Pages

Monday, May 16, 2022

Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is one of the cornerstones of clandestine actions.  It means that you recognize that the targeted foreign government may know you were responsible for an action but you don’t leave them a ‘smoking gun’ of evidence to parade on the world stage.  In fact, you may even want them to know it was you … just as long as they can’t incontrovertibly prove it.  In fact, we did a story along these lines (see, “Mark VI – Gunboat Diplomacy Story”).

 

One of the common comments among naval analysts is the lament that our military forces can’t really do anything effective because then we’d risk …  *horrified whisper* … ESCALATION.  Aaghh!  Sorry, I frightened myself there.  I’ve got to go change into a dry pair of pants.  I’ll be right back.

 

        

 

Okay, I’m back and I’ve stopped shivering with fear.  I can go on now.

 

Is our military really that bound and helpless?  Well, by current policy we certainly are but are there actions we could take if we had a modicum of fortitude?  Let’s consider history as a prelude to answering the question.

 

 

History and Precedent

 

In the Cold War, our submarines routinely violated Soviet territorial waters, tapped communications, lingered just outside (maybe inside??) Soviet harbors, and tightly trailed Soviet subs.  We even stole a Soviet sub!!!!!  Our U2 flights routinely overflew Soviet territory.  If rumors are to be believed, we routinely engaged in assassinations and all manner of skullduggery. And that’s just the stuff we know about!

 

It would seem, then, that we most certainly have used our military aggressively, in the past, during times of ‘peace’.  Precedent exists and the world did not ESCALATE  * aagh!!!!!  sorry, I thought I was ready for that word but it still scares me *  into nuclear war.  So, if we could somehow muster the courage and will, are there any actions we could take, today, that would appreciably benefit our general geopolitical aims and still allow us to maintain plausible deniability?  I think there are! 

 

 

Actions

 

*Warning!* The following may be considered escalatory.  If you are timid and faint of heart, stop now and go sing nursery rhymes until you are relaxed and reassured.

 

Note that I’m not necessarily recommending these actions;  just noting what could be done.

 

Submarines

 

Let’s use our silent service the way they were intended to be used:

 

  • Lay some mines around the Russian naval forces operating near Ukraine.  Clearly, the Russian navy has little or no ability to detect or threaten our subs.  They’d never know we were there.  We can publicly claim the Russians hit Ukrainian mines.
  • Launch a few torpedoes into Russian ships and, again, publicly suggest the Russians hit Ukrainian mines.
  • Launch some Submarine Launched Mobile Mines (SLMM) into NKorean naval ports and sink a few ships … you know, like they sank the SKorean ship.  They’ll never figure out what it was.

 

SEALs

 

Let’s pull our SEALs off their land combat jobs and use them the way they were meant to operate … clandestinely, from the sea:

 

  • Sabotage port facilities in the Solomons that the Chinese attempt to use or build.
  • Sabotage the illegal Chinese artificial islands in the South China Sea.
  • Sabotage the Chinese port facilities in Sri Lanka.
  • Sabotage Iranian swarm boats and facilities.

 

Surface Navy

 

Let’s use our surface navy for something other than cruise ships:

 

  • Shoot down every NKorean test missile and claim that we projected the missile’s course to come perilously close to our ships or civilian shipping and had to shoot them down for safety.  It’s not without precedent since NKorea has shot missiles into Japanese territorial waters.
  • Let’s sail large groups into the South China Sea and ‘herd’ Chinese ships away, as they’ve done to us.  Maybe we’ll bump ships and realize that we ought to be building stronger ships!

 

General Military

 

Let’s use our general military:

 

  • Initiate electronic warfare against the Russians from international air, water, and friendly territories.  EW is impossible to prove on the world stage.
  • Let’s take down drones as other countries have done to us.  We haven’t protested when it’s been done to us so it’s apparently open season on drones.  Let’s join in!
  • Let’s buzz Russian ships as close as possible, on a non-stop schedule.  The Russians can’t protest because that’s exactly what they do to us.
  • Assemble an air armada and fly into Chinese Air Defense Identification Zones exactly as the Chinese did to Taiwan on 28-Nov-2021.

 

 

Shaping

 

What I’m really suggesting is that we start shaping events in the world instead of reacting to them - usually by cowering.  We all understand the concept of ‘shaping the battlefield’ so why aren’t we doing that?  The world is a battlefield.  We’re at war with China whether we want to acknowledge it or not.  We have enemies in Iran, Russia, and NKorea who are actively working against us.  So why aren’t we using our military to shape events in our favor?

 

 

Conclusion

 

While I’m not necessarily recommending the actions described herein, neither am I recommending against them.  I’ll leave the political aspect for other blogs.  What I am suggesting is that by purely reacting – invariably with appeasement ! – to events instead of shaping them, we’ve allowed our enemies to shape the battlefield and we’ve removed a useful and effective tool from our tool box.  We’ve lost the mindset to even consider plausibly deniable actions and that is a mistake.  We have a navy and yet we’re not using it to any positive effect while allowing it to physically degrade, shrink in size, and become hollow.  We need to relearn plausible deniability.

 

50 comments:

  1. Good ideas and I agree with you that the decision to utilize some or all is another topic. However, after 20 years of seeing flag after flag in Iraq and Afghanistan say we got this if you just give us a few more troops, time. or MY strategy will win this conflict for us, I really have doubts about our ability to conduct any operation or develop a strategy that is short of total war. We proved we can smash organized regular forces (Iraq) and irregular forces that stand and fight (initially in Afghanistan) but after that forget it. Alot of the tools you list are short of total war and so I don't see our military leaders being able to imagine, think of and plan an operation that accomplishes anything lasting. Yes, they could execute any one or a small set of the actions you list but put it into the context of a strategy? Unfortunately, no way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As the character said in the comedy STRIPES, "Does the phrase "ACT OF WAR" mean anything to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No more than it does to Russia, China, Iran, or NKorea.

      Just out of curiosity, were you outraged when NKorea sank a SKorean frigate? Were you outraged when China forced down our EP-3, held the crew, and stripped the parts from the aircraft? Were you outraged when Russia seized Crimea? Were you outraged when Iran mined merchant ships? Were you concerned by the definition of 'Act of War' in those instances and so many others?

      Delete
  3. I've wondered why we don't shoot down some NorK missile test shots myself before - they don't have any concern for downrange safety so it'd be easy to justify on the international stage. Only thing I can come up with is that we're scared to do a live test of Aegis BMD where we don't control the entire script.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. There are serious doubts that SM-3s have the range to hit high arcing (IRBM and ICBM) missiles in mid-course, and explains why Japan cancelled plans to buy Aegis ashore. I wrote about this a few years ago.

      http://www.g2mil.com/NMD_Fraud.htm

      Delete
    2. I think thatd be an excellent choice for a test opportunity.. And of course if it fails, we deny it, plausibly LOL...

      Delete
    3. "...and explains why Japan cancelled plans to buy Aegis ashore."

      My understanding is the decision was based on monetary and political issues, with a small bit of debateable "the boosters will land on my civilians" thrown in... As far as mid-course intercept altitude being an issue, in spite of frequent, bizarre insertions of "mid course" being inserted into descriptions, AEGIS and the interceptors are primarily a very late midcourse/ terminal phase system, which is solidly in the SM family envelope. Not to mention that in defense of Japan, the accepted threats come from NKorea and China- theyre relatively close if compared to, say, a NA strike, so those ballistic arcs are likely of a lower/shorter altitude. So the altitude/range of an Aegis Ashore interceptor is much less relevant...

      Delete
  4. Your suggesting we mine the Black sea while Russia is engaged in military action? One of the most ridiculous blog posts here in recent memory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you clearly didn't read the post, here's a statement from the post that's relevant:

      "Note that I’m not necessarily recommending these actions; just noting what could be done."

      So, that renders your comment moot.

      Beyond that, do you see the idiocy of your comment and fear? Russia has initiated a war but you're afraid to take action against them? Are you worried that they might take it as an act of war? Oh wait ... they've already started a war!

      Finally, did you note that the premise of the post is PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY? Whatever action we take, they won't be able to prove it was us.

      What a waste of a comment.

      Delete
    2. When the Ukraine thing kicked off, I actually wondered if we had considered this or if it was possible. Even had a daydream that the sunken cruiser was our kill. Covertly sending subs into the Black Sea would be challenging, and wouldn't that defy some international agreement...(the Montreaux convention?? Are we a signatory or bound to it?? Are we concerned with Turkey's reaction if found out?) And while I doubt todays SWO capabilities to navigate anything, anywhere, I have more faith in the competency of our sub sailors to pull it off. And although certainly not covert, if we had decided to take a somewhat more involved or intimidating approach to the attack on Ukraine, surfacing a couple SSGNs off the Ukranian coast as we did to China years ago would've certainly made a statement!!

      Delete
    3. Getting through the Turkish Straits submerged is Quite Hard. Reaching the Sea of Marmara was done several times during WWI, in subs a lot smaller than modern ones. The Bosporus is narrower and twistier, and was not attempted at the time AFAIK.

      Delete
    4. Sure...but I'd think that with new, precision navigation aids, the hardest part would be avoiding the traffic and staying undetected...

      Delete
    5. Yes . . . those are quite hard things in close quarters. The worst-case outcome is a breached reactor in the Bosporus, in the middle of Istanbul.

      Delete
  5. Inteligente y creativo, justiciero y genial.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I legitimately wonder whether today's morons-in-charge would be able not to leave a smoking gun.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's "funny" how It's ok for USA to be the chump but not do the same to others....Our "ally" Pakistan helped Taliban for years and we had to look the other way. Our "allies" the Saudis
    and Kuwait gave billions to support ISIS. We all knew what Russia and China were doing in Vietnam BUT we were supposed to respect crazy ROEs.....So how dare we give some payback!?!

    The real crazy part is people being so scared of the Russians, what would Vlad think? Erhhh,really??? Some of you think Vlad hasn't noticed by NOW the 1000s of Javelins, Stingers USA has given or what NATO has given??? BTW, we not the getting the full picture BUT with so many US INTEL assets in the air,satellite and I'm sure some SF on the ground, my guess DoD has a good idea of what Ru forces are doing good and BAD! Let's exploit this!!!

    Now, i dont have not enough expertise to know if we could to operate a SSN in some of these locations, maybe having a SS would have been better but its mostly small quibbles but generally I'm ok with CNO ideas.



    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course, these days some sanctimonious jerk like Edward Snowden will probably steal the documents and publish them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Even more deniable would be to pay Philippine fishermen to scuttle their fishing vessels at the entrance of the Chinese island harbors.
    Also, give UAV quad drones to locals and pay them to get up close photos of Chinese aircraft in flight, do the drones can get sucked into the engines of Chinese jets.
    Pay Malays for any fish they take from Chinese fishing vessels so that the Chinese fishing fleet is shut down by fishing competition.
    All of these incidents can be spun to our advantage to say that locals in those countries want the Chinese to leave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its quite unlikely the Philippine government is going to let anyone mess with the Chinese. The new President is distinctly pro-China and that is going to change the dynamic in SE Asia quite dramatically.

      https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/marcos-philippine-president-boon-china-awkward-us-2022-05-10/

      Delete
    2. The PI government has been corrupted by the Chinese for at least 30 years but the people are still not fans of Chinese bullying. We just need a contracting agent to find broke fishermen and pay them a few thousand to ditch their boats in Chinese island dredged channels while another fishermen help recover the crew from the ditched boat.

      Delete
  10. I believe history will show one of the biggest acts of appeasement or maybe just sleep walking into war will be allowing the Chinese their illegal Island building. Immediately they started we should have been there, dismantling then quicker than they could build them. Plausible deniability was not even required. What they did (and what they are doing) should have been confronted Immediately. Ultimately the risk of not having acted will be far greater than acting at the outset. It makes me angry because I know it would have provoked no more than bluster at the time. Our weakness in not acting just makes them bolder.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Another thought just occurred. The Navy is still fairly good at keeping submarine operations quiet. We might actually still be doing some of the things you mentioned, and we just don't hear about it. Other than the ones involving torpedoes or mines, of course. But then we didn't do those things during the Cold War either.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Lay some mines around the Russian naval forces operating near Ukraine. "

    Even if USA really, really wants to do this it can't. Turkey controls access to Black Sea via Montreux Treaty. Montreux prevents non-Black Sea submarines and aircraft carriers from entering Black Sea.

    It allows Turkey to restrict access to any non-Black Sea country.

    Treaty also limits tonnage of non-Black Sea fleet naval power in Black Sea. Non-Black Sea powers are limited to 15,000 tons with a total non-Black Sea allocation of 45,000 tons. So US can in peace time deploy two Arleigh Burkes and that's it!


    Turkey regards Montreux as a sacred document and has abided by it even in the Cold War. It is one of the key cornerstones of its defence policy - not only does it keep Turkey a major power, it also keeps the Russians on friendlier terms.

    With war in Ukraine, the Russians invoked some of the provisions the which prevents non-Black Sea ships (including Russian ones not home ported in Black Sea) from entering the Black Sea.

    So US Navy is out of Black Sea whilst Turkey keeps the Montreux Treaty provisions active.

    And as long as Montreux Treaty exists US submarines and carriers are permanently out of Black Sea.

    Don't expect them to change this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "as long as Montreux Treaty exists US submarines and carriers are permanently out of Black Sea."

      You appear to have missed the point of the post. We operated submarines inside Soviet territorial waters during the Cold War. Just because a treaty exists doesn't mean we have to follow it. Just ask China about UNCLOS ! Clandestine plausible deniability means you do it and just don't leave any definitive evidence behind.

      Delete
    2. "Just because a treaty exists doesn't mean we have to follow it."

      Perhaps a more practical concern might be that to quietly get a US submarine into the Black Sea, it first has to pass through the Bosphorous, which is a skinny, bendy, strait filled with commercial traffic that goes right through the middle of Istanbul. I imagine that would be much more difficult and risky even than entering Soviet territorial waters from the open ocean during the Cold War.

      Delete
    3. Not objecting to your ideas in general, but I suspect this particular one may have larger costs and risks relative to the benefits than would justify it.

      Delete
    4. "more difficult and risky"

      Then don't do it. Do something else.

      Delete
    5. "We operated submarines inside Soviet territorial waters during the Cold War. Just because a treaty exists doesn't mean we have to follow it. "

      As Bob points out, the geographic difficulties created by the Bosphorous means Turkey can easily enforce the treaty.

      Both the legal and physical restraints cripples US naval involvement in the Black Sea.

      Nothing short of Article 5 being invoked and Turkey agreeing to it and going to war against Russia will open those straits up to the US.

      Delete
    6. Then don't do it. Do something else.

      Delete
  13. "Let’s buzz Russian ships as close as possible, on a non-stop schedule. The Russians can’t protest because that’s exactly what they do to us."

    Except the Russians are crazy enough to shoot our planes down. And, they might consider doing so as retribution for our support of Ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Except the Russians are crazy enough to shoot our planes down."

      Then we sink their ships and teach them self-restraint. I understand that you're frightened of escalation but keep a grasp on reality. Appeasement is why Russia is invading Ukraine (we did nothing when they seized Crimea and we routinely do nothing when they conduct unsafe ship and aircraft harassments. Appeasement just encourages further evil acts.

      I know it's scary but we need to stand up for ourselves and punish those who commit hostile acts against us and the rest of the world.

      "And, they might consider doing so as retribution for our support of Ukraine."

      And we might consider our actions to be retribution for their seizure of Crimea or invasion of Georgia or invasion of Ukraine. I never cease to be amazed at how so many people see restraint as something that only the US needs to practice while ignoring the evil actions of other countries. This is just pure fear preventing us from acting in our own best interests.

      Delete
  14. "Then we sink their ships and teach them self-restraint."
    Yessss!!!
    While generally speaking, we have been, or tried to be "the good guys"... But I think that being the good guys, playing world police, etc should have a price. That price being that we will no longer "take any ****"!!! If we are, and plan to continue to be the big dog, we need to act like it. So when we have a commander in chief that wants to retake that position, there should be an official statement of policy change. One that says any agressive acts will be replied to with force. Instantly. Along with that goes preparations to follow through. For instance if we conduct a silly FONOP, that single DDG should have an SSN in tow, and a ship that gets close/causes a collision etc, earns a suprise torp. If its buzzed by planes, suddenly a fighter squadron appears and a dozen warshot missiles get a targeting lock on the offenders and they get chased away. (And if not, continued agressive action earns them a warhead in the tailpipe) If a small boat swarm threatens, or maneuvers agressively, turn the kids loose with the CIWS joystick... or maybe, again, fighters appear overhead with cluster bombs/napalm/FAE...
    Yup...these all sound like "acts of war"... I don't care. And sure, while actions against China, since its our only peer, should probably be carefully thought out, but lesser nations, like Iran, well, just do it. Are we really afraid of some tit-for-tat with them??? They need to learn their place (is that arrogant?? Probably, and again, I dont care), and Im tired of the disrespect we suffer through and allow on a constant basis...!!!
    And for those who think Im callous or being wanton with our soldiers and sailors lives, my ship once sailed with our helicopter hanger full of flag-draped coffins, and Ive never forgotten that. Ever. But... nothing of value is free. Being a world leader and bringing back stability globally by being less timid isnt without risk. Its a worthwhile gamble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speak softly and carry a big stick. - Roosevelt

      Delete
    2. Nowadays politicians scream loudly and mostly use the sticks for things I won't mention in a family-friendly blog.

      Delete
  15. Push the envelope further. Have the SEALS procure some Chinese or NK mines and torpedoes and use those in the black sea.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am amazed at the number of people in this country (on this blog and elsewhere) that are terrified of the words escalation and entanglement.

    Madeline Albright said it best - What good are these forces if you can't use them? Now she wanted an undefined intervention int he the Balkans and CJCS Powell rightly, IMHO, push back saying what is the mission.

    If the 2 Es are going to so paralyze our nation, then at least let's recognize that and only maintain the nuclear forces and go back to the pre-WWII small standing forces.

    At least we could stop spending more on defense than the next 10 nations combined. And we might have funding to invest in production lines to support the next required surge in production.

    BTW - I proposed on this blog, before the Ukraine invasion started, with sending the 1st Armored Corps to Ukraine to deter Russia. Would have been a heck of a lot cheaper than $54B to Ukraine and thousands of Ukrainian lives wasted and their country needing massive investment to rebuild. So I am willing to use the forces we have for clear defined goals and missions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Would have been a heck of a lot cheaper"

      And that's exactly why it didn't happen.

      Delete
  17. Actually ComNavOps it’s the Chinese who are building a base in the Solomons, and not the Russians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops. Brain fart. I knew that. Corrected. Thanks for spotting.

      Delete
  18. I agree with you that we don't need to be quite so persnickety about the exact wording of the innumerable treaties to which we've bound ourselves, when our adversaries ignore them altogether.

    I also agree with you that we should take a more aggressive approach in the Pacific where the Chinese have effectively annexed the South China Sea and are moving to push us out of Asia, because in doing this they're threatening our core national interests, and our use of military force, overt or covert, is thereby justified.

    More particularly though, we shouldn't in my view put ourselves into a position where we can get 'out-escalated' by countries which operate without a moral compass, and in conflicts and disputes where the national interests of other countries are more at stake than are our own.

    I know that this was more a subject for discussion, and not a recommendation to action, but if we were, for example, to lay mines around a Russian port it would probably cause them some serious inconvenience. If, in response, they laid a few mines around a couple of our LNG export terminals (or Australia's or Qatar's) and blew up a tanker, that would be a catastrophe both for us and for the whole world. What would be our next step, and what would we have gained?

    Ukraine in my view is a matter for the Europeans, who seem less concerned about the situation than we are, or at least less willing to act, and if we have a spare $40 billion to spend I can think of better things to do with it.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You kind of got the post and kind of didn't.

      " mines around a Russian port it would probably cause them some serious inconvenience."

      The point of covert 'deniable' actions is not to cause inconvenience for the sake of inconvenience. The point is to take actions and exert influence that shapes the battlefield (kinetic or political) in ways that are advantageous for us.

      "If, in response, they laid a few mines"

      There are several responses to this. For one, we should be aggressively guarding our assets by trailing every one of their subs, sinking any ship/sub that violates our territorial waters, aggressively deter any ship/sub that even begins to approach our territories, and so on.

      Second, if Russia chooses to escalate further we should respond ten times over. If that leads to war, so be it. The opportunity to eliminate Russia as a world threat is one we should embrace, not shy away from. Ukraine has demonstrated that the Russian military is not something to fear.

      Third, the actions suggested are COVERT. Done properly, no one would even know we did it. Worst case, the target believes we did it but they have no proof (plausible deniability). Therefore, any response by Russia would be unprovoked as far as the rest of the world knows and that further justifies additional action on our part.

      "what would we have gained?"

      Again, the purpose is to shape the battlefield/politics. It is not random actions. What we gain is a shaping advantage because the actions are part of a plan. If we have no plan, we shouldn't do anything.

      Delete
    2. "what would we have gained?"
      "countries which operate without a moral compass"

      Here's something for you to ponder. What have we gained by our policy of non-escalation and appeasement? Nothing! Instead, we've allowed Iran, NKorea, Russia, and China to operate almost unimpeded and that has led to continuous world tensions, terrorism, arms export to terrorists, mass human rights abuse, subjugation of populations, mass deaths, etc.

      One could make a very good argument that we should welcome the chance to eliminate these countries once and for all. We're going to have to do it eventually so why not now while we have a military advantage? Instead of fearing escalation, we should embrace it. It's an argument worth thinking about.

      Delete
    3. Well I seriously doubt that Russia or anyone else would find our denials very plausible, but would rather apply the 'cui bono' principal and draw their own conclusions. And plausible (or implausible) deniability works (or doesn't work) for both parties. As I said, a few (deniable) mines outside an export terminal would bring the trade in LNG to an immediate halt and crash the world economy overnight.
      '...trailing every one of their subs..' - do you really think we could do this?
      '....respond ten times over...' - that sounds like a war - do you think there's any constituency for a war with a nuclear power unless our vital national interests are seriously threatened?
      'What have we gained by our policy of non-escalation and appeasement?' - well there I agree with you 100%. I have no issue at all with taking a significantly more aggressive line with China, which does indeed present us with a genuine and immediate threat. Things are not improving for us in that theater, so we would perhaps be well advised to act without further delay. An MEF to Taiwan to act as a tripwire would be pushing up against China's red lines, but probably not breaching them (but who knows?).

      Delete
    4. 'Ukraine has demonstrated that the Russian military is not something to fear.' - most of what we 'know' about this war comes from Ukrainian press releases, echoed and amplified by western media with 'Pentagon sources' and the British MoD nodding sagely in the background. We need to remember that nothing of what we're told about this conflict (true or otherwise) is being told so as to make us better informed, but rather to shape the narrative.
      The Russians made a couple of catastrophic strategic errors early in the piece, and have followed up with one tactical mistake after another. As a result they took a terrible hammering, lost thousands of AFVs, and suffered tens of thousands of casualties (perhaps 35% of their military). But there have been no reports of whole units surrendering, defecting, deserting or mutinying, they made a successful fighting retreat from Kiev, (no easy thing), withdrew a thousand miles, re-positioned, resumed the offensive without a break, and the bitter fighting continues.
      Any western army in any war that suffered casualties on that scale over that time frame would be considered 'spent', and taken out of the battle line (like the elite 1st AIF after Amiens in 1918).
      History teaches us that the Russian military is incompetent, brutal, but utterly relentless - far too early to write them off.

      Delete
    5. "An MEF to Taiwan to act as a tripwire would be pushing up against China's red lines, but probably not breaching them "

      Again, why is it that you think we have to be concerned about China's red lines but they don't have to worry about ours.

      "'...trailing every one of their subs..' - do you really think we could do this?"

      We did exactly that during the Cold War.

      "that sounds like a war"

      No, it sounds like a very serious lesson that we won't stand for being harassed. Why is it that only we have to be concerned about possible war but Russia can do anything they want with no repercussions?

      Delete
    6. "they took a terrible hammering, lost thousands of AFVs, and suffered tens of thousands of casualties (perhaps 35% of their military)."

      And all this occurred against a small, poorly equipped military with no significant air force, electronic warfare, or navy. I stand by the statement that the Russian military is nothing to fear.

      Delete
    7. "We did exactly that during the Cold War. "Really? Tracked every Soviet boat from the time it left harbor? I didn't know that - if we can do the same thing today, then hooray for us, as we don't seem to spend a lot of time practicing. I thought we left that stuff to the Brits.
      "...all this occurred against a small, poorly equipped military..." I think you may have fallen into the trap of buying the David and Goliath narrative on this.
      Russian tankers were strung out along narrow roads, and ambushed from the flanks by well trained Ukrainian regulars using plentiful supplies of up-to-date NATO-supplied anti-tank weapons. As a result, they were cut to pieces like Varus's legionaries in the Teutoburg Wald, (and coincidentally suffered about the same number of KIAs). But the correct takeaway from that little incident was "don't do dumb stuff like that", and definitely not "Rome's military is nothing to fear".

      Leaving that to one side, one notable feature of this conflict has been the extraordinary effectiveness of Ukraine's 30-year old Soviet-era air defense systems (S-300s and BOKS) against Russian 4th generation aircraft. Russia's IADS with its S400s and S500s is superior to Ukraine's by several orders of magnitude. Is there any reason to assume that it wouldn't be similarly effective against airstrikes by NATO 4th generation F15s, F16s, Typhoons, or Rafales, or that TLAMs wouldn't be just a vulnerable as Kalibrs to MANPADS? And the Russians have had plenty of practice getting to fine tune their radars against Israeli F35s over Syria and the Golan. How would that end? I hope we don't find out, and I'd bet the USAF is hoping the same thing.
      "Why is it that only we have to be concerned about possible war but Russia can do anything they want with no repercussions?" As far as I can see, Russia is doing everything it can to avoid a direct conflict with NATO, and it just seems like common sense that we should do the same.
      Thanks for your responses - it's always interesting to hear other peoples' views on these matters.

      Delete
    8. "Tracked every Soviet boat from the time it left harbor?"

      Read "Blind Man's Bluff" by Sontag and Drew. It's incredible what we did.

      "may have fallen into the trap of buying the David and Goliath narrative"

      An objective assessment of Ukraine's pre-war military shows they had almost no modern tanks, artillery, self-propelled anti-air guns/missiles, armored IFVs, air force, navy, naval mines, submarines, and the list goes on and on. That's just fact. Their military was small and ill-equipped. As the war progressed, NATO began supplying modern anti-tank weapons and MANPADS.

      Fortunately for Ukraine, Russia was woefully inept for a variety of reasons. We don't yet know the full story about that.

      "extraordinary effectiveness of Ukraine's 30-year old Soviet-era air defense systems"

      I've seen nothing documenting anti-air effectiveness. Do you have a reference?

      What I've seen of documented losses, Russia has lost perhaps two dozen fixed wing aircraft, 3 dozen helos, and a couple dozen UAVs. That's not a lot for a war. In fact, one of the [many] puzzling aspects of the war is Russia's very limited use of its air force.

      Delete
    9. One possibility is that Russia's air force is not actually serviceable, because they haven't been doing the maintenance.

      Delete
  19. Just loved this article, so to the point, and in the end, at some point you do need to shape- and intimidate- in order to push some sides to a plausible "acceptable" medium. That was a mouthful. Just think if the current administration had sent a Reforger response to the threats to Ukraine ahead of time and put them on the Kaliningrad border, maybe put 100k troops in Alaska additional. Kremlin can threaten all it wants, but it would still have probably stopped this, and saved tens of billions (which is cheaper than a trillion for us to jump in and do it if not much worse if nukes get used). Putting a couple of divisions in Ukraine may have stopped all of it ahead of time. This isn't about pushing Nato back, it's about rebuilding the Soviet empire. And China is watching quite closely.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.