Tag Archives: defense policy

Invasion

Posted on by
Reply

In Monday’s joint press conference that President Joe Biden (D) and Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) following their meeting, a German journalist asked Biden, point blank (because no one in the American press has the courage or the integrity to ask such questions), to say specifically what would constitute a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Biden said without hesitation, “tanks or troops crossing the—the border of Ukraine again” crossing the border into Ukraine.

Because it’s not actually an invasion if Russia penetrates with its “green men” forces. It’s not actually an invasion if Russia shuts down Ukraine’s energy and water distribution networks with cyber attacks. It’s not actually an invasion if Russia wipes away Ukraine’s financial underpinnings with cyber attacks against its financial networks or corruption of its financial databases or both.

Biden keeps making it easier for Russia to invade.

On top of that, as late as today, Biden’s donation to Putin remains unremarked by the American press. Shameful.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons Capability

Posted on by
Reply

It never was seriously hindered by the JCPOA, and the US withdrew from it over that failure. Now the Biden-Harris administration is back-handedly acknowledging that, even as it continues to beg Iran to agree to another ineffective agreement.

Administration officials concluded late last year that Iran’s nuclear program had advanced too far to re-create the roughly 12-month so-called breakout period of the 2015 pact[.]

Ineffective agreement:

Under a restored deal…[t]he constraints on Iran’s nuclear research and development would gradually relax from 2024. Iran’s new breakout time could then fall rapidly after 2026 when the deal allows Tehran to deploy some advanced centrifuges.

In other words, the new agreement that Biden-Harris is so desperate to get still would permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons, just over a (maybe) longer time frame.

That time frame, though, is itself misleading, even were it to last as long as Biden-Harris hopes. One metric for this, and one that Biden-Harris seems to be hanging his hat on, is the breakout time, the time required to go from the end of any agreement to the production of enough weapons grade uranium to produce a single bomb.

The breakout time is different from how long it would take Iran to attain a nuclear weapon because, according to Western officials, Iran is believed not to have mastered all the skills to build the core of a bomb and attach a warhead to a missile.

There are two things about this question of breakout time and an agreement’s claimed delay in an Iranian nuclear weapons program. One is that the added time, to the extent there actually is any, is plainly usable by Iran to develop and execute the needed skills to build and attach a bomb to a missile. That’s in addition to the lack, in the JCPOA, of any constraints on an Iranian missile development program.

The other is that business of attaching a nuclear bomb to a missile. There are lots of ways to deliver a nuclear warhead to its target besides missiles, or aircraft. One of those other ways is by land. One of the reasons (albeit far from an exclusive one) for Iran’s zeal in keeping a land bridge from Iran into Syria open and operational is for land delivery of weapons to its Syrian terrorist surrogates. Such a land bridge easily could accommodate nuclear bomb delivery either for Iran’s Syrian terrorists to deliver over the last mile into Israel or for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to deliver directly.

And there’s the dishonesty of Iran’s blandishments that their nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes. A peaceful nuclear program, for developing and building out nuclear reactors for electricity generation, for instance, needs only the 3.67% uranium purity that always has been allowed. Yet Iran already has 2.5 tons of 20% and greater purity uranium. That level of purity in uranium has no intrinsic use—it’s too rich, for instance, to be usable in a reactor. 20% purity has utility only as an intermediate step on the path to weapons-grade purity.

Biden-Harris Administration’s Level of Preparedness for its Afghanistan Withdrawal

Posted on by
Reply

How prepared was Biden-Harris? What is an outcome of that level of preparedness?

…a news outlet said it obtained leaked notes from the White House Situation Room that showed “just how unprepared” it was to evacuate Afghan nationals who assisted Americans during the conflict.

Per AXIOS, the news outlet in question:

  • Hours before the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s capital on August 15, 2021, senior Biden administration officials were still discussing and assigning basic actions involved in a mass civilian evacuation.
  • …they’d just decided they needed to notify local Afghan staff “to begin to register their interest in relocation to the United States….”
  • …they were still determining which countries could serve as transit points for evacuees.

Biden-Harris, though, is disputing all of that. The Spokesperson for his National Security Council, Emily Horne, insists,

While we’re not going to comment on leaked internal documents, cherry-picked notes from one meeting do not reflect the months of work that were already underway[.]

Wow. I’m not sure I’d want to insist that the debacle of Biden-Harris’…departure…from Afghanistan was carried out in accordance with carefully developed, long-time prior planning.

If that’s the quality of Biden-Harris planning, it’s no wonder that Russian President Vladimir Putin is just weeks away from invading and conquering Ukraine, and People’s Republic of China’s President Xi Jinping isn’t far behind in his plan to invade and conquer the Republic of China. Those Presidents are playing chess while our President is playing Chutes and Ladders.

Germany “Helps”

Posted on by
Reply

Germany has offered to ship to Ukraine 5,000 helmets and says it will “transfer” a field hospital (typically with 50-100 beds) to Ukraine in February. Ukraine had asked Germany, with its military establishment of more than 260,000,

to provide at least 100,000 helmets and protective gear….

5,000 helmets and a field hospital for an active duty establishment of more than 400,000 that’s backed up by a reserve establishment of 250,000. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko was generous to call the helmet offer a joke. What kind of support will Germany send next, pillows? he wondered.

German law also prevents Germany from shipping weapons into a war zone or a region that might become a war zone. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz further has excused his government’s behavior by claiming lethal aid would only fuel the situation, and he’d rather find a “diplomatic” solution.

Of course, Scholz knows better. What would—what is—fueling the situation is leaving Ukraine dangerously weak in front of the Red Army, encouraging Putin to invade and conquer. The only “diplomatic” solution resulting is Ukraine’s defeat and occupation.

If Germany were serious about helping Ukraine, it would alter its law to allow arms shipments—directly from Germany or (for instance) via transfer of German-originated arms from Estonia’s establishment—into the nation that’s about to be overrun by Russia. It would correct its “thinking” on the matter and recognize that a well-armed and strong Ukraine is what makes a diplomatic solution possible.

No, Klitschko understated the matter. The German “offer” is insulting, and Scholz’ excuse-making is illustrative just how deeply is Germany kowtowing to Russia.

The Utility of Sanctions on Russia

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden-Harris administration is prepared—or so it says—to impose additional, broad-reaching, and heavy sanctions on Russia, if the latter follows through on its impending invasion of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made efforts to sanction-proof his nation’s economy:

padding the country’s foreign reserves, buying gold, and pivoting some exports to China.

On the other hand, Biden-Harris threatens those additional sanctions:

Senior administration officials said the US could ban the export to Russia of various products that use microelectronics based on US equipment, software or technology, similar to the US pressure campaign on Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co. US officials have previously said that measures under consideration also include cutting off Russian banks’ access to the dollar and possible sanctions on Russian energy exports.

Leave aside the question of whether Putin’s moves would work against these new sanctions. Leave aside, also, the delayed effects that even unopposed economic sanctions have before they start to bite and that Putin already will have conquered and occupied Ukraine before those effects begin.

There are problems for Biden-Harris and for Putin regarding the new and improved sanctions.

For Biden-Harris, the problems will center on the porous nature of the sanctions’ imposition. People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping will enthusiastically move to bypass the sanctions and increase PRC trade with Russia.

Worse will be Europe’s…imperfect…compliance with the sanctions. Germany, in particular, will ignore the sanctions, however secretive it tries to be about it. Germany has moved itself into far too great energy dependency on Russia and will trade for Russian oil and gas quite freely. Additionally, French President Emmanuel Macron has shown himself entirely willing to compromise with Putin on the matter of Ukrainian relationship with Russia and with western Europe and on Russia’s relationship with the European Union. Also, France’s own need for Russian energy, while not as great as Germany’s, is quite significant. Together, these two economies are strong enough to create large holes in the sanctions.

The problem for Putin centers on that PRC move to ignore the sanctions. Putin already has made a critical resource exploitation deal with Xi that allows the PRC to move citizens into central and western Siberia to develop the oil, gas, timber, and metals resources there. That’s a move that tacitly allows the PRC to colonize Siberia, which mainland Chinese governments for centuries have considered Russia to have stolen.

Beyond that, Russia and the PRC have the combined (if heavily weighted to one side) economic power and overall resource self-sufficiency to be independent of the West’s economic regime. However, whether or not they combine efforts that closely, the closer economic ties that Putin will need—and get—from the PRC, pushed by those added Biden-Harris sanctions, will emphasize the relative economic sizes of Russia and the PRC: a GDP of $4.3 trillion in purchasing power parity vs $29.4 trillion. Putin will be running the very serious risk of reducing Russia to the equivalent of satrap of the PRC.