockade them and introduce economic sanctions. Iran? A few stealth sorties and they aren't doing anything. They can sow trouble, but it will be much the worse for them - a side show. North Korea? Please.
They can stretch our resources, make it a logistical problem to cover everything, but they would not win in a war on any one of several levels.
And, no, they aren't going nuclear because they all know where that will go. Under MAD doctrine, you operate as if nuclear weapons do not exist and proceed with conventional operations accordingly. All the actors know there are no limits once you pop a nuke, there is no such thing as a "tactical" nuke in reality, and so you aren't, and can't be, subject to nuclear blackmail in this regard. Otherwise, they'll take whatever they want in future and make the same threats and then where are we?
A rogue, crazy, nihilistic terrorist regime? Maybe you have to worry. But just once. Then they cease to exist and they aren't on parity with the West in terms of nuclear weapon arsenals. And if they are associated with China and Russia, who have a lot more to lose, they aren't letting Iran or NK off that leash with their ass on the line.
Who knew a world war could be so easy?
And to think I wasted all that time reading that box of books sent by the NWC!
World wars are easy. It only takes a Hitler, Hirohito or Putin start one.
In the macro, wars and strategic issues are easy to define in broad parameters. The devil, as they say, is in the details - and the costs in blood and treasure. But, again, it isn't OUR side that wants all of this. It is Putin and Xi pushing our hand and creating the situation. If they will only accept THEIR end points, and we don't and can't agree to them, they are only going to get one result.
Got to visit Tallinn this fall and saw first hand how Russia treats its neighbors over the centuries. We want to condone or even encourage that via a treaty with Russia. No way!
How much blood and treasure are you willing to sacrifice for Ukraine or Taiwan? Have we learned nothing from out 20-year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
There was nothing wrong with the execution of the wars, they were over pretty quickly and we won. What we lost was in our attempt at nation building, which we shouldn't even have tried. Taiwan and Ukraine are different, substantively and strategically.
We won? I must have missed out on the Victory medals.
You must have been hiding in the basement and not paying attention to anything outside of it.
Yeah, we did. Long ago. They couldn't remove us by force of arms and the resistance was not sufficient to remove us if we didn't want to go. But it was never worth it since there was no way we were going to change their society. So, we achieved our aims in force of arms and could have maintained a light SOF footprint and controlled the area until we got bin Laden in Afghanistan. And, while it isn't perfect, Iraq is a lot better off now - even given the "oh, woe is me, the Shia somehow are in control of what was always a majority Shia nation" in Iraq. Blame execution and decision making, but there is no doubt we achieved our military objectives - just not those of our state department and social scientists in their hubris.
We're in Cold War 2.0 which includes a prickly attitude towards Russia. Assets remain frozen, Ukraine, like Yugoslavia in the 90's is the purview of Europe, EU needs to get its act together and decide if their world is worth fighting for. Does the Visgrad Group grow as more countries start to lean Right and buck EU conventions....who knows but, they're a better option than NATO getting involved with Eastern aggression.
What you are calling "hostile propaganda" is simply the truth about Russia and Putin's regime. The US is not fighting in Ukraine and has no skin in the game, so ending the war is not in our purview. Trying to force Ukraine to quit fighting would be forcible suicide for them.
China and Russia really did not separate. They had differing interest on some things, but Xi is working with Putin and supporting him in his war against Ukraine.
Also against Iran. It's time to let the hostage crisis go.
The Iranians reached out after 9/11, even worked in sync with the USA to help get rid of the Taliban then, but then were rebuffed and even insulted in the "Axis of Evil" speech.
Since then, there has been a steady trickle of "bomb Iran" op-eds and overt and covert initiatives to overthrow the IR. Americans being Americans, they can't see anything from Iran's or anyone else's point of view and consider why Iran might have degraded US operations in Iraq after that.
Logistics for the win—or not.
Effectively sidelining over 10 percent of the MSC's fleet may not lose the Great Pacific War in and of itself, but it pretty much guarantees we won't win.
This doesn't even account for the lack of escort ships to ensure a large chunk of the remaining fleet isn't sunk during the first few weeks of hostilities.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/11/navy-to-sideline-support-ships-re-assign-mariner-crews-amid-worsening-workforce-shortages/?utm_campaign=BD%20Daily&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9UK3VzQIy4TdUhuokFj83zPaj4KipJEDZVVitlVBJ9pSaW2i16YuOG0CmUp93lXUog8vaoiIEDhwL3a6ShldRQ9NyQnA&_hsmi=335513100&utm_content=335513100&utm_source=hs_email
CDR Sal, your beginning is the conclusion: "Weakness invites aggression. Appeasement accelerates it."
You note the timeline (it's long and crosses several administrations), so not "all blame falls upon one side". It took a couple of decades to build this mess. End results likely getting here quicker than we expect (that is really ungood). Getting out of it is an exercise in deterrence. If "threat" equals "capability times intent", we've got a bit of convincing to do on the world stage that we "mean" anything at all when we say "DON'T". "DON'T" has recently elicited yawns and humiliation in front of our enemies and (likely former) allies. Convincing people we mean what we say will not be fixed overnight. Convincing ourselves we mean what we say may take longer than that, as the systemic rot is deep.
Wasn't it 2001 or so when the Chinese held a P-3 crew and aircraft hostage? That was the first time I really felt weakness projected towards them
Yes. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/archives/Collections/ncdu-det-206/2001/ep-3-collision--crew-detainment-and-homecoming.html
echoes of Georgia, Crimea, Donbass...... future Latvia, Estonia, etc.
We should be helping Philippines and Vietnam become strong as Poland......
Latvia and Estonia could do themselves a favor by more closely aligning themselves with Poland economically, militarily, and politically. There is the history of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth.
Easily solved. We go in with the Philippines and build on the various shoals then base a DESRON out of the Philippines. If Vietnam et al want to do the same, we include them. We can provide the Philippines with decommissioned LCS ships to cruise with us (have to work with them on the fixes, of course). Involve Australia, as well, and Japan. Develop resorts and radar bases on the islands. Put part of the SOSUS network there (just as an extension to say it is there - too vulnerable to base it there). Then station some Marines as logistical hubs to support EABO concept and weapons systems. A few MLRS in range of the Chinese island should put a bee in their bonnet!
We could set up an airbase at Da Nang and have it guarded by the Marines.....
Well, if they wanted us I suppose...some history there of course. Just getting Port of Call for the fleet or DESRON at Cam Ranh Bay (and kicking out Russia and China) would be a huge logistical step.
I was being sarcastic.
Undoubtedly, but the Vietnamese have become a lot more friendly since China started acting up.
Sal,
Admittedly, I am no longer entrenched with the PRC problem (over a decade). That being said, I have long held the opinion that those who believe Reunification of Taiwan is the desired endstate, are taking a rather myopic view. Rhetorically I ask, why stop at 90 miles if you could occupy and colonize the Philippine Archipelago? Encirclement would effectively choke the life right out of an armed resistance and while greater distance for PLA, Manila may prove to be a softer target overall.
Your mileage may vary!
The Philippines are very vulnerable to an internal coup due to their fragile and corrupt political system and the oligarchy dominated by Chinese-descent Filipinos. The struggle between Marcos and the Dutertes is an aspect of this.
The Chinese won't need to invade, they will bribe their way in and we'll wake up to a "treaty of friendship and cooperation" with PLA Navy at Subic. To be fair, the USA hasn't done much for the Philippines in the last 50 years, while the Chinese might deliver things the Philippines need.
The same danger exists with Mexico.
Send in a squadron of tugs fitted with firefighting monitors and crewed by hungover Coasties. They'll shove the Chinese auxiliaries aside in no time, restore freedom of navigation to the islands, and impregnate any women within an hour's walk of the pier. #AgeOfAquarius
Won't work unless you get the women drunk first. Coasties are far too ugly to sweep them off their feet. I oughta know as Coasties were also students at QM 'A' school and we had two Coastie Chiefs as instructors.
Just thinking out loud and I promise you I have not over-thought this. China hasn't invaded and taken Taiwan yet, which hasn't provoked a war. Most folks say they will eventually, but they haven't yet. Does this mean China is not ready yet? If that is the case then even if we are now not fully ready to stop them in Taiwan or stop them in their South China Sea expansionism, does anyone think we'll be better able to stop them in the future than we are able to right now? Our options? Lollygag, admit defeat, roll over and die and carve out another big peace dividend or draw a line in the sand and be willing to back it up with iffy resources, even knowing that will be very painful. Tough choice, but if we do nothing (soon), we lose. Not making tough choices makes future choices either tougher, or easier. IMO, we are about at the point where the easy choice is the only one we'll have...quit the field. We sort of get to choose our level of humiliation if we decide quickly.
I haven't followed RoC politics closely, but I've wondered if PRC strategy has included a combination of buying the government, as they've done with minimal but non-zero success here) and with that government's cooperation using Taiwan as a gateway for western business that is hesitant in China proper.
Back to the Future...
https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/1861096041447088274
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h73000/h73774.jpg
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2022/february/drifting-toward-tsushima
Last week the MoD announced getting rid of 1/3 or their refuelling fleet on the promise of future ships and crew. Everyone here knows how that goes. Yes, those oilers had been pierside for a while which requires minimal maintenance to keep them functional. Better than sending them to the breakers though.
"Why should they stop?" qualifies as THE question to ask. China sees the shift from wise old Biden to the unstable Trump as an opening to step through the chaos into their desire to own all the good that Taiwan has created.
"...wise old Biden.."
Last time I looked Joe was talking to a tree.
...your projection (ignorance).
Biden has talked to trees, among other similar objects. It isn't projection, but fact.
Sitting on imaginary seats, for instance....but they'll still tell you it was all cheap fake videos despite what we all saw in the debate.
Can you say anschluss? We're not quite to Munich yet, but we will be soon.