What the Secretary Said

A commentary

By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

President Joe Biden famously branded Russian President Vladimir Putin as a war criminal and said he shouldn’t be allowed to remain in power. His handlers were quick to say that it was not the policy of the United States to seek regime change in Moscow and what the president really meant was that he shouldn’t have the power to threaten his neighbors. While I personally couldn’t agree more with the president’s actual words, I wrote at the time that words matter, especially those spoken by the man holding the most powerful elective office on earth and the nominal leader of the free world. I also pointed out that possibly having to be a party to future negotiations to end the war with someone we consider to be a war criminal would place us in a somewhat awkward position.

Words spoken by high-ranking members of the administration matter, also. During a trip to Ukraine with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was quoted as saying, “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” News flashes around the world promptly proclaimed, “U.S. Wants to See Russians Weakened”, or words to that effect.

There are probably few things that can infuriate and provoke dictators like Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jingping more than the idea of the world’s most powerful nation and largest economy embracing a goal of weakening their country or their rule. In fact, Putin’s increased hostility toward the U. S. and NATO is based largely on his belief that the U.S. disrespects Russia and seeks to prevent it from regaining what he regards as its rightful role as a great power. Xi Jingping has expressed similar sentiments regarding what he considers American efforts to impede China’s growth and efforts to displace America as the world’s largest economy and superpower.

 It was pretty obvious from the reaction that Moscow viewed the visit by America’s top diplomat and defense official and talk about weakening Russia as a major provocation. Moscow condemned the visit and accused NATO of waging a proxy war on Russia. Russia’s Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov warned of the danger of escalation into a nuclear war if Western powers continue a policy of weakening Russia by providing arms to Ukraine and thus prolonging the war. “Under no circumstances should a third world war be allowed to happen,” he said. “(T)here can be no winners in a war with Russia through a proxy and arming that proxy,” he added.

 A goal to weaken Russia would serve to strengthen Putin’s conviction that the future of Russia and his own hold on power depends on achieving victory in Ukraine. It may make him more determined than ever to continue his war of attrition until he achieves some sort of victory that he can live with, whatever the cost in lives and destruction, because defeat is simply not an option if he wishes to retain power. The biggest concerns, of course, are (1) the danger that Mr. Putin may resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons to avoid losing if things continue to go badly for his armies, (2) the continuing costs and casualties of this brutal war and (3) whether or not there will be anything left of Ukraine to save if the war grinds on indefinitely. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom may have assumed an even more aggressive stance regarding the war when its Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, James Heappey, was quoted as saying that it was “completely legitimate” for Ukraine to attack logistic and supply lines in Russia using Western-supplied weapons. Ukraine’s forces are believed to be responsible for such attacks on the Russian side of the border, although Kyiv declines to comment which is probably a good idea.  

Rather than stating a goal to weaken Russia, the U.S. and NATO should stick, at least officially, to the originally stated goal of helping Ukraine defend itself against an unprovoked Russian invasion and helping it to remain an independent nation. If that results in weakening Russia, then Putin has only himself to blame and the quickest way to stop being weakened further would be to end the war that he started.

As Mr. Biden said recently, recalling the words of Theodore Roosevelt, “We should speak softly and carry a big stick.” That would be best facilitated by using fewer words that might provoke an increasingly desperate dictator while quietly focusing on the big stick part. That requires two things: (1) getting Ukraine the arms they think they need, not just what we think they need and (2) toughening the sanctions. Russia’s oil is still finding buyers which are funding Putin’s war. We could be doing much more to wean nations off Russian energy by exporting more of our abundant, clean natural gas. But Biden continues his war on fossil fuels by restricting drilling on federal lands and imposing permitting rules making it difficult to build needed pipelines, refineries, LNG processing facilities and coastal export facilities.

April 29, 2022

Strategic Ambiguity as a Strategy

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The second phase of Vladimir Putin’s savage war on Ukraine has begun. Having suffered heavy casualties and equipment losses in a failed and inept attempt to secure a quick victory by seizing Kyiv and other major cities, he has shifted focus to securing the Donbas region in the east. He claims that this was his purpose all along. You could have fooled me. It looked to me like he was doing his best to win big in the north, took a beating and then had to revert to plan B.

Putin was defeated in the north by a combination of Ukrainian resourcefulness and determination to defend their homeland and the Russian army’s stunning ineptness, poor logistical planning, lack of training, poor leadership at the non-commissioned and junior officer level and, apparently, poor morale. But the Russian failures and humiliations thus far do not ensure that the Ukrainians will prevail in the end. This war is far from over and the embarrassments suffered by the Russians make Putin more dangerous and more determined than ever to salvage some sort of victory.

The odds favor the Russians in the east. These lands are largely flat and open, favoring Putin’s tanks and armored vehicles. They lie adjacent to the Russian border, facilitating logistics and resupply. They contain large numbers of ethnic Russians, Russian speakers and Russian sympathizers, although probably fewer than before Putin’s army stated murdering helpless civilians. But the odds have always favored Russia in this war and the odds don’t necessary determine the outcome. Most importantly, though, Putin knows he has to achieve a victory to justify the costs of his war. Again he warns the United States and western nations to stop arming the Ukrainians or face consequences they have never before seen or experienced, widely interpreted as a threat to use tactical nuclear or chemical weapons.

The loss of the guided missile cruiser Moskova, flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, was another major embarrassment to add to the loss of a large tank landing ship and a string of battlefield losses. It reminds us that superior numbers alone do not ensure victory against determined defenders. Training, discipline and morale matter. Just over a century ago, Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japan War of 1904-1905. A Japanese force of about 270,000 defeated a Russian army of about 330,000 in the Battle of Mukden. Russia not only lost the war, but most of its fleet as well.

Ukrainians have inspired the world with their bravery and fighting spirit but much of their country lies in ruin with more to follow. They face an uphill battle to even survive. Putin seems determined to continue his scorched earth policies and war of attrition whatever the cost and by whatever means it takes to prevail. The Russian people have a long history of tolerating hardship and loss and, so far at least, Putin remains popular at home, albeit his people are probably still unaware of the level of atrocities their army is inflicting on their neighbor country. Americans, on the other hand, have less patience with long conflicts in distant lands that inevitably tend to involve us. Many are asking what the end game will bring. It’s a fair question, given the fact that we have already provided about $3.4 billion in aid thus far with more on the way and calls to accelerate delivery. What outcome do we expect in this war and what more are we willing to do to help achieve it because it seems likely that a Ukraine victory, whatever that means, will require more help from us and our allies. Our policy in this regard, as in the defense of Taiwan, seems to be one of strategic ambiguity. But is that a real strategy or is it rather the lack of a strategy? That can be dangerous.

Can we as the nominal leader of the free world stand by and watch the continued slaughter of civilians and destruction of a country by a ruthless invader whom we have labeled as a war criminal? Do we not have a moral obligation to at least supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs, including aircraft, to defend itself and reclaim at least some of its territory? If the answer is yes, then Mr. Putin and the leaders of the western powers have to make it clear to Putin that we will not succumb to threats and that any use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, or chemical or biological weapons, intentional or accidental, will be met with immediate consequences such as even he cannot imagine. That should be clear enough for even Putin to understand.

April 22, 2022

The Navy Continues to Shrink

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

In 2016, the U.S. Navy released a force structure goal calling for a fleet of 355 ships. This number became official policy as part of the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act which specified the annual budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense. Congress oversees the process of funding defense expenditures by passing two bills: a Defense Appropriation Bill and the aforementioned National Defense Authorization Act. In 2018, we had fewer than 300 ships in the active fleet, a far cry from the 600-ship Navy that Ronald Reagan was building toward.

So how are we progressing toward reaching the more modest 355-ship goal? Well, clearly not very well at all. In fact, we seem to be going backward. The Navy has proposed decommissioning 24 ships in FY 2023 while requesting only eight new construction ships. That’s two less than the average of ten per year necessary to maintain 355, based on average ship lifespans. Meanwhile, we can’t seem to even make it to the 300-ship mark.

Numbers aren’t everything, of course. Quality and the right mix of ship types matter and our Navy should be sized according to its missions, not the size of a potential adversary’s fleet. We have vital interests in four vast oceans spanning most of the globe and if you doubt that these interests are vital, consider the fact that most of what we consume is transported to us by sea in ships that we don’t own and we have bases, businesses and American citizens scattered throughout the world. Protecting these interests requires the ability to project sea power over vast expanses of ocean and littoral areas and maintaining them at sea for indefinite periods, so numbers are indeed important. As capable as a warship may be, it can only be in one place at a time and it takes time for it to get there. Because of geography, our Navy has a lot more ocean to cover than a potential adversary.

Eight new construction ships in the Navy’s FY 2023 budget proposal are four less than the yearly average number recommended by the Trump Administration in 2020 to reach the 355-ship level and is not even enough to maintain the current level, given the rate at which we are retiring ships. Included in the two dozen ships the Navy wants to retire are nine of the relatively-new littoral combat ships (LCSs), all of which have been in service for less than ten years, three for less than five, and much of that limited by chronic problems too lengthy to discuss here. The other ships the Navy wants to retire are five ageing but still capable guided missile cruisers, four amphibious dock landing ships (LSDs), two nuclear-powered attack subs (SSNs), two civilian-crewed oilers (T-AOs) and two other amphibious type ships (ESDs).

The Navy also plans to end construction of the San Antonio Class amphibious Transport Dock ships (LPDs), cancelling the final ship which the Marine Corps would like to keep, even at the cost of buying fewer F-35 strike fighters. The Marines also want to build an amphibious landing ship much like the tank landing ships so indispensable in getting Marines and their vehicles ashore in WW-II, and which they consider to be important to their new concept of more flexible and nimble amphibious warfare in future conflicts.

The illusive 355-ship target was revised by a Biden Administration plan which called for 321 to 372 manned ships and some 77 to 140 large unmanned vessels (UV). Whatever the “right” number turns out to be, it’s clear that we are not even remotely on a path to achieve it or even to maintain our current level. Moreover, it’s questionable whether or not the U.S. shipbuilding industry even has the capacity to get us there or to properly maintain what we have. The LCS class, both variants, was a design disaster. The hugely-expensive 14,000 -ton Zumwalt-class destroyer, originally planned as a 30-ship buy, was terminated at only three because of the cost, eliminating the economies of scale achievable through a longer production line and making the ammunition for its advanced gun system too expensive to procure. The gun batteries are now being removed to make room for hypersonic missile systems. Meanwhile, it appears to be a large, highly-sophisticated ship in search of a mission. The Gerald Ford-class aircraft carrier was delivered to the Navy in 2017, two years late, and has yet to deploy, having experienced a myriad of problems with its electromagnetic catapult system and weapons elevators.

Money saved by the early decommissioning of the LCSs was diverted to the construction of the new Constellation-class frigate based on a design used by the French and Italian navies and built by Fincantieri Marinette in Wisconsin. But Congress has ordered a pause in designating a second builder and ordered the Navy to reduce the risk inherent in the design that might cause costly problems. Meanwhile, the People’s Republic of China is building a first-class Navy, including aircraft carriers, that has long since overtaken ours in number of ships and may soon match us in capability and capacity if it hasn’t already. The only clear advantage we may have left in a future conflict is superior diversity and environmental awareness training.  

The threats to our security that we need to be preparing for now are far more serious than those we faced back when we had a Navy over twice its current size. They come from multiple adversaries and could erupt simultaneously in several theatres. There are many uncertainties involving future conflicts but at least one thing is certain: we will need a Navy much larger than the one we have now. But if armed conflict comes, we will have to rely on the ships that we have at the time, not the ones we wish had been built and it will be too late to do much about it, given the time it takes us to build a ship and get it ready to deploy.

April 19, 2022

What’s At Stake in Ukraine

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

While the war clouds were gathering again in eastern Europe and Vladimir Putin was planning how to return Ukraine to Moscow’s orbit of control and prevent its alliance with the west, I was inclined to feel that this was Europe’s problem, not ours. I wrote that Russia’s growing revanchism was all the more reason why European countries should step up their anemic spending for defense, even at the expense of spending on their generous cradle-to-grave benefits and entitlements. We already had our hands full with the growing threat from China. Europe shouldn’t always expect us to rush to their aid as we did in two world wars. Ukraine was in their back yard, not ours. We had no dog in this fight, I once said.

As Russia began massing troops on Ukraine’s borders, I warned that providing military assistance to Ukraine would only prolong a bloody conflict, delaying the inevitable Russian victory, and that most of the equipment would probably end up in the hands of the Russians because Ukraine’s military would be no match for Putin’s huge army and air power.

                 I was wrong; not about everything, of course, but certainly wrong about the brave Ukrainian defenders being no match for Putin’s better-equipped and much larger forces and also wrong about having no stake in this fight. I won’t offer the excuse that many so-called experts also believed, as Mr. Putin did, that it would be a short war and result in a quick Russian victory. Instead, there is talk now of Ukraine not only surviving but expelling the Russians from Ukrainian soil with enough help from the west. The problem, of course, is how to get them the help they really need and enough of it for a protracted war, including not only tanks and ordnance, but aircraft.

                Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has painted itself into a corner. Sanctions were applied too late to act as a deterrent to prevent Russia from invading and now they amount to nothing more than punishment, not only to the Russian people, but to much of the rest of the world in terms of inflationary prices and shortages of food, fuel and other necessities. The European Union imports nearly two-thirds of its energy needs, about half of that from Russia. Germany continues to import oil and gas from Russia and plans to continue doing so until at least 2024, warning that to stop doing so earlier would cause more harm to its economy, the largest in Europe and fourth largest in the world, than to Putin’s and would result in mass unemployment and poverty.

Europe needs to wean itself off dependence on Russian energy but it will take time. The United States, the world’s leading energy producer, could have shortened that time if not for the Biden Administration’s war on fossil fuels with its restrictions on drilling, fracking, and the construction of pipelines, processing, refining and export facilities. Meanwhile, the Russian fuel that the western nations won’t buy will find willing buyers elsewhere among energy-starved nations which will continue to fund Putin’s war. In addition, the extensive and brutal destruction and carnage inflicted on Ukraine by Putin’s savage war has resulted in a massive refugee problem, an environmental disaster and the risk of a widening conflict. And guess who will pay the massive bill for rebuilding Ukraine? (Hint: It won’t be Russia.) All this makes it not only Europe’s problem but a global problem.

                On top of all this, the horrible atrocities revealed in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine have made it clear to anyone with a TV that Putin is a monster who will stop at nothing to salvage a victory in in this war. He is clearly a war criminal as President Joe Biden has said and he, along with those members of the Russian government and military who committed, ordered, condoned or knowingly tolerated any of these atrocities, must be prosecuted. Does the Biden Administration, then, really still maintain that we should not seek regime change in Moscow? Would we ever be a party to negotiations with a war criminal?

                Mr. Biden has few remaining options. Increasing sanctions will only work if the hardships they impose on the Russian people inspire them to finally revolt which could lead to a very uncertain outcome. He has already ruled out direct military confrontation by U.S. or NATO forces. He is concerned about taking any action that might provoke a ruthless dictator who controls the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and who is desperate to salvage a victory in this war, indicating that he would use any means necessary to counter U.S. or NATO efforts to interfere with his “special operations”. However, determined Ukrainian forces are already interfering rather effectively against these “special operations”, using military aid provided, not by NATO (at least not directly), but by numerous independent western nations including the United States.

                But it is simply not enough, as Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly warned. He needs much more, especially aircraft, if he is to prevail in an extended war. As long as he and his heroic countrymen are willing to fight, the least we can do to help from afar is to give him what he needs to fight. Putin is a global menace and he cannot be allowed to win in Ukraine. It turns out that we do, after all, have a stake in this war.    

April 9, 2022