Category Archives: defense policy

Rebellion, or…?

Posted on by
Reply

Wagner MFWIC (perhaps ex-MFWIC) Yevgeny Prigozhin now claims his move through Rostov-on-Don, then up the M4 highway through Voronezh on the way to Moscow, was not an attempt to overthrow the Russian government, or even the Russian Defense establishment. (Note: the cite actually is a Moscow Times reprint of an AFP article.)

We went to demonstrate our protest and not to overthrow power in the country[.]

The move, which involved attacks on the Wagner units by Russian army and air force units and Wagner shootdowns of a number of helicopters and a command and control airplane, was the Russian iteration of a mostly peaceful protest.

On the other hand,

[T]he [Russian] Ministry of Defense said that the Wagner paramilitary group that launched a mutiny last week was preparing to hand over its heavy weapons[.]

It’s not necessarily an open question, then: the move to separate Wagner from its heavy weapons suggests the Russian government has made up its mind on how much protest, peaceful or otherwise, was involved in the matter.

What are Biden and Austin Up To?

Posted on by
Reply

US military retirees living in Turkey are about to lose access to the US base at Incirlik and to all other American bases in the country. The loss will take effect 1 October of this year. Among other things, this will mean our veterans will lose access to

  • base commissaries, which sell American groceries
  • Army and Air Force Exchange Service stores—Base Exchanges—which3 sell American goods
  • US post office services, including PO Boxes through which our veterans
    • receive and send back their absentee ballots for American elections
    • receive American medicines

The commander of the US presence on Incirlik, USAF Colonel Calvin Powell, has said the ban is related to a changing Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Turkey, but this is hard to credit. Similar bans are being contemplated at US presences around the world: Aviano Air Base in Italy and the US presences in the Philippines, for instance.

Hence my question: what are SecDef Lloyd Austin and President Joe Biden (D) up to now?

It Won’t Limit Much of Anything

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration is about to release billions of dollars to the Iranian government on the hope and promise that Iran will pause its nuclear weapons program and in ransom for some Americans held in Iranian prisons. The arrangement

reportedly limits the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in exchange for freeing Americans imprisoned and easing sanctions.

And

The United States’ goal is purportedly to come to an informal, unwritten agreement with Iran to prevent hostile relations between the two nations from further escalating—as Iran cracks down on internal protesters, stockpiles highly enriched uranium, and gives drones to Russia to use in Ukraine. The deal would also ease sanctions on Iran.

Informal—on what basis does this administration think the Iranian government would honor any sort of agreement with an infidel, much less an off-the-record unwritten one?

This move, if it’s allowed to run to completion, won’t limit anything but the safety of Americans and of the citizens of our friends and allies.

You Must Accede to Us

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the message the People’s Republic of China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Qin Gang, has given to Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a phone call with Blinken prior to Blinken’s upcoming hat-in-hand trip to the PRC. Qin instructed Blinken,

The relationship between China and the US has encountered new difficulties and challenges since the beginning of the year. It’s clear where the responsibility lies.

Qin went on, paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal:

Qin called on the US to stop using competition as a pretext for damaging China’s sovereignty and security, according to the Chinese readout. He also urged the US to take steps to implement a plan to manage differences and stabilize ties….

The PRC bears no responsibility for the tensions it’s generating. It’s entirely on us to quiet down and to quiet the tensions.

This demand for American acquiescence to everything PRC—for American surrender—coupled with the PRC’s Minister of National Defense Li Shangfu casually ignoring Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s repeated pleas to meet with him, even to simply talk to him, is what the Biden administration’s timidity has brought us to.

Cowardice and NATO

Posted on by
Reply

This characteristic might seem a non sequitur as it applies to NATO, given that entity’s support for Ukraine in the war the Russian barbarians have inflicted on it.

But maybe it’s apt. NATO is planning for a successor to current Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, a Norwegian, whose term expires at the end of this year. Currently favored to succeed him is another Nordic, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

Poland objects, and since the Secretary-General must be chosen unanimously, that would seem to put an end to that choice. Poland’s primary objections are two. One is that Denmark is one of the majority of NATO member nations what have welched on failed to meet their obligations to support NATO with spending equal to 2% of their national GDPs. What could we expect of Frederiksen, then, in leading NATO actually to strengthen its military capability, goes this objection.

Poland’s larger objection, though, is less an objection to the Dane and more a preference for a leader of an Eastern European nation, one that once was an SSR of the late and unlamented (at least in civilized circles) Soviet Union, or Poland. Such a one would have an up close and personal understanding of the threat Russia poses and how much that threat is expanded by the barbarian’s invasion of Ukraine. Poland’s President Andrzej Duda wants someone from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland; although he is leaning toward Estonia and that nation’s Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas.

That brings me to the title of this post.

[S]everal Western nations are wary that naming a secretary-general from the eastern flank would be too provocative, as it brings the alliance’s leadership to Russia’s doorstep.

This is shameful timidity, and it has no place in a defense alliance whose avowed duty is to confront and defeat aggression, at least against a member nation (although NATO troops—not only national troops—have fought elsewhere, also). Thus, this objection puts a premium on installing Kallas, or Lithuania Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė, or Latvia Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš, as much to inject backbone into NATO constituent nations as to advise Russian President Vladimir Putin that his barbarians are not welcome outside of Russia.

Full stop.