Monthly Archives: January 2023

Whining Mayor Whines Again

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Mayor Eric “Squeaky” Adams (D) is crying now that his sanctuary city, a status of which he claims to be proud, is nearing its breaking point and there is no more room in New York. All because the city of 8.8 million has had an “influx” of 41,000 illegal aliens over the last nine or so months.

41,000. The Del Rio sector of the US-Mexico border, of which Eagle Pass, TX—population 28 thousand—is the primary border-crossing region, had more than 51,000 illegal aliens entering in December 2022 alone.

Adams needs to stop his cry-baby act; he’s embarrassing New Yorkers, if not himself. If he doesn’t want to handle his trickle of illegal aliens, his first step should be to end the city’s sanctuary status.

Harassment or Intelligence Gathering?

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China once again sent PLAAF aircraft into the Republic of China’s ADIZ without, quite, penetrating RoC airspace, and it sent PLAN warships across the midline of the Taiwan Strait without, quite, penetrating RoC waters. The PRC has done this sort of thing almost daily over the last three weeks.

The PRC’s penetrations and surrounding of the RoC in the days after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) visit to the RoC last August can be viewed as temper tantrum and retaliation for Pelosi’s visit. That rationale no longer applies, these days.

What is the PRC after, then? One reason is simply harassment and attempted intimidation of the RoC, an overt attempt to cow the nation into accepting PRC occupation and control.

Another reason, though, is to gather intelligence on RoC military and political capabilities. Military intelligence would include data on when the RoC detects the penetrations at each of the various points where those penetrations have occurred: detection range varies with terrain, weather, personnel alertness, and so on. Other data include time to react given a detection, what the reaction is, and with what—whether with surveillance resources—ground, sea- and/or aircraft—or with combat ships and aircraft, and the circumstances under which each type is used.

Political intel data would center on the RoC government’s response, the relative strengths of the currentl governing and opposition parties and how those relative strengths might be evolving (keeping in mind that RoC President Tsai Ing-wen’s governing party has recently lost a couple of key city elections), and the RoC population’s response to the government’s actions and whether that response is changing or remaining relatively stable.

And one more possibility: constant penetrations, to a depth, intended to lull the RoC government and military—especially the latter’s line formations—into a measure of complacency: “this is just another irritating move, no big deal” until the PRC’s forces apparently conducting another irritation, that time keeps coming in a full-blown invasion. Via the routes where the detections were the latest and/or the reactions were already the slowest.

Or the rationale is some combination of those three.

In any event, PRC behavior toward the RoC emphasizes the need for the US to step up the pace of arms transfers and the amounts of arms transferred to the RoC. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, need to conduct joint combined arms exercises with the RoC military. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, also need to step up the pace of combat ship sailings through the Taiwan Strait and around the island. These sailings also need to include combat ships sailing around the South China Sea islands which the PRC has seized and occupied, going as close as navigably safe in the process. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, also need to conduct overflights of those islands with both surveillance and combat aircraft. The US, Japan, and Australia, individually and as a group, also need to conduct “escort and observation” operations near all PLAN military vessels sailing the South and East China Seas and the Taiwan Strait on the RoC side of the midline and to fly similar operations near PLAAF aircraft in the RoC ADIZ.

Who are these Austrians?

Posted on by
Reply

And why do we waste any more time supporting them, for instance via the OECD and OSCE?

In William Nattrass’ op-ed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Poland’s functional ascension to European leadership regarding the barbarian Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he cited a couple of remarks by Austria’s Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg.

Mr Schallenberg had claimed Europe’s “security architecture will have to take Russia into account in future”….

Certainly, since, contra Putin, Russia’s existence isn’t at stake. But with a Ukrainian decisive victory, that future would include a less capable-of-threat Russia.

Schallenberg also was upset that Poland had successfully blocked Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s attendance at a recent OECD meeting.

Mr Schallenberg said Mr Lavrov’s presence would have provided a rare chance for Western politicians to communicate their criticisms directly to the Kremlin.

This is just breathtakingly stupid. It’s almost like Schallenberg doesn’t understand that Russia and Western nations have exchanged embassies.

Hold Off, Guys

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the American “defense” establishment is advising Ukraine now as that nation fights for its existence against the invasion of barbarian Russia. Wait until the new arms transfers, just agreed at a NATO meeting, arrive, those worthies say.

The US has advised Kyiv to hold off on any major counter-offensives against Russian forces in Ukraine until Washington’s latest supply of weaponry and trainings have been provided, a senior White House official said, according to Reuters Saturday.

And

A senior US official told reporters that the US believes Russia will gain an advantage when it comes to a war of attrition and therefore Ukraine needs to change the dynamic on the battlefield.

And

The official did not clarify for how long the US wants Kyiv to hold off on launching a counter-offensive or when Washington will deem Ukraine ready to do so….

That’s…foolish…for a number of reasons.

The US is notoriously slow even to get the promised equipment out the door, let alone delivered into Ukrainian hands. For how long must the Ukrainians “hold off?” These US officials are careful to avoid answering that question.

On the other hand, “Washington” claims to know better than the Ukrainians when Ukraine will be ready to go over to the offensive again. “Washington” Know Betters, after all, are looking from the vantage point of their airconditioned DoD, State, and White House offices. The Ukrainians can only see the whites of the barbarian’s eyes, see the barbarian’s fatigue, the way the winter cold saps the poorly equipped for winter barbarian’s will to fight or the manic rage of Wagner’s horde sitting right across from them. This is just quintessential ugly American arrogance. The Ukrainian forces in the field don’t need to be ready enough to suit “Washington.” They only need to be readier than the barbarian for a winter offensive.

Which brings me to: rather than sitting on the defensive, ceding the initiative, and thereby fighting the war of attrition that Washington is rightly worried about, the best way for the Ukrainians to change the dynamic on the battlefield is precisely to prosecute a winter offensive of their own. Just like they changed the then-dynamic with their Kherson offensive last spring.

Aside: The Pentagon doesn’t want to ship M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. The US has argued its tanks are too costly and difficult to maintain. Then why are they still in our inventory soaking up money and time and soldiers to keep some fraction of them combat ready? At least DoD officials aren’t arguing (publicly, anyway), like the Germans are vis-à-vis their Leopard tank, that the dumb Slavs are just too stupid to learn how to drive a tank.

Another Aside: These Washington officials plainly are projecting their own imperatives onto the Ukrainians. That suggests dangerously meek positions vis-à-vis our own government’s willingness to defend the Republic of China. Or our own nation.

Perino is Right, but….

Posted on by
Reply

Dana Perino, a Press Secretary for former President Bush the Younger (R) thinks President Joe Biden’s (D) Press Secretary Karine Jeanne-Pierre is being poorly used by her boss and by her boss’ Chief of Staff, Ron Klain. Her performance—leaving aside her inability to speak extempore—has been abysmal.

When asked back on 11 January whether the search for classified documents at Biden’s Delaware “residence” was finished, she responded You should assume it has been completed, yes. The next day more classified documents were found in Biden’s “residence” garage. Perino:

One, they either didn’t tell her. And I believe when she said she didn’t know, she found out the same day the press corps did[.]
So it looks like she was involved in a cover-up if she did know. But she didn’t know. So then they’re like, “Oh, wait, so you don’t know what you’re talking about? So you don’t have the confidence of the chief of staff?” And they just sit there and let her twist in the wind every single day.

Perino is right, but in the end, Jean-Pierre’s plight isn’t only on Biden, or even Klain. She’s not stuck on the White House plantation, nor is she bound by Biden’s chains. She can—and should—walk at any time; she lacks only her own moral courage to do so.