China now dominates the Western Pacific militarily, thanks to its bigger, more modern, better armed navy and its vast array of specialized missiles.
One airborne missile exists solely to destroy AWACs and theater command aircraft. Another drops torpedoes close to submarines...Read and weep: All Your West Pacific Belong China Now..
"...The really interesting question is whether the political, systems of the West can learn to live with this situation..."
Well, live with or understand? I think we have a colossal case of crimestop here. Orwell classically defined crimestop as a kind of protective stupidity...the inability to think things that will get you into trouble. For the leadership of the collective west right now doubleplusgood crimestop on the topic of "Ukraine=good=winning, Russia = bad = losing" is needed, and the only real question is When (or, God help us all, if) does the whole affair collapse?
I'm hoping it's *before* a general thermonuclear conflagration, but I'm not too optimistic. It seems to me that the Nordstream destruction is likely an act of desperation, but we're way outside the realm of rational acts here, and it's not inconceivable that it was an act of demented overconfidence.
Ugh, I think I'm going to have to hide under the covers for a bit.
Well done, thanks. The advantage of massive numbers of sophisticated missiles should have been clear to the West, but I would guess they simply weren't profitable enough in comparison to ungodly expensive stealth aircraft and floating coffins called aircraft carriers. Makes it all look like a huge boondoggle, weapons they never actually expected to use in a real war against a real opponent, and instead they insanely relied on nukes to handle that situation.
It's not that missiles weren't profitable enough. It's that the Russians are using some combination of materials science, aerodynamics understanding, propulsion technology or avionics and control theory that aren't known in the West. They quite literally and undeniably are more technologically and scientifically capable in this area than the West. The West, or at least the US, has tried to close the gap and consistently failed.
The broader point that a rentier incestuous defense industrial configuration has proven itself unable to create results in line with its myths about itself is, however, true.
Both Sweden and Finland are suddenly reported to not want NATO troops or nuclear weapons on their soil. Semantic games as regards NATO vs. bilateral or the the realization that what Russia does to the energy infrastructure in Ukraine could easily be repeated elsewhere? Countries outside of the former Soviet union, and especially outside of the former Soviet block do not have anything resembling Soviet-level resilience built into their energy systems. They have not had Ukraine's population outflux either, which added to the redundancy. Northern climates and green energy policies like shutting down nuclear energy make matters even worse.
Excellent article. Just as your comments at Naked Capitalism are invariably helpful.
The west has invested in fighting colonial wars: just as the British did in the late nineteenth century whilst Russia is focused on defending its own borders. The folly of Britain spending so much money on “prestige” pocket aircraft carriers and F35 jump jets is super obvious from this.
Long term, I totally agree that this is the denouement of the US alliance and of NATO. The US resembles a tired boxer trying to cling on to its vestiges of power and stay as the overlord of Europe. Ultimately, this will be futile. Europe, as you say, is going to have to accommodate Russia (and China) and stop asserting so much moral superiority. As you suggest, European populations will struggle with this but it will happen. The question is just how long it takes and how much destruction and dislocation is needed to get there.
We need clear sighted leaders who see the end game and move towards it. I fear there are very few of those. Viktor Orban seems one of the very few who show publicly that they understand it.
"The really interesting question is whether the political, systems of the West can learn to live with this situation."
The key problem of the West is the corruption of the political system, the poltical class. That corruption is not necessarily, or even, brown envelopes but constant lobbying with incentives and disencentives if you are disobedient. If you become PM of Lichtenbourg in the end it doesn't really matter much to you if you are booted out by the electorate providing you have said and done the right things as far as the dominant Western narrative is concerned, because you know you will be provided for à la Blair, Van der Layen, the EU commissioner class etc. If you don't skeletons will pop out of cupboards and thngs wll be difficult. The US has been brilliant at managing this system.
Broadly the acceptable view is Western style universal sufferage, "our values", support for US real politik and support for hostile actions, economic, political and where feasible military against any state or politician that takes a different line. What the electorate want must be ignored or circumvented. At the same time the electorate must be brainwashed by a compliant media to adopt views that make this as easy as possible. It is about the suspension of disbelief.
The key problem is the intrusion of reality, eg Italy and Greece economically, LGBT and immigration in Eastern Europe. The western system of government now operates on the principle that true 'you can't fool all of the people all of the time ' but you can fool enough of them long enough to put through the policies you want for the time being. Naturally constant repetition of this type of governmental behaviour becomes less and less effective over time. How long can you go on persuading people that Russia has a tiny weak economy when it is as plain as the nose on your face that it has a large effective one? The answer is a surprisingly long time, all the more so because the people putting across the false story have convinced themselves it is true. But not for ever. Eventually a majority of the British electorate noticed that membership of the EU meant loss of sovereignty despite being told the opposite.
The other key problem is the not necessarily honest but atypical politician who pops up and throws sand in the machine and denounces the Emperor's nudity. It is interesting in this conection that the key European leaders who decisively marked their countries history during the WW2 period did not go to university - Churchill, de Gaulle, Hitler, Stalin. Today Orban in Hungary or Putin, Farage in the Brexit movement. For better or worse they refuse to conform.
I think that Putin and Lavrov, who both know the West well, do not rush things precisely because they want to give European politicians time to come to their senses. They invaded Ukraine because the US deliberately encouraged Ukraine to make it unavoidable.
Thank you for another excellent essay. A question s’il vous plaît, could the missiles not be launched from submarines, in this way putting Paris and London on the list of possible targets?
According to the Russians, they can launch Kinzahl from submarines, although I'm not aware of any evidence that it's been done. The problem is that the submarine would presumably have to surface to fire them, or, even if a version capable of being popped out from a tube is developed, the submarine would still need to remain stationary while launching the missiles. A submarine is a very high-value asset, and there has to be a chance that NATO forces would detect it when it launched, or would even have done so beforehand. I can imagine there would be circumstances where taking this risk might be justified, but it would be quite a risk. By contrast, launching a missile from within Russian/Belarus airspace would give you a much longer range and complete security of the platform.
Great analysis. I've never seen this so clearly put before. The decline of the 'west' is well under way. The only question left is whether German industry will force it's government to leave the sinking ship.
Funny how Russia keeps using tanks, infantry and artillery, despite their devastating missile superiority. Funny how they keep getting pushed back, too.
Your analysis is faulty. You can't support a ground advance with troops using only missiles. Obviously you need tanks. And for mass destruction at close range you need artillery. The Russian forces are not being 'pushed back'. They use maximum force to destroy enemy troops, then withdraw tactically to reduce their own losses. After enough of that has happened, they will be able to advance to any position they choose, as there will be no opposition left.
Also, I feel like @TheAncientGreek has a point. At what point is withdrawing tactically and cutting their losses not getting "pushed back"? How much territory is the Russian Military going to tactically "give up". Sometimes a duck is a duck because it looks like a duck, walks like one, and quacks like one. Doesn't need to be super complicated. Just trying to simplify things.
The big question is how degraded the Ukrainian Army is relative to the Russian. Far more important than specific territories occupied or not.
The Russian retreat from Kherson seems also to have been carried at will and with almost zero losses. No Ukrainian ability either to take advantage of it and destroy the retreating forces. All they did was move forward once they left. Jomini described a retreat as the most difficult military operation and in 1812-4 Russia did it constantly. Right up to the final victories before the entry to Paris.
We need to see what now happens before making conclusions. Clear that wars are not won by retreats.
"Confronted for the first and only time in its history with the kind of crisis for which it had been designed, NATO took effectively no direct action at all, and is paradoxically substantially weaker as a military alliance now than it was a year ago, because it has given so much equipment away. "
Choose one. NATO supplied weapons. NATO is weaker because it supplied weapons.
Weapon supplies increase costs of continuing war to Russia while simultaneously making West weaker to any continuation before those supplies were replenished - if that ever happened. Those supplies aren't infinite - with many politicians saying "we already sent as much as we could", and there seems to be no real preparation for potential larger war later.
It is possible that for some weapon systems no replacement will arrive to Ukraine while Russia keeps destroying and capturing non-zero amount of them - and for some there weren't that many sent or ever produced in the first place.
After (potential) Ukrainian loss West would also be facing army that has experience fighting against very same Western weapons they would have to field to defend themselves.
What part of this do you think makes NATO position stronger?
As far as i'm aware Russian military factories are already working triple shifts for several months.
I'm not seeing anything similar from Western side yet.
Do you have any specifics on which weapon building capability have been lost by Russia due to sanctions that will noticeably affect battlefield in Ukraine?
"EU countries "have drawn on their stocks of ammunition, light and heavy artillery, anti-aircraft and anti-tank defense systems, and even armored vehicles and tanks," European Commissioner Thierry Breton said at the time.
"This has created a de facto vulnerability that now needs to be addressed urgently," he warned.
...
The Pentagon has furnished some 800,000 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine, while United States has just one factory making them, the General Dynamics plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania that produces only 14,000 rounds a month.
"We have plans... to get that in increments ultimately up to 36,000 a month in about three years," said LaPlante."
For HIMARs Pentagon awarded contract just last month:
“Replacement contracts are expected to deliver over multiple years, as many capabilities delivered to Ukraine, such as advanced munitions, have two- to three-year production times,” the Pentagon says in its fact sheet."
And even though they kept line going and even got parts ahead of the time, before Lockheed Martin was awarded contract, still they note:
"I really think we’re confronting a U.S. munition production capacity crisis because for too long we procured things at the minimum rate, just to keep production lines going ― and now we’re paying the piper,” Bowman said. “Surge capacity is not there, and we need to be procuring enough to arm our own forces and ensure their readiness while providing Ukraine and Taiwan with what they need.”
Obviously that is problem West can eventually solve as long as there is will to do it - and as long as Ukraine can wait for it to happen in a few years.
Mostly off topic, but I thought I'd ask anyway, especially since you're familiar with the region.
Would political calculations similar to the Europe-Russia dynamic also apply to Israel-Lebanon (actually, Hezbollah)? The former is assumed to have ultra high tech weaponry (and useless nuclear weapons) versus many thousands of missiles and drones, most, perhaps, not particularly accurate, but some much more so. It would appear that there is a balance of terror that would argue against either side initiating hostilities. And secondly, how do relatively cheap drones alter the balance? The recent impoverishment of most Lebanese and the election of Netanyahu add some poignancy to the situation.
Interesting point. Classical deterrence rests less on being able to destroy the opposition than on being able to inflict enough damage that the opponent thinks that attacking simply isn't worth it, or being able to frustrate the objective that the latter has. I think it's the latter that applies here. In 2006, the Israeli air bombardment of Lebanon was intended to turn the population against Hezbollah as the source of their woes. By my observation, it hasn't worked: Maronites refer to Hezbollah as "the Resistance" quite casually, and I think all communities in Lebanon now regard Israel as a threat, as they didn't in 2006, when the Maronites actually encouraged the invasion for their own purposes. The broader issue is what the objectives of any Israeli attack would now be, and whether they are in fact achievable. If Hezbollah has made their objectives unachievable, then all the high-tech weaponry in the world won't help. I certainly can't see any objectives that Israel could set itself that Hezbollah couldn't frustrate. This does depend, though, on internal politics in the country, which is complicated enough to drive anyone nuts. Hezbollah does seem to be losing some of its lustre, as it becomes a political party more like the others, and risks being seen as part of the problem, although for the moment it's still very strong.
Netanyahu is very interesting. Oddly enough, for all that he's a bloodthirsty warmonger, fortunately I believe that he's a super corrupt and fairly smart one, so I think survival instinct may just kick in to save us all from a general war in the middle east. I'm way less frightened by Netanyahu than people like Von der Leyen, Borrel and Michel
Wonderful summary. Many thanks!
China now dominates the Western Pacific militarily, thanks to its bigger, more modern, better armed navy and its vast array of specialized missiles.
One airborne missile exists solely to destroy AWACs and theater command aircraft. Another drops torpedoes close to submarines...Read and weep: All Your West Pacific Belong China Now..
https://herecomeschina.substack.com/p/all-your-west-pacific-belong-china
"...The really interesting question is whether the political, systems of the West can learn to live with this situation..."
Well, live with or understand? I think we have a colossal case of crimestop here. Orwell classically defined crimestop as a kind of protective stupidity...the inability to think things that will get you into trouble. For the leadership of the collective west right now doubleplusgood crimestop on the topic of "Ukraine=good=winning, Russia = bad = losing" is needed, and the only real question is When (or, God help us all, if) does the whole affair collapse?
I'm hoping it's *before* a general thermonuclear conflagration, but I'm not too optimistic. It seems to me that the Nordstream destruction is likely an act of desperation, but we're way outside the realm of rational acts here, and it's not inconceivable that it was an act of demented overconfidence.
Ugh, I think I'm going to have to hide under the covers for a bit.
“I thought,” he said, “that if the world was going to end we were meant to lie down or put a paper bag over our head or something.”
“If you like, yes,” said Ford.
“That’s what they told us in the army,” said the man, and his eyes began the long trek back down to his whisky.
“Will that help?” asked the barman.
“No,” said Ford and gave him a friendly smile.
Well done, thanks. The advantage of massive numbers of sophisticated missiles should have been clear to the West, but I would guess they simply weren't profitable enough in comparison to ungodly expensive stealth aircraft and floating coffins called aircraft carriers. Makes it all look like a huge boondoggle, weapons they never actually expected to use in a real war against a real opponent, and instead they insanely relied on nukes to handle that situation.
It's not that missiles weren't profitable enough. It's that the Russians are using some combination of materials science, aerodynamics understanding, propulsion technology or avionics and control theory that aren't known in the West. They quite literally and undeniably are more technologically and scientifically capable in this area than the West. The West, or at least the US, has tried to close the gap and consistently failed.
The broader point that a rentier incestuous defense industrial configuration has proven itself unable to create results in line with its myths about itself is, however, true.
That's an outstanding analysis. Well done.
Both Sweden and Finland are suddenly reported to not want NATO troops or nuclear weapons on their soil. Semantic games as regards NATO vs. bilateral or the the realization that what Russia does to the energy infrastructure in Ukraine could easily be repeated elsewhere? Countries outside of the former Soviet union, and especially outside of the former Soviet block do not have anything resembling Soviet-level resilience built into their energy systems. They have not had Ukraine's population outflux either, which added to the redundancy. Northern climates and green energy policies like shutting down nuclear energy make matters even worse.
Excellent article. Just as your comments at Naked Capitalism are invariably helpful.
The west has invested in fighting colonial wars: just as the British did in the late nineteenth century whilst Russia is focused on defending its own borders. The folly of Britain spending so much money on “prestige” pocket aircraft carriers and F35 jump jets is super obvious from this.
Long term, I totally agree that this is the denouement of the US alliance and of NATO. The US resembles a tired boxer trying to cling on to its vestiges of power and stay as the overlord of Europe. Ultimately, this will be futile. Europe, as you say, is going to have to accommodate Russia (and China) and stop asserting so much moral superiority. As you suggest, European populations will struggle with this but it will happen. The question is just how long it takes and how much destruction and dislocation is needed to get there.
We need clear sighted leaders who see the end game and move towards it. I fear there are very few of those. Viktor Orban seems one of the very few who show publicly that they understand it.
"The really interesting question is whether the political, systems of the West can learn to live with this situation."
The key problem of the West is the corruption of the political system, the poltical class. That corruption is not necessarily, or even, brown envelopes but constant lobbying with incentives and disencentives if you are disobedient. If you become PM of Lichtenbourg in the end it doesn't really matter much to you if you are booted out by the electorate providing you have said and done the right things as far as the dominant Western narrative is concerned, because you know you will be provided for à la Blair, Van der Layen, the EU commissioner class etc. If you don't skeletons will pop out of cupboards and thngs wll be difficult. The US has been brilliant at managing this system.
Broadly the acceptable view is Western style universal sufferage, "our values", support for US real politik and support for hostile actions, economic, political and where feasible military against any state or politician that takes a different line. What the electorate want must be ignored or circumvented. At the same time the electorate must be brainwashed by a compliant media to adopt views that make this as easy as possible. It is about the suspension of disbelief.
The key problem is the intrusion of reality, eg Italy and Greece economically, LGBT and immigration in Eastern Europe. The western system of government now operates on the principle that true 'you can't fool all of the people all of the time ' but you can fool enough of them long enough to put through the policies you want for the time being. Naturally constant repetition of this type of governmental behaviour becomes less and less effective over time. How long can you go on persuading people that Russia has a tiny weak economy when it is as plain as the nose on your face that it has a large effective one? The answer is a surprisingly long time, all the more so because the people putting across the false story have convinced themselves it is true. But not for ever. Eventually a majority of the British electorate noticed that membership of the EU meant loss of sovereignty despite being told the opposite.
The other key problem is the not necessarily honest but atypical politician who pops up and throws sand in the machine and denounces the Emperor's nudity. It is interesting in this conection that the key European leaders who decisively marked their countries history during the WW2 period did not go to university - Churchill, de Gaulle, Hitler, Stalin. Today Orban in Hungary or Putin, Farage in the Brexit movement. For better or worse they refuse to conform.
I think that Putin and Lavrov, who both know the West well, do not rush things precisely because they want to give European politicians time to come to their senses. They invaded Ukraine because the US deliberately encouraged Ukraine to make it unavoidable.
Thank you for another excellent essay. A question s’il vous plaît, could the missiles not be launched from submarines, in this way putting Paris and London on the list of possible targets?
According to the Russians, they can launch Kinzahl from submarines, although I'm not aware of any evidence that it's been done. The problem is that the submarine would presumably have to surface to fire them, or, even if a version capable of being popped out from a tube is developed, the submarine would still need to remain stationary while launching the missiles. A submarine is a very high-value asset, and there has to be a chance that NATO forces would detect it when it launched, or would even have done so beforehand. I can imagine there would be circumstances where taking this risk might be justified, but it would be quite a risk. By contrast, launching a missile from within Russian/Belarus airspace would give you a much longer range and complete security of the platform.
Great analysis. I've never seen this so clearly put before. The decline of the 'west' is well under way. The only question left is whether German industry will force it's government to leave the sinking ship.
Funny how Russia keeps using tanks, infantry and artillery, despite their devastating missile superiority. Funny how they keep getting pushed back, too.
Your analysis is faulty. You can't support a ground advance with troops using only missiles. Obviously you need tanks. And for mass destruction at close range you need artillery. The Russian forces are not being 'pushed back'. They use maximum force to destroy enemy troops, then withdraw tactically to reduce their own losses. After enough of that has happened, they will be able to advance to any position they choose, as there will be no opposition left.
Also, I feel like @TheAncientGreek has a point. At what point is withdrawing tactically and cutting their losses not getting "pushed back"? How much territory is the Russian Military going to tactically "give up". Sometimes a duck is a duck because it looks like a duck, walks like one, and quacks like one. Doesn't need to be super complicated. Just trying to simplify things.
You should check out my Substack and let me know what you think. Give me an honest opinion of my thoughts on the matter. https://open.substack.com/pub/briefthenation/p/russian-threats-to-us-space-based?r=wiu74&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Withdraw tactically, eh?
The big question is how degraded the Ukrainian Army is relative to the Russian. Far more important than specific territories occupied or not.
The Russian retreat from Kherson seems also to have been carried at will and with almost zero losses. No Ukrainian ability either to take advantage of it and destroy the retreating forces. All they did was move forward once they left. Jomini described a retreat as the most difficult military operation and in 1812-4 Russia did it constantly. Right up to the final victories before the entry to Paris.
We need to see what now happens before making conclusions. Clear that wars are not won by retreats.
Indeed. Constant retreat is what losing looks like.
It may be less funny in a few months.
February 2023?
"Confronted for the first and only time in its history with the kind of crisis for which it had been designed, NATO took effectively no direct action at all, and is paradoxically substantially weaker as a military alliance now than it was a year ago, because it has given so much equipment away. "
Choose one. NATO supplied weapons. NATO is weaker because it supplied weapons.
Weapon supplies increase costs of continuing war to Russia while simultaneously making West weaker to any continuation before those supplies were replenished - if that ever happened. Those supplies aren't infinite - with many politicians saying "we already sent as much as we could", and there seems to be no real preparation for potential larger war later.
It is possible that for some weapon systems no replacement will arrive to Ukraine while Russia keeps destroying and capturing non-zero amount of them - and for some there weren't that many sent or ever produced in the first place.
After (potential) Ukrainian loss West would also be facing army that has experience fighting against very same Western weapons they would have to field to defend themselves.
What part of this do you think makes NATO position stronger?
Western weapons are a much more elastic resource than Russian ones , because the West isn't under sanctions that prevent it building new ones.
What makes NATO stronger is the fact that it has an indisputable purpose.
West purpose is that other than to perpetuate the dominance of the US?
Hitler had a clear purpose too but he lost.
Lots of assertions but limited evidence.
As far as i'm aware Russian military factories are already working triple shifts for several months.
I'm not seeing anything similar from Western side yet.
Do you have any specifics on which weapon building capability have been lost by Russia due to sanctions that will noticeably affect battlefield in Ukraine?
The West isn't actually short of weapons. The fact that the Russians feel it necessary to rebuild shows that they are the ones taking the damage.
Russia isn't actually short of weapons either.
Everyone feels necessary to rebuild. West included. For example:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220912-western-arms-production-to-ramp-up-as-ukraine-burns-through-stockpiles
"EU countries "have drawn on their stocks of ammunition, light and heavy artillery, anti-aircraft and anti-tank defense systems, and even armored vehicles and tanks," European Commissioner Thierry Breton said at the time.
"This has created a de facto vulnerability that now needs to be addressed urgently," he warned.
...
The Pentagon has furnished some 800,000 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine, while United States has just one factory making them, the General Dynamics plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania that produces only 14,000 rounds a month.
"We have plans... to get that in increments ultimately up to 36,000 a month in about three years," said LaPlante."
For HIMARs Pentagon awarded contract just last month:
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/10/19/pentagon-replacing-himars-launcher-and-rocket-stocks-sent-to-ukraine/
“Replacement contracts are expected to deliver over multiple years, as many capabilities delivered to Ukraine, such as advanced munitions, have two- to three-year production times,” the Pentagon says in its fact sheet."
And even though they kept line going and even got parts ahead of the time, before Lockheed Martin was awarded contract, still they note:
"I really think we’re confronting a U.S. munition production capacity crisis because for too long we procured things at the minimum rate, just to keep production lines going ― and now we’re paying the piper,” Bowman said. “Surge capacity is not there, and we need to be procuring enough to arm our own forces and ensure their readiness while providing Ukraine and Taiwan with what they need.”
Obviously that is problem West can eventually solve as long as there is will to do it - and as long as Ukraine can wait for it to happen in a few years.
Your choice makes no sense.
Mostly off topic, but I thought I'd ask anyway, especially since you're familiar with the region.
Would political calculations similar to the Europe-Russia dynamic also apply to Israel-Lebanon (actually, Hezbollah)? The former is assumed to have ultra high tech weaponry (and useless nuclear weapons) versus many thousands of missiles and drones, most, perhaps, not particularly accurate, but some much more so. It would appear that there is a balance of terror that would argue against either side initiating hostilities. And secondly, how do relatively cheap drones alter the balance? The recent impoverishment of most Lebanese and the election of Netanyahu add some poignancy to the situation.
Interesting point. Classical deterrence rests less on being able to destroy the opposition than on being able to inflict enough damage that the opponent thinks that attacking simply isn't worth it, or being able to frustrate the objective that the latter has. I think it's the latter that applies here. In 2006, the Israeli air bombardment of Lebanon was intended to turn the population against Hezbollah as the source of their woes. By my observation, it hasn't worked: Maronites refer to Hezbollah as "the Resistance" quite casually, and I think all communities in Lebanon now regard Israel as a threat, as they didn't in 2006, when the Maronites actually encouraged the invasion for their own purposes. The broader issue is what the objectives of any Israeli attack would now be, and whether they are in fact achievable. If Hezbollah has made their objectives unachievable, then all the high-tech weaponry in the world won't help. I certainly can't see any objectives that Israel could set itself that Hezbollah couldn't frustrate. This does depend, though, on internal politics in the country, which is complicated enough to drive anyone nuts. Hezbollah does seem to be losing some of its lustre, as it becomes a political party more like the others, and risks being seen as part of the problem, although for the moment it's still very strong.
Netanyahu is very interesting. Oddly enough, for all that he's a bloodthirsty warmonger, fortunately I believe that he's a super corrupt and fairly smart one, so I think survival instinct may just kick in to save us all from a general war in the middle east. I'm way less frightened by Netanyahu than people like Von der Leyen, Borrel and Michel