Bombarding the Kerch Bridge - It's all about logistics . . . Russian Logistics

Russia asserts the smoke is part of their defense of the Kerch Bridge. That it needs defending points to Ukrainian successes

Ukraine keeps pounding on the Kerch Bridge as asserted Bridge Attack: Chilling Moment Ukraine Launches Missile Attack On Crimea Bridge In Front Of Stunned Holidaymakers :

The Kerch Bridge stretches for 12 miles across the Kerch Strait. It is considered an important route for Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine.

The Crimean Transport Ministry reported to The Wall Street Journal that the bridge currently is open to cars, but not heavy trucks. A rail section of the bridge remains open.

Stunned? Really? The bridge is a key logistics link to Russian forces in the field and a symbol of Russian power.

As this war has worn on, the Russian logistics effort has been targeted repeatedly. Troops in the field need ammunition, food, and other supplies. Hindering their logistics effort is key to grinding the Russian forces down.

Very good commentary piece from Bradley Martin of Rand's National Security Supply Chain Institute from February 2023 Will Logistics Be Russia's Undoing in Ukraine?:

Russia's experience in Ukraine one year in is an example of what happens when a nation tries to fight a war without fully considering the logistics and sustainment that go alongside such a fight. The war in Ukraine has shown that familiar concepts of economic mobilization, as well as the thorough alignment of operations with the necessary resources, continue to be central to not simply planning but sustaining a war. The consequences for failing to fully consider these concepts drove Russia into a prolonged conflict, one for which it was already ill-prepared a year ago, and one with increasingly dire consequences for its future.

Ukraine, by attacking the Russian logistics system, seems to be patiently squeezing the Russian field forces.

Expect them to keep hammering that system while holding the lines they have.

U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence Worldwide Threat to Shipping (WTS) Reports, 16 March to 27 April 2022

U.S. Navy Office of Naval I... by lawofsea

U.S. Navy Office of Naval I... by lawofsea

U.S. Navy Office of Naval I... by lawofsea

U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence Worldwide Threat to Shipping (WTS) Report, 2 February to 2 March 2022

U.S. Navy Office of Naval I... by lawofsea

Future Wars - Complexity and the Price of Complacency

I tweeted yesterday about a interview by Kevin D. Wlliamson at National Review Dispatches from the Future Front. The interview is well worth reading for gems like this:

When President Biden said in his first phone call with President Putin that Ukrainian sovereignty is a priority for the United States, I thought: “All right! That’s a hell of a policy statement!” Of course, we have no strategy that underpins it, and you can’t have a strategy for

the Black Sea region if you haven’t figured out a strategy for how you’re going to deal with Russia. And now there’s a feeling that we’re going down the same path of thinking we can deal with these guys, negotiate with them — forget it, that’s not who they are and have been for hundreds of years. I don’t know why we allow ourselves to continue to be surprised.

Last night I was re-reading Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising and this morning I started reading Future War and the Defence of Europe by John R. Allen, Frederick Ben Hodges, and Julian Lindley-French Ben Hodges is the author interviewed by Mr. Williamson

Both books posit war with Russia, though the Clancy book refers to the Soviet Union, and Future War is more global, involving fighting Russia and China and more. Both challenge the complacency of the U.S. and the Europeans with respect to Russia and China -  there seems to be be a belief negotiations will work, or that the U.S. will somehow pull Europe's bacon out of the fire, or that they will be "eaten last" - the newer book, being much more up to date on the current state of affairs, of course, including the shortfalls of the U.S. merchant fleet, U.S. Navy combatant warships, and more.

As a review here puts it:

Future War and the Defence of Europe offers a major new analysis of how peace and security can be maintained in Europe: a continent that has suffered two cataclysmic conflicts since 1914. Taking as its starting point the COVID-19 pandemic and way it will inevitably accelerate some key global dynamics already in play, the book goes on to weave history, strategy, policy, and technology into a compelling analytical narrative. *** Europeans should be under no illusion: unless they do far more for their own defence, and very differently, all that they now take for granted could be lost in the maze of hybrid war, cyber war, and hyper war they must face.

I highly recommend this book, which is available for a reasonable price in its Kindle form at Amazon.

BBC Report on Russia's Direction

BBC report

On Midrats 7 October 2018 - Episode 457: Russia's Red Banner Year, with Dr. Dmirty Gorenburg

Because its name has been in the news a lot lately, we once again take a look at the Russian state as it currently exists. With that in mind, please tune in at 5pm EDT on 7 October 2018 for Midrats Episode 457: Russia's Red Banner Year, with Dr. Dmirty Gorenburg

From its largest exercise since the end of the Cold War, to Syria, to a revival of covert direct action and intermediated nuclear weapons as an issue - Russia continues to claw back her place on the international stage.

As we approach the last quarter of the 2018 calendar year, what message is Russia trying to give the rest of the world and what should we expect through the end of the decade?

Our guest for the full hour to discuss this is a regular here on Midrats, Dr. Dmirty Gorenburg, Senior Research Scientist at CNA, researching security issues in the former Soviet Union, Russian military reform, Russian foreign policy, ethnic politics and identity, and Russian regional politics.

He is the editor of the journal Problems of Post-Communism and a Fellow of the Truman National Security Project. From 2005 through 2010, he previously held positions as the Executive Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies and editor of the journal Russian Politics and Law.

The show is pre-recorded so we won't be taking calls or manning the chatroom. If you can't listen at the regular time, you can pick the show up later by clicking here. Or you can also pick the show up later by visiting either our iTunes page or our Stitcher page.

Fun with Russia: Ukraine Proposal - Danube River Exclusion of Russian Shipping Due to "Terrorism Threat"

Reported as Ukraine Threatens to Block Russian Shipping on the Danube

Yury Lavrenyuk, Ukraine’s deputy infrastructure minister, announced that his agency had “appealed to the National Security and Defense Council regarding the prohibition of the entrance of Russian ships into the domestic waterways of Ukraine because of the high level of terrorist threats” such ships allegedly present. Allowing such ships to pass, he said “is impermissible” because there is “critical infrastructure” along such waterways. His words drew support from other Ukrainian ministries and agencies.
****
In response to Moscow’s threat to bottle up Ukrainian shipping within the shared Azov Sea, the Ukrainian government is currently considering a plan to block Russia’s use of the Danube River. Ukraine’s infrastructure ministry has proposed closing to all Russian shipping the canal in the extreme southeast border region of Ukraine, which vessels use to pass the Danube delta, from the Black Sea to the upstream Danube proper. Such an action would affect relatively small numbers of ships. Nonetheless, Russian officials are clearly worried it could reduce their ability to supply countries in the Balkans. At present, however, the possibility of such a ban is only a threat. And it is likely part of a complex implicit negotiation between Kyiv and Moscow about free passage through the Kerch Strait, across which Russia is building a bridge to occupied Crimea (see EDM, February 12, 22), and about the use of ports in that occupied Ukrainian peninsula by Russian shipping.

About the Azoz Sea threat, see Jamestown Foundation's Paul Goble's Russian Navy Preparing to Bottle up Ukrainian Shipping in Sea of Azov:

From Moscow’s point of view, its loss of control over much of the Black Sea littoral and ports as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union is a serious problem, one that Russian moves first in Abkhazia and then in Crimea were intended to help solve. Indeed, even before the Crimean annexation in 2014, Russian commentators talked about depriving Ukraine of its access to the sea by creating a new “Novorossiya” state that would extend to the borders of Moldova and possibly even include Transnistria .... Now, in the wake of Ukraine’s seizure of two vessels for violating its territorial waters (see below), Moscow officials are openly suggesting that the Russian Navy could limit or even block the transit of Ukrainian ships, civilian and military, through the Kerch Straits. This would effectively make the Sea of Azov an internal Russian waterway, something officials in Moscow had hinted at in the past, in discussions about the supposed need to defend President Vladimir Putin’s Crimea bridge from attack ..
****
On March 25, the Ukrainian border guard service detained the Russian-flagged fishing vessel Nord, which was operating in Ukrainian waters, in the Sea of Azov. The boat, registered in Crimea, and its ten crew members were escorted to the Azov Sea port of Berdiansk (Dpsu.gov.ua, March 26). They are currently awaiting trial in Ukraine. Then, on April 10, Ukrainian authorities arrested a Russian dredger ship, temporarily docked in the Odessa-region port of Yuzhny, for allegedly carrying out illegal sand extraction works in occupied Crimea (TASS, April 10).

So much fun, so much positioning.

On the map, circle to the left is the Danube area and the one to the right is the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.

On Midrats 21 May 2017 - Episode 385: Springtime for Russia?

Please join us at 5pm EDT on 21 May 2017 for Midrats Episode 385: Springtime for Russia?:

To say that the profile of Russia since the American elections last fall has increased in the minds of Americans would be an understatement.

Outside the 24-hr news cycle, there have been significant developments in Russia internally and externally. From the Baltics, to nuclear weapons, to her growing influence in the Middle East following her involvement in the Syrian conflict.

What should people be focused on with regards to Russia on the global stage this year?

Returning as our resident Russian expert for the full hour to discuss this and more will be Dr. Dmirty Gorenburg, Senior Research Scientist at CNA, a non-profit think tank, and writer at the Russian Military Reform Blog. Dr. Gorenburg conducts research on security issues in the former Soviet Union, Russian military reform, Russian foreign policy, ethnic politics and identity, and Russian regional politics. He is also the editor of the journal Problems of Post-Communism and a Fellow of the Truman National Security Project. From 2005 through 2010, he was the Executive Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, and from 2009 to 2016, the editor of the journal Russian Politics and Law.

Join us live if you can or pick the show up later by clicking here. Or you can pick the show up later by clicking that link or by visiting either our iTunes page or our Stitcher page.

What's Faster than "Hypersonic?"

Scary headline: Russia creates 'unstoppable' hypersonic Zircon missile with Navy destroying 4,600mph speed but the remainder of the article refutes the "unstoppable" part:

Russia claims to have created a devastating hypersonic missile that travels five times faster than the speed of sound and could rip through navy warship defences because it's too fast to stop.

The Kremlin's Zircon missile has been called "unstoppable", "unbeatable" and "undefendable" with a 4,600mph speed that only one defence system in the world can destroy – that system is owned by Russia.

So, it can be stopped - but only if you have the Russian "system" - I'm sure U.S. engineers and scientists can dope that out.

By the way, you know what's faster than "hypersonic?"

Frickin' laser beams.

Of course, there might be glitches:


UPDATE: US Navy Develops Laser Weapon Prototypes for Destroyers, Cruisers (and Maybe Carriers). Zap.

Oil Prices - A Russian Vulnerability?

Recent days have seen the reports of new discoveries of oil and gas, including off-shore UK:

Explorer Hurricane Energy has declared the “largest undeveloped

discovery” of oil on the UK Continental Shelf.

The Godalming-based group said well tests had confirmed its view that the Lancaster and Halifax reservoirs west of Shetland are actually a single resource.

Analysts have previously speculated that a single reservoir could hold more than one billion barrels of oil equivalent, although Hurricane did not make such a claim when announcing the discovery.

In Alaska, reports of a huge find, Massive Oil Discovery in Alaska Is Biggest Onshore Find in U.S. in 30 years:

Some 1.2 billion barrels of oil have been discovered in Alaska, marking the biggest onshore discovery in the U.S. in three decades.

The massive find of conventional oil on state land could bring relief to budget pains in Alaska brought on by slumping production in the state and the crash in oil prices.

The new discovery was made in just the past few days in Alaska’s North Slope, which was previously viewed as an aging oil basin.

Spanish oil giant Repsol and its privately-held U.S. partner Armstrong Energy announced the find on Thursday, predicting production could begin as soon as 2021 and lead to as much as 120,000 barrels of output per day.

The oil resources lie in a well, called Horseshoe, that’s 75% owned by Denver-based Armstrong. Repsol owns the rest of this well.

The existing U.S, oil wells have created a surplus of oil, forcing prices lower:

U.S. commercial crude supplies have risen for nine straight weeks, reaching a record 528.4 million barrels last week, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That was an increase of 8.2 million barrels from a week earlier.

“The rising crude inventory levels in the US to new all-time highs has been the No. 1 reason why prices have been unable to move further higher,” Fawad Razaqzada, market analyst at Forex.com, wrote to investors Wednesday.

Recent price show crude trading at about $47 barrel and decreasing in price.

All of which suggests continuing trouble for countries whose economies are -um- very dependent on high oil prices to do all the things they want to do to, say, regain their empires.

As in Russia, which last year was having some issues, as Bloomberg noted in January, 2016, "How Cheap Oil Is Squeezing Russia's Economy"

Russia, which relies on oil and natural gas for almost half its fiscal revenue, ran a budget deficit of 2.6 percent in 2015, the highest in five years. It's now at risk of topping that level as prices drop even further, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov warned the government.

This year's budget was initially planned around oil averaging $50 a barrel and a deficit of 3 percent of gross domestic product. Belt-tightening measures totaling 1.5 trillion rubles ($18.9 billion) are needed to avoid a shortfall of over 6 percent of output this year, Siluanov said.
***
As cheap oil weakens the Russian economy, it also causes its national currency, the ruble, to depreciate. That means Russian consumers have to shell out more rubles if they want to maintain their consumption levels.

Geopolitical tensions have added to the ruble's weakness. The currency has nearly halved in value since Putin's annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the U.S. and the European Union imposed sanctions against Russia.

Now, there are reports that Russia is preparing its economy for $40/barrel oil, as in this Bloomberg report from 4 days ago, OPEC Be Warned: Russia Prepares for Oil at $40:

As the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies prepare to meet for a review of their production cuts this weekend, the central bank of the world’s biggest energy exporter is hunkering down for years of oil near $40 a barrel.
***
Policy makers in Moscow said on Friday they see Urals at an average of $50 a barrel this year, but falling to $40 at end-2017 and then staying near that level in 2018-2019. As the central bank honed its forecasts, it also gingerly resumed monetary easing, pointing to the “uncertainty” in the oil market as a factor for its “conservative” forecasts.

Russia’s Finance Ministry similarly highlighted the $40 level in January when it announced that the central bank will start buying foreign currency on its behalf when crude exceeds that level in order to insulate the exchange rate from oil volatility. The price of $40 is additionally being used to calculate the country’s budget in 2017-2019.
***
Forecasting oil is no game for the Bank of Russia. Its 65 percent plunge in 2014 and 2015 battered the nation’s currency, forced an emergency rate increase in the middle of the night and pushed Russia into recession. The share of oil and gas revenue was at 36 percent of budget income in 2016.

Now, there's another little bit of information that the Russians might find discomforting - with the U.S. having a excess inventory of crude, it's exporting more oil to new places, as set out here:

In 2016, U.S. crude oil exports averaged 520,000 barrels per day (b/d), 55,000 b/d (12%) above the 2015 level, despite a year-over-year decline in domestic crude oil production. Even though oil exports have increased, growth in U.S. crude oil exports has slowed significantly from its pace from 2013 to 2015, when annual U.S. crude oil production grew rapidly.
Following the removal of restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports in December 2015, the United States exported crude oil to 26 different countries in 2016, compared with 10 countries the previous year. In 2015, 92% of U.S. crude oil exports went to Canada, which was exempt from U.S. crude oil export restrictions. After restrictions were lifted, Canada remained the top destination but received only 58% of U.S. crude exports in 2016.
Aside from Canada, European destinations such as the Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom, and France rank high on the list of U.S. crude oil export destinations. The second-largest regional destination is Asia, including China, Korea, Singapore, and Japan. In 2016, the United States exported to eight different Central and South American destinations, including Curacao, Colombia, and Peru.(emphasis added)

Is the U.S. liberating market share from the Russians? What impact does this have on the Russian economy?

Which country can ride out a "price war" without crippling 36 or 40% of its economy? The oil and gas industry in the U.S. is below 4% of its GDP.

Hmmm.

On Midrats 17 July 2016 Episode 341: Russia in 2016 with Dr. Dmitry Gorenburg

Please join us at 5pm (EDT) on 17 July 2016 for Midrats Episode 341 "Russia in 2016 with Dr. Dmitry Gorenburg

From the sacking of the Baltic Fleet leadership, fighting in Syria, to developments from Central Asia to the Pacific - Russia in 2016 is on the move.

To discuss the who, what, where, and why of Russia in 2016, our guest for the full hour will be Dr. Dmitry Gorenburg, Senior Analyst, CNA Strategic Studies, an Associate at Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, an author, and host of the Russian Military Reform blog.

Dr. Gorenburg focuses his research on security issues in the former Soviet Union, Russian military reform, Russian foreign policy, ethnic politics and identity, and Russian regional politics. He is also the editor of the journals Problems of Post-Communism and Russian Politics and Law and a Fellow of the Truman National Security Project. From 2005 through 2010, he was the Executive Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies.

Join us live if you can or pick the show up later by clicking here or later by visiting our iTunes or Stitcher pages.

CNAS2016: ISIS Study Group - Presentation and Discussion

A truly excellent discussion of fighting ISIS from the Center for a New Anerican Security 2016 conference

Hear the rattle, fear the bite

I always thought rattlesnakes were a North American thing, but perhaps an analogy can be drawn to the Swedish situation vis-a-vis
Russsia, as set out in thsi Aviation Week headline, Russian Aggression Driving Swedish Gripen, Sub Investments:

Sweden’s investment in new Gripen fighters and diesel-electric submarines is being driven forward by increased Russian aggression in the Baltics, the country’s defense minister says.
***
“We have seen a lot of investments in their [Russian] armed forces, and we have also seen that they are ready to use these capabilities to fulfill their political goals,” Hultqvist told reporters May 17.

“There are more in exercises and intelligence activities on our neighbors. We and the Baltic States feel a level of tension toward Russia.”
***
...n addition, it will clear the way for the creation of a battle group on the Baltic island of Gotland, with mechanized and armored units. It will be formed in 2018.

“We think it is necessary to have this level of capability for the situation we now have,” Hultqvist says.

Hmmm.

Back to the Falklands, Continental Shelf Edition

BBC News headline Falkland Islands fears new ruling expanding Argentina's sea control:

The government of the Falkland Islands says it is unhappy about a decision by an international commission to expand Argentina's waters to include those around the UK-sovereign lands.
The decision, which is not yet final, follows a move by Argentina in 2009 to expand its maritime territory to include that of the islands, known as the Malvinas in Argentina.
The move will increase its waters in the South Atlantic Ocean by 35%.
The area is potentially rich in oil.

On the other hand, there are many Argentinians who are delighted with this "ruling" though, as the UK government notes:

But the prime minister’s official spokeswoman said the UK government had not yet seen the full report, and stressed that the commission was merely an advisory body.

“It’s important to note that this is an advisory committee – it makes recommendations, they are not legally binding and the commission does not have jurisdiction over sovereignty issues.

“What’s important is what do the Falkland islanders themselves think? They’ve been clear that they want to remain an overseas territory of the UK and we will still support their right to determine their own future.”

I know there are emotional issues of national pride, etc, but there is that "oil" thing lurking in the background, isn't there?

Further, underneath all of this is the issue of the rights granted to any nation under the "continental shelf." Some of this is covered nicely in this MercoPress report, "Argentina, on a UN decision expands continental shelf area by 35% to 350 miles":

This means Argentina's shelf will increase 1.7m sq km from its current 4.8m sq km, and refers to the area from the 200 miles to the shelf slope. This represents a 35% expansion of its continental shelf.
According to reports in the Argentine media, CLCS on its 40th plenary session of last March 11, made public it had finally adopted the presentation on the shelf request, which was made back in 2009.
“We're reaffirming our sovereignty rights over the resources from our continental shelf, minerals, hydrocarbons and sedentary species”, Ms Malcorra was quoted in anticipation of Monday's official announcement at the San Martin Palace.
Attending the event will be Deputy minister Carlos Foradori, president of National Committee on the limit of the Argentine continental platform, COPLA, officers from the Navy and Coast Guard plus lawmakers.
“The demarcation of the exterior limit of the continental shelf constitutes a clear example of a State policy in which Argentina has worked professionally during twenty years with the purpose of reaffirming our presence, conservation of our resources and reaffirming our sovereignty rights over a zone politically, economically and strategically so important in the South Atlantic”, added Ms Malcorra.
This acknowledgement means the UN accept there is a dispute over the South Atlantic islands, and is “another diplomatic victory” for Argentina said Deputy minister Foradori.
However, “Argentina will not exercise these rights over territories and maritime spaces which the United Kingdom is administrating unilaterally since 1833”.
***
The shelf refers to the sea floor and subsoil from the 200 miles maritime zone up to the natural extension of the continental territory with a 350 miles limit.
The UN CLCS is a scientific commission made up of 21 international experts and in the case of Argentina's presentation the decision was unanimous.

You can read about the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf here:

The purpose of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Commission or CLCS) is to facilitate the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) in respect of the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (M) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Under the Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer limits of its continental shelf where it extends beyond 200 M on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission. The Commission shall make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of those limits; its recommendations and actions shall not prejudice matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.

Part VI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines the "continental shelf":

1. The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.

That 200 mile limit is subject to refinement (expansion) under certain conditions:

4. (a) For the purposes of this Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, by either:

(i) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to the outermost fixed points at each of which the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1 per cent of the shortest distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope; or

(ii) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to fixed points not more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope.

(b) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the foot of the continental slope shall be determined as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base.

5. The fixed points comprising the line of the outer limits of the continental shelf on the seabed, drawn in accordance with paragraph 4 (a)(i) and (ii), either shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or shall not exceed 100 nautical miles from the 2,500 metre isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 5, on submarine ridges, the outer limit of the continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. This paragraph does not apply to submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin, such as its plateaux, rises, caps, banks and spurs.

So, what the CLCS has done is to find that Argentina has made its case that its continental shelf extends out past 200 miles to 350 miles in places.

Why does that matter? See Article 77:

Article77

Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf

1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent of the coastal State.

3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation.

4. The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.(highlights added)

Back to the oil issue.

Further, this "continental shelf issue" is are playing out in the Arctic Ocean, where Russia (and others) have assert that they have "sovereign rights" over large portions of the seabed for purposes of exploration and exploitation. See the IBT's Russia submits claim over Arctic and North Pole to UN citing scientific proof from June 2015:

Russia has re-submitted its petition to the United Nations claiming

exclusive control over 1.2 million square kms of the Arctic sea shelf, based this time on what its foreign ministry calls "ample scientific data".

The region contains some of the world's largest untapped reserves of oil and gas besides valuable minerals. The US, Canada, Denmark and Norway have also been trying to gain control over parts of the Arctic.

This is the second time Russia has staked its claim to what it sees as its territory. Earlier in 2002, the UN rejected the bid on lack of evidence.

Oil and gas.

See also here

Expensive Lessons in Governing Captured in NYTimes "More Is Needed to Beat ISIS, Pentagon Officials Concludes"

First, you have to read this Joshua Foust's Staff: The Forgotten Metric of Presidential Success (hat tip to Brett Friedman):

Obama did not rely on his functional experts to do this work, the people who would have to mobilize the enormous apparatus of government to accommodate any big change in policy; he went to personal, trusted associates whom he knew would always defer to his judgment. His staffing decisions had the effect of cutting the State Department out of statecraft (at a speech last year in Cuba, John Kerry made it a point not to acknowledge Rhodes’ work while praising Obama’s other adviser, a subtle but unmistakable snub).

More prosaically, Obama has made choice after choice that belie a worrying ignorance of the power that good staff can have.
***

That provides a context for this NYTimes piece by Michael S. Schmidt and Helene Cooper More Is Needed to Beat ISIS, Pentagon Officials Conclude

In the past, the Pentagon’s requests for additional troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been met with skepticism by Mr. Obama, and his aides have said he has resented what he has regarded as efforts to pressure him. But the rise of the Islamic State has alarmed the White House, and a senior administration official said Thursday that the president is willing to consider raising the stakes in both Iraq and Syria.

I suppose we will be debating whether the final withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 under President Obama was precipitous and whether that allowed ISIS to "pop up" for the rest our natural lives. The debate will include whether Mr. Obama was responsible for the withdrawal or was merely playing out the hand dealt to him by his predecessor. See this NPR "fact check" which contains an interesting assessment of Mr. Obama's inaction:

Thousands of American troops had died, and by the time Obama announced the withdrawal, fully three-quarters of Americans supported the withdrawal (though a majority of Republicans did not).

Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn't done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.

Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.

"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."

You can sort out your own issues of "sins of omission" vs. "sins of commission," but in my world the person who relieves the previous officer of the deck (OOD) and then does not change course to avoid a collision that was not apparent to the previous OOD cannot then blame the prior watch for "putting the ship on a course to a collision." As the saying goes, "That dog won't hunt."

Worst of all is the apparent lack of a strategy in the U.S. effort in the Middle East. As the NYTimes reporters have it:

The Pentagon’s desire to expand the military presence on the ground comes as the American public remains skeptical of the United States’ getting more deeply involved in another conflict in the Middle East. Polls have shown that Americans are not convinced the Obama administration has a plan to defeat the Islamic State, which has maintained control of nearly all the large cities it took over in 2014.

How can you have plan to defeat ISIS unless you have an idea of what the Middle East should look like when ISIS is defeated? Mr. Obama has already called for Syria's Assad to "go away" though he seems lately to have been more wishy-washy on that view. Russia and Iran are involved in Syria now and had we decisively acted earlier they might not have been so.

Perhaps Mr. Obama feels strongly diffident and, taking the easy path, has simply voted "present" again. Those deferred decisions tend to catch up with you, though. So, now, more U.S. boots on the ground.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda done this earlier and squashed ISIS at the gitgo.

See also here, here and here.

Turkey v. Russia: Turks Defend Their Airspace

Reuters report "Turkey downs Russian warplane near Syria border, Moscow denies airspace violation". Hurryiet report:

Turkish F-16

Two Turkish F-16's shot down a Russian-made SU-24 jet on Nov. 24 near the Syrian border after it violated Turkish airspace, presidential sources said.

Turkey shot down the jet after it failed to heed the warnings within the rules of engagement.

Initial reports said the jet belonged to Russia, but presidential sources later clarified that the jet's nationality was unknown.

SU-24

The Turkish Armed Force also stated that the jet of “unknown nationality” had been warned 10 times in five minutes about its violation of the airspace.

Hmmm.

Blowing the Middle East Scenario

Small Wars Journal has it in a headline: Obama Claims His Critics Forced Him to Make a Mess of Syria, quoting Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo:

In what surely is the most cringe-worthy excuse offered by a commander-in-chief, President Obama last week complained that his critics — whom he routinely ignored and scorned — forced him to make a mess of Syria. To say it is unbecoming of a president to whine that he was only following what critics told him to do, understates just how dishonest the president is and how morally repugnant is his approach to a war that has claimed more than 200,000 lives, created millions of refugees and provided the Islamic State with a base of operations.

Well, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

Air war alone? Not so much, as noted here a year ago:

"Pretty adaptive" ain't going to cut it - the OODA loop is getting away from us because of self-imposed limitations on engagement. Being a "one trick pony" makes it easier on the enemy who gets a vote on how to respond to your threat.

If we are going to "beat" these guys, we need to hear the sound of boots on the ground and see the ISIS logistics flow of people, money and weapons disrupted big time.

Oh, yes, and "cooked intel" designed to give the "boss" what he wants to hear rather than what he needs to hear:

The situation is serious. The term “mass uprising” has been heard in espionage circles and we now know that more than fifty analysts in Tampa, a high percentage of those assessing the Islamic State, have blown the whistle on politically skewed analysis.

Recent reports paint a disturbing picture of a badly distorted intelligence process at CENTCOM headquarters, with senior officers directly pressuring analysts to change their assessments to fit the administration’s optimistic take on the war against the Islamic State. Senior military officers like to toe the official line—you get promoted for “speaking truth to power” in the movies, not in the U.S. military—and clashes with intelligence analysts, especially when they are civilians, are commonplace.

Hmm. I wonder if anyone warned the Boss that the Russians might make a move into Syria? Or was it another "Surprise?"

Take a look at that map above. How many reasons can you see that Russia/Putin might see the advantage of a Russian "friend" in Syria? Warm water port on the Mediterranean? Another border with old rival Turkey?

UPDATE: See Government Report Is Compelling Indictment of Obama’s ISIS Strategy.

On Midrats 16 August 2015- Episode 293: Russia and the Nuclear Shadow: 2015’s Revivals with Tom Nichols

Please join us at 5pm (EDT) on 16 August 2015 for Midrats Episode 293: Russia and the Nuclear Shadow: 2015’s Revivals with Tom Nichols:

They never really went away, but for almost 20 years the world had a holiday from an old challenge and a new one; Russia and the prospect of nuclear war.

Some thought, and more hoped that with the end of the Cold War, a newer world order would emerge that would enable an era of stability and peace. In a way, it did – but only in spots and for short periods of time.

While for the last 15 years most of the attention was focused on the expansion of radical Islam, two not unrelated events began to wax. From the ashes of the Soviet Union, fed by a charismatic leader and a resource extraction economy, Russian began to reassert itself in a manner consistent with the last 500 years of its history, and in parallel – the boogyman of the second half of the 20th Century began to grow as well; the proliferation and possible use nuclear weapons.

To discuss this and more for the full hour will be Dr. Tom Nichols,

Tom is a professor at the Naval War College and at the Harvard Extension School, as well as a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs in New York City and a Fellow of the International History Institute at Boston University. Previously he was a Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. Before coming to the War College, he taught international relations and Russian affairs for many years at Dartmouth College and Georgetown University. In Washington, he was personal staff for defense and security affairs in the United States Senate to the late Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania.

He received his PhD from Georgetown, an MA from Columbia University, and the Certificate of the Harriman Institute at Columbia.

He's also a five-time undefeated Jeopardy! champion. He played in the 1994 Tournament of Champions, is listed in the Jeopardy! Hall of Fame. He played his final match in the 2005 Ultimate Tournament of Champions.

Join us live if you can or pick the show up later by clicking here. Or you can also pick the show up for later listening at our iTunes page here.

Russia - #1 with a bullet

I seem to remember certain people yukking it up back in the last presidential election because of this:



Well, the prospective Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs today says Russia is top U.S. national security threat:

Russia presents the greatest threat to U.S. national security and its behavior is "nothing short of alarming," Marine General Joseph Dunford told lawmakers on Thursday as they weighed his nomination to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dunford also added his voice to those Pentagon officials who have supported providing lethal arms to Ukraine to help it defend itself from Russia-backed separatists, a step that President Barack Obama has so far resisted.

"My assessment today, Senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security," said Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant, who is expected to swiftly win Senate confirmation to become the top U.S. military officer.

Relations between Moscow and the West have plunged to a post-Cold War low since Russia's intervention in Ukraine upended assumptions about the security of NATO's eastern flank.

"If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia. And if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming," he said.

Give Putin some foam #1 finger thingies.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch: Greek Edition

TANSTAAFL strikes Greece.

As Prime Minister Thatcher once said:

. . . Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them.

Or, as well stated here:

The Greeks held their breath and jumped off the precipice. The Greek debt crisis, and the outcome of a No vote in the referendum, is a perfect example of politics trumping economics.
***
Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland masked their debts to keep the illusion of solvency until the 2008 economic crisis eventually exposed their economic juggling. Greece was the first to collapse in 2009, and the first failure of the euro zone experiment. Five years of remorseless austerity has done little for the Greek economy. The only growth has been the debt.

Greece has the GNP of the U.S. state of Connecticut with 3.5x the population. See here, here and here.

Some nice analysis at Forbes The Future Of The Greek Economy:

The view that “monetary sovereignty” independence could be used wisely does not take into account that the type of government that has driven Greece to the edge of the cliff is not the type of government that would enact the reforms Greece needs to grow, including better tax collection, better infrastructure and a better business climate.

and

As the economic health of Greece deteriorates, the need for new loans and harsher austerity measures increases. Greece cannot count on other nations to pay its debt through debt forgiveness. In 2012, other countries provided loans on attractive terms with below-market interest rates, extended maturities, deferral of interest payments, and rebates on interest. This is why the present value of Greece’s debt is actually a fraction of its face value.

So, does Putin of Russia think he sees a crack in the NATO alliance caused by the Greek need for money? See this Barron's article More Than Economics at Stake in Greek Crisis Unlike Argentina or Thailand, Greece is a key NATO member. Opening for Putin?:

One alternative is for Russia’s Vladimir Putin to toss Greece a lifeline. That could potentially extend his sphere of influence and push back against Europe as effectively as his incursion into Crimea. This, of course, is all speculation.

But Tsipras flew to Russia as recently in mid-June to confer with Putin. The Greek prime minister also has been an outspoken critic of the EU’s sanctions against Russia over the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Russian economy and the ruble have rebounded despite the sanctions since the price of crude oil, the nation’s crucial export, has stabilized around $60 a barrel. As a reflection, the Market Vectors Russia exchange-traded fund (ticker: RSX ) is up 44% from its lows earlier this year. Putin would seem far from debilitated on the economic front.

Even though a Russian gambit is a long-shot outcome of the Greek crisis, the inherent problems of the euro remain.

Nice warm-water ports you have there, Athens.

Wait, you mean a Russian bailout would come with a price? TANSTAAFL, what's that?