Civil Defense Perspectives (vol. 37 #3)
British soldiers were being told that they will be sent to Europe for a long ground war, while Joe Biden was reiterating his promise of “no boots on the ground.” Kaliningrad is a potential trigger to Article Five, which obligates NATO members to go to war to defend a member.
Kaliningrad used to be Königsberg in what was formerly East Prussia. It was ceded to the Soviet Union at Potsdam in 1945, and since the dissolution of the Soviet Union has been an exclave of the Russian Federation. Wedged between Poland and Lithuania 200 miles from the Russian border, commerce with Russia is mostly by rail, with free transport guaranteed by treaty.
In recognition of EU sanctions over the Ukrainian war, Lithuania is banning transport of coal, construction materials, metals, and advanced technology crossing its territory. The EU banned flights by 21 Russian-certified airlines in April, so goods can be transported now only by sea. Kaliningrad’s oil pipeline from Russia is also cut off (tinyurl.com/yy633tvp).
Russia complains that the ban on rail travel is illegal by treaty and threatens unspecified “serious” actions in retaliation.
Kaliningrad plays a key military role for Russia, and is heavily armed with state-of-the art weapons, including precision-guided Iskander missiles and air-defense systems. Kaliningrad is also Moscow’s only Baltic Sea port that’s ice-free year-round, and houses the Russian Baltic Sea Fleet. Despite its heavy fortifications, the Pentagon is said to have a plan to destroy it with “multi-domain operations” (http://tinyurl.com/4da42pfa).
If Russia managed to seize the Suwalki Gap, a 40-mile passage that connects Kaliningrad to Belarus, the Baltics could be without a land corridor to the rest of NATO (https://tinyurl.com/ebbav3ps).
Some EU capitals, including Berlin, are reportedly trying to ease tensions (http://tinyurl.com/2p87w5bu).
The Constellation of Forces
It might be claimed that NATO could easily win a conventional war against Russia if one considers total counts of personnel and armaments. Of total military personnel, NATO has 5,405,700 vs. Russia’s 1,350,000; total aircraft, 20,723 vs. 4,173; military ships, 2,049 vs. 605. In ground combat vehicles, Russia is more competitive, with 12,420 units to NATO’s 14,682, and it has more nuclear warheads, 6,225 to NATO’s 6,065 (statista, tinyurl.com/ht8fypup). But U.S. forces cover the globe.
“We can’t let Ukraine lose,” writes Max Boot in the Washington Post. “It needs a lot more aid, starting with artillery.” He says not to worry about depleting our stockpiles: “We can always produce more later” (https://tinyurl.com/yvmes3n7).
Might this be a fatal conceit? Alexander Mercouris, in a YouTube presentation (https://tinyurl.com/2m3t7per), refers to data from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which cast doubt on the belief that the U.S. is still “the arsenal of democracy.” The U.S. annual production of artillery ammunition would last less than 3 weeks if used as fast as in Ukraine. The Ukrainians claim to fire 500 Javelin missiles per day; the U.S. manufactures 2,000 per year. Perhaps Lockheed-Martin could double production—in a few years (tinyurl.com/8xyhpub8).
The expenditure of cruise missiles and theatre ballistic missiles is just as massive. The Russians have fired between 1,100 and 2,100 missiles. The U.S. currently purchases 110 PRISM, 500 JASSM and 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles annually, meaning that in three months of combat, Russia has burned through four times the U.S. annual missile production (ibid.)—and hasn’t blinked.
As the Soviets said, quantity has a quality of its own. “The age of industrial warfare is still here”—but the U.S. industrial base is not. The U.S. has a “just-in-time” production schedule; Russia does not. Russia began reorganizing its industrial base in 2006; it would take the U.S. a decade to accomplish that (ibid.).
To date, Russia has received little military assistance from China. We must assume that China will not allow Russia to be defeated, particularly not for lack of ammunition. China is the manufacturing capital of the world (ibid.).
Even if NATO could replace the armaments, it cannot replace the Ukrainian soldiers. Casualty figures are unreliable on both sides owing to propaganda, but there are reports of up to 1,000 losses in the Ukrainian military per day to death, wounds, or capture. A significant percentage of their forces had been trained to NATO standards on NATO weapons in Texas, and some say Ukraine has the best army in Europe.
How would NATO troops do against Russians on the ground? And where will the troops come from? Out of more than 70,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe, roughly 6,000 U.S. forces are deployed in Eastern Europe on a mostly rotating basis. (tinyurl.com/bd6t2dyr). Biden has committed to increasing troops in Europe to 100,000 and to sending two more F-35 fighter jet squadrons to the UK (https://tinyurl.com/3dwf489y).
The U.S. Army has reached only 40% of its recruiting goals for the fiscal year ending in October, despite lowering almost all physical requirements. It is now dropping the requirement for a high school diploma or G.E.D. (https://tinyurl.com/54xbej5x). COVID or COVID vaccine mandates may account for part of this, as well as for attrition. So may the “Wokeness” training demands, such as a Navy video on proper pronoun use (https://tinyurl.com/yc8j848h)—which is not of concern to Russia.
Russia is reportedly using only 18% of its army in Ukraine and is ready for “a direct confrontation” with NATO if necessary (https://tinyurl.com/3c3m7tea).
Because of such considerations, some commentators predict that if a ground war is going badly for NATO, the U.S. might launch a nuclear first strike. Or, conversely the Russians might, or use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Kaliningrad has them, deployed on mobile ballistic missile launchers, 50 miles from the Polish border (https://tinyurl.com/zdfx7ey5).
What is NATO really thinking? Its 2022 Strategic Concept, point #22 states: “We will continue to enhance the collective readiness, responsiveness, deployability, integration and interoperability of our forces. We will individually and collectively deliver the full range of forces, capabilities, plans, resources, assets and infrastructure needed for deterrence and defence, including for high-intensity, multi-domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors” [emphasis added] (tinyurl.com/2zha57kh). Who might those be, other than Russia and China?
Basic Military Math
Oleksandr Danylyuk, a former senior adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and Intelligence Services, has admitted that the optimism that existed in Ukraine following Russia’s decision to terminate “Phase One” of the “special military operation” (a feint toward Kiev), and begin “Phase Two” in the Donbass, was no longer warranted. Former intelligence officer Scott Ritter presents the math (http://tinyurl.com/5fd2c3ht):
Russia has relentlessly targeted Ukraine’s artillery pieces and ammunition storage facilities. As a result, Ukraine has only been able to fire some 4,000-to-5,000 artillery rounds per day, while Russia responds with more than 50,000.
Ukraine is requesting 1,000 artillery pieces and 300 multiple-launch rocket systems, more than the entire active-duty inventory of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps combined. Ukraine is also requesting 500 main battle tanks—more than the combined inventories of Germany and the United Kingdom. In short, NATO is being asked to strip its own defenses down to literally zero.
NATO’s objective is to weaken Russia, but in Ritter’s view, the longer the war continues, the weaker NATO becomes.
“To the extent Ukraine is seeking to delay the Russian advance, it is being done by the full-scale sacrifice of the soldiers at the front, thousands of people thrown into battle with little or no preparation, training, or equipment, trading their lives for time so that Ukrainian negotiators can try to convince NATO countries to mortgage their military viability on the false promise of a Ukrainian military victory” (ibid.).
Future of NATO
Will Schryver, who writes on geopolitics, history, war, and macroeconomics (@imetatronink) and has observed Ukraine’s 8 years of preparation for this war, has come to the following startling conclusions (tinyurl.com/bdfhkefy):
· There’s a proliferation of evidence-free myths about American superiority and Russian ineptitude.
· The theme of the bumbling Russians was preconceived and coordinated, and apparently emanated almost exclusively from the CIA/MI6 analyst/think-tank complex.
· Attached to this constant refrain are repeated comparisons to the alleged professionalism, organization, training, and weaponry of U.S./NATO forces, such that any company of American soldiers would be a match for an entire battalion of Russians.
· This war has seen the Russian military quickly evolve into a battle-hardened and surprisingly nimble and quick-to-adapt fighting force. The U.S. has not faced such a force since WW2.
· Of the many thousands of troops in current U.S. combat units, only a minute fraction has experienced ANY battle, and NONE have experienced high-intensity conflict like that in Ukraine.
· Even the attempt to concentrate a sufficient number of the “highly diluted” U.S. forces to take on the Russians would result in the disintegration of the global American Empire and accelerate the already-in-progress transition to a multipolar world. The U.S. would need to evacuate nearly all of the 800 U.S. bases.
· Russian best-in-class air defenses would savage attempted U.S./NATO airstrikes. Even attempted but catastrophically failed NATO airstrikes against Russia would result in a massive series of counterstrikes against NATO bases. It would spell the end American hegemony.
Wartime Measures
Because of rejecting Russian oil and gas, Europe faces a cold winter. German Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck recommends showering less and barely heating your apartment (https://tinyurl.com/37b77bdm). Commercial users in the UK are warned that “involuntary” limits are forthcoming if other emergency measures don’t work. Westminster is pleading with owners of coal-fired plants set to close in September to keep their turbines running to avert blackouts (tinyurl.com/2t9hub3e). “Green” Germany may delay the phase-out of its lignite-burning plants, or even restart some (https://tinyurl.com/246ybcyt). Ration coupons may be coming.
Canceling civil rights is already here; mere censorship is not enough. German journalist Alina Lipp has been criminally charged and could face 3 years in prison. Her bank accounts and her father’s were closed without warning. A letter from the German authorities says that they are not going to invite her to a hearing because that would “disturb the investigations.” Her crime: interviewing Ukrainian civilians and reporting what they said on her Telegram channel in English, German, and Russian.
The Ukrainian government branded her a terrorist for reporting that civilians in Donbass support the Russian action and say that Ukrainian forces have been killing civilians there for several years (tinyurl.com/2zp7y543). The Russian action is a crime, and “supporting” a crime is punished by 3 years in prison.
Although the place where she now resides experiences daily shelling, she says she feels safer there than in Germany.
In the U.S., the pretext, justified by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for violating civil rights is “insurrection” on Jan 6, 2021 (https://tinyurl.com/5etr3rjz). Tucker Carlson, speaking from Brasilia, reports on citizens subjected to home raids and even arrests (in the U.S., not Brazil)—some for alleged connections with the Jan 6 events, others for posting memes that ridiculed Hillary Clinton, producing a video about Hunter Biden, raising doubts about the 2020 election, suing over a subpoena claimed to violate executive privilege, or running for office. Carlson said the “crime” was apparently “making Joe Biden mad,” and that is now defined as “terrorism” (https://tinyurl.com/224ebwf9).
Sanctions Kneecap Economies—in the West
Washington’s economic war on Russia was supposed to turn the ruble into rubble—but it has reached a 7-year high against the euro. The G-7 has forced Russia into technical “default” on its foreign debts by declaring an embargo on imports of Russia-sourced gold and forbidding U.S. companies from collecting the payments that Russian debtors had deposited in their accounts at non-sanctioned Russian banks. In effect, interest payments made in good faith by Russian borrowers have been seized and frozen in place by the U.S. government. Westerners will struggle to move their money out of Russia without breaching sanctions, writes David Stockman (https://tinyurl.com/mr2fm6xf).
Sanctions on Russia’s energy exports have simply moved them to India, China, and other developing world buyers. Russia’s revenues from hydrocarbon fuels soared to record highs in the first 100 days of its war on Ukraine, driven by a windfall from oil sales amid surging prices. It is Western consumers who are being punished. The index of global commodities has risen 12% since Feb 24, when it was the same as at its July 2008 peak—an unnecessary extraction from prosperity (ibid.).