New Theaters of War: The Awakening Dragon

WARNING! THIS POST WAS SO LONG I COULDN’T FIT ANY PRETTY PICTURES. WORDS ONLY!

What would it take to fight a war, however limited against China? Now, I am not saying we will or should go to war but rather what would the US and its allies need to engage them in military conflict.

CHINESE OBJECTIVES:

For today, we will focus on armed disputes over islands that China claims for their own that are also claimed by other nations most notably the Senkaku/Daimyo islands and those in the South China/West Philippine sea. The possibility of war over Taiwan, while requiring much the same war resources is worth a separate post to itself later due to the sheer magnitude of the conflict.

The Chinese objective here is simple: resources. No nation cares much about what are often more like outcroppings than islands but rather the resources around them. China finds itself in a situation not unlike Imperial Japan in the 1930’s, a nation in need of resources to provide power and feed its teeming population. The biggest of these being natural gas and oil, but fishing rights are also powerfully important especially to Japan.

So the Chinese objective is to seize access to the resources, the islands themselves simply provide the Exclusive Economic Zone desired to make legitimate use of those resources.

THE TRIPWIRE: How would such a war begin?

The most likely first shots will probably fall under one of the following two scenarios:

1. Battle of the Coast Guards—Chinese Coast Guard ships have been very aggressive especially in the Senkaku area. Driving away fishing boats, warning shots on merchant vessels. They are presently building a new Coast Guard vessel as large as a US cruiser with multiple guns and CIWS and are quickly building a Coast Guard larger than the USA which has much more coastline to protect. They also love to send hundreds of fishing boats swarming an area such as the disputed shoals of the Philippines to provoke reaction from their navy/CG assets  The optics here are what is important: a Chinese “coast guard” (i.e. a law enforcement and Search & Rescue organization to most nations) merely “defending” one of its islands or more likely a fleet of fishing boats, is fired upon by a Japanese/Philippine/etc. vessel—or at least will say they were fire upon first. The Chinese ship exchanges shots damaging the other vessel. Now they bring in the Navy to protect their Coast Guard Vessels and Marines to protect the islands. They want this to look as legitimate as possible in the world’s eyes. The PLA Navy will focus on destroyers, frigates, and amphibious ships leaving the carrier(s) behind as being too provocative. This doesn’t mean they won’t have air support as the artificial islands they are building are going to be air bases during any conflict. For a good rundown on this tactic of the Chinese, I will have some links listed at the end.
2. Taiwanese Feint: This would be where an invasion fleet would be readied, but all the indications would be that the victim would be Taiwan. This has the advantage of not merely distracting the military but diplomatic efforts as well. They may even agree to some peace negotiations to much fanfare.   The fleet would then “turn away” to the open sea as a supposed peace gesture. Then either an incident such as listed above or some other minor provocation has them turn to seize their real goal. Normally those defending the islands would be on high alert with such a fleet at sea, but there may be international political pressure for other countries to stand down to avoid being seen as allies for Taiwan or avoid provocative gestures. As a result, there is a quick seizure and securing of the islands with no or minimal actual fighting.
3. Pearl Harbor Redux: while least likely, if the US dealing (as it no doubt will be) with the Middle-east, or against a newly aggressive Russia, and they could conceivably be more blatant and simply take a disputed area..although it is most likely this is used as the follow up the Coast Guard incident above. It is also more likely if the amounts of natural gas/oil are proven to exist in the West Philippine/South China Sea than were previously estimated. It would consist first of submarine/ surface ship ASuM missile strikes taking out any non-US naval vessels in the area, followed by their surface fleet. The fleet would include carrier support not as ground attack but rather to create localized air supreriority. One could also expect submarines or smaller vessels to lay mines around some island chains to create choke points and thwart counter-invasion. Note that I specified “non-US”. America is growing war-weary and China will most probably avoid directly striking US assets while applying economic (one of the US’s biggest trade partners) and political pressure for the US to stay out of it. While I have doubts the US would stay out completely, again, we may be preoccupied elsewhere.

THE RESPONSE: WHAT DO WE NEED TO RESPOND OR Deter?

So here is the point of this little blog: What do we now need to deal with or perhaps even deter such a situation.

Political:

On the political side, more than anything else what is needed is a unified response from not merely whoever is attacked but from all the nations with disputed territory. China could defeat any of them singly, but if a functioning counterpart to NATO is created in Asia whose members include all the disputed parties, plus the US, and Australia and perhaps even some others support such as India, South Korea, or Thailand who don’t have a stake in the land disputes but value stability in the region. Such an alliance would create a potent military force even without the US. They could also perform other important work such as facing international terrorism and piracy.

 

Equipment and Strategy

1. The Forgotten 4^th armed service: One simple low-intensity item would be for the involved nations to beef up their coast guard branches just as china is.   Indeed cooperative exercises with a beefed up USCG sends the signal that simply declaring and island and patrolling it, does not signify ownership. This could be the one place where the woefully under-armed LCS class could actually provide some use due to its shallow water performance. Reflagged as USCG instead of USN, and crewed by a CG or mixed naval/CG crew. Unfortunately, the LCS suffers another problem which is lack of range…and this is the Pacific Ocean. The National Security Cutter has three times the range of the LCS, although not as shallow a draft The new Offshore Patrol Cutter the USCG is planning on fielding in the next few years would actually fit the bil quite nicely. The Another option is to deploy USN/USCG patrol boats or USCG Sentinel class cutters to the region using the new MLP as a mothership.   , I must emphasize that this is an interim solution for deterring their present low-intensity strategy of CG/fishing fleets in the area. As presently armed These forces would be withdrawn should the conflict start involving more heavily armed PLA Navy units. However, during the Reagan era it should be noted that the Hamilton class cutters were armed with harpoon missiles and torpedoes.   The NSC, and upcoming OPC could also be fitted with ASuMs, as could the LCS (Hellfire missiles don’t count). That and a CIWS would give these lightly armed ships a greater deterrence value.
2. Clearing the Shores: Obviously any attempt to retake the islands will require a major landing force the face of a determined A2/AD environment. But how extensive that environment will be is partly based on how long we wait for the counter-attack. Remember, we don’t have to beat every missile in the Chinese inventory, just those by the occupying fleet. We need situational dominance.   Clearing the shores of any land based defenses, or from shallow draft Chinese patrol boats and frigates anchored nearby can be accomplished if we are willing to not take half-measures.   If Two ohio class SSGN’s combined with a dozen other VLS equipped SSN’s truly unleashed hell, then as many as 500 tomahawks could be sent toward the landing area from multiple vectors. If only 10% made it then you are still talking 50 missiles. And less face it, a half-dozen Burkes couldn’t take down 90% of a salvo that large, and the Chinese cannot (yet) equal our Aegis system.   The US has never tried something that big in terms of TLAM…but that doesn’t mean we can’t do it. This is why it is vital all future Virginia class SSNs get equipped with the Virginia Payload module to replace the aging Ohio class when they retire. That is for the shore and near-shore defenses. Why isn’t this kind of mass salvo mentioned by the way? Well that salvo cost a total of roughly $500 million dollars. But considering that if 50% (a reasonable amount) got thru and we are using a mix of cluster munition warheads and heavy warheads, then we have somewhere around 50 to 100 tons of ordinance hitting the beach I find that cost cheap considering how many Marines and Sailors it may save. As a much cheaper future alternative the Army MLRS could be carried by amphibious fleet ships or even smaller vessels like a modified patrol boat/LCS. Firing a dozen MLRS missiles saturates one square kilometer with a mix of deadly munitions capable of taking out a tank. Imagine a salvo of hundreds of these deadly weapons—and the Army has a stockpile of 100,000…plenty of reloads. But to get to the beach you just cleared you first have to go past mine fields. And our MCM ships are dying if not dead. The anti-mine module of the LCS doesn’t work and the MCM mission isn’t even mentioned for the “new” SSC version of the LCS. Enough. In the interim take the existing Independence LCS and rebuild it to a dedicated MCM since it has the space to land an MH-53 MCM helicopter. If need be strip the Avenger class ships of their equipment and fit it onto this rebuild. Buy new MH-53s even without any updates if need be. We need MCM now. And while that is happening get a new MCM ship going. I am desperate enough to accept an LCS derivative if that is what it takes to sell it to Congress and the Navy.
3. Clearing the Sea. For the other Chinese ships further out to sea, we must also pound from multiple directions. Unfortunately, we have no real surface equivalent to the SSGN as presently armed. The cruisers and destroyers of the US Navy are all mostly focused on anti-air. We currently have no more than 8 harpoons per vessel. We would need nearly every single Burke in service to lay down that kind of barrage with the pitiful amount of ASuM’s presently carried, especially considering the age of the Harpoons carried. At the very least, the Navy should one for one replace all existing Harpoons with Block II and get the block III version of Harpoon greenlighted. The SM-2 anti-air missile was once touted as having limited anti-ship ability. if updated sufficiently then every Burke could triple its ASuM capability. As for the Lockheed advanced ASuM, the question is how much is it going to cost and if we are going to go the route of the F-35 with a constantly pushed back IOC. We need missiles, not promises. A functioning AASuM with a reasonable IOC of 2022 would be welcome.   Fortunately, we are not restricted to the Burkes, we have air assets that can engage a fleet as well. This is why the Chinese have protested P-8A overflights in the open sea…not for their ASW but their anti-ship abilities. Navy P-8As and USAF B-1B have the range and payload capacity to be a threat, especially in a coordinated attack with destroyer and sub launched missiles. Again, the goal is not separate strikes but an overwhelming strike for a situational dominance. Notice I haven’t mentioned the carriers. The assumption by most is that they will be making the strike. So we are going to risk sending all our planes into a potential SAM meat grinder? I doubt it. True, we will be using EA-18G’s for suppression of enemy radar and (theoretically) an F-35 (if they are functional) for stealth but then those aircraft become vulnerable to Chinese carrier focused on air-superiority. Better to use our carriers to engage their aircraft and hit their fleet with medium to long range ASuMs fired from P-8s, B-52s and B-1s supported by jamming aircraft (EA-18). Plus bomb laden Naval aircraft (F/18, F-35) are all suffering from short legs. Providing air cover makes more sense. (Unfortunately, the F-35 is a one-trick pony which relies on BVR attacks with AMRAAMs and cant dogfight its way out of paper bag. )  Unfortunately the B-1B and the incredibly elderly B-52 are in need of replacement. A good interim solution is the B-1R proposal which rebuilds existing B-1Bs to not only add to airframe lifetime but give it defensive air-to-air, super-cruising engines from the F-22 to give it supersonic speed cruising at both high and low level flight, increasing its survivability. We need a replacement for the USAF bomber force. Unfortunately everyone is talking about a horrifically expensive super-bomber that I doubt we can afford. I suggest instead we focus on better and longer range stand-off missiles which we could launch in large salvos from a relatively inexpensive commercial derivative not unlike the P-8A. it would be based on the 777 cargo variant with incredible endurance and payload, including excellent EW capability. I make no mention of B-2s since they will be the only bombers providing nuclear deterrence during a major conflict.
4. Clearing the Depths: In the “Clearing the Sea” above I left off enemy ships being stalked by our subs (except for being part of the barrage). Modern mk48 torpedoes are probably the surest ship killer in the entire USN. Which is why unlike the US, China is expanding its ASW capability with frigates, patrol planes/boats, and what will soon be a submarine force double the size of ours. And remember, ours will be spread over the world as well. We are in trouble. True, the Burkes can do ASW but they are not a dedicated ASW platform. They will be protecting the carriers or performing offensive operations. But what will some (maybe most) Chinese subs be hunting? Not our combat ships but our thousands plus mile supply chain, and our merchant fleet worldwide. Oh, and also targeting the Marine ships we have waiting for the counter invasion. So the carriers get Burkes (and no doubt more than the number that escort them in peacetime) How do we address this? The obvious solution is more subs. But the US is restricted at the moment to two yards building subs, so even if we can speed up production, it won’t be enough. The LCS was to have an ASW module…which has not worked and is entirely helicopter driven. We need ASW frigates with sonar, vertical launch ASROCs, torpedoes, and the ubiquitous helicopter as well. We need a lot of them. The new SSC version of the LCS does add a towed sonar…but has no way other than the SH-60 to engage them. As we lack any real choice in the interim, let’s take existing LCS hulls and rebuild the existing Freedom class into dedicated ASW platforms with VLA capable of launching ASROC, torpedoes and hull mounted active sonar. (The Independence class LCS will be MCM—see clearing the beach). We should also bring back the WW2 and Reagan era use of the USCG as ASW escorts for merchant/MSC vessels.   The helicopter capacity of larger cutters makes it at least as good an ASW platform as a flight 1 LCS. There were full frigate versions of the NSC offered to the Navy for the SSC and foreign buyers. Extend the NSC program for 4 more vessels—after all we have 8 NSC replacing 12 WHEC which is insufficient anyway—and have those last 4 have full ASW capability, and additional ASW ability added to the other NSCs over time. The ASW mission need not be full time. The ASW gear would be Navy Reserve operated and only fully used in times of greater threat. An NSC could actually get some real world practice going after narco-subs used to smuggle drugs as part of the USCG’s LEO mission. Future dedicated ASW ships could be purpose built full ASW (not ad hoc limited) versions of the Freedom LCS with the ridiculous 40 knot requirement dropped to 25 knots with double the range using just diesel engines and more fuel, or a stripped down Burke without AEGIS, and the second VLS and existing hanger replaced with a bigger hanger and fuel storage to carry 3-4 helicopters.

 

Okay, this post could go on forever with what I see what about you? I especially would like to hear from non-US sources.

New Theaters of War Part 1

The New Theaters of War Pt 1
The US and allies have been dealing—or failing to deal with—with procurement and strategy issues . The military end of the blogosphere is abuzz with horror stories of barely armed ships and billion dollar boondoggles. Unfortunately, most of the horror stories are true. How did we get here? The number one reason is that we replaced strategy with buzzwords. But for strategy we need to know who the enemy is supposed to be. Sadly, it seems many in the political arena—and yes that includes generals and admirals—don’t really seem to believe we have one. There are literally a half-dozen serious hot spots or potential new “cold wars”. Each has its own needs. Some needs will overlap, some will be highly specific. So let us look at these potential wars and rumors of wars on the horizon. Please note that some of these are ones that we probably shouldn’t get in involved in…but I am not here to debate on whether to intervene but rather what should be used for intervention. Some may seem far-fetched but so was America going to war in Europe again during the 1920s, the Soviet Union collapsing in the 1960’s, etc. We can never be 100% sure of anything.
Here is a short list of what will be looked at on this blog–they are not in any certain order:
1. Chinese Armed Expansion—not a mythical pivot east but actual levels of combat.
2. Muslim Insurgency in Western Africa—not if we should intervene but what if we do.
3. Russian Armed Expansion—the defense of Eastern Europe.
4. Iranian Nuclear Threat—not just trying to prevent it, but what do we need if they get the bomb?
5. Syrian/Iraqi theater—the war against ISIS. Related to others below but with specific challenges.
6. The Caliphate—if we lose Syria and Iraq or Turkey and Pakistan go radical. Welcome to the second Ottoman Empire. Including a potential Western European radical-Muslim insurgency.
7. Pakistan + India + Radical Islam—a border war gains a very terrifying new element
8. Thinking the Unthinkable in the 21st century—nuclear strategy.
This first post will not go into any of them but is rather ask anyone reading it to think about what they feel we need to procure and how to deploy them. We’ll jump in the pool on the Tuesday, January 13th. Think hard. I am hoping for real debate…yea, I know I have zip in terms of followers but hey, if you see this ask the same question of your folks and we’ll all hash it out.

Do we really understand WAR anymore?

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”—General George Patton 31 May 1944, Address to the 6th Armored Division, 3rd Army.

Say what you will about his ego and his love of war, but Patton did understand war. In a war, you kill the enemy. You kill until they surrender, seek genuine peace, or you run out of targets. War is not pretty, it is not kind, and caring, regardless of how noble the motives or how honorable you try to fight. In war, people die. Human beings with dreams and aspirations be they good or evil die. They are shot, stabbed, bombed, and burned. This has been understood for most of human history. Sometimes we forget this. And at present, the United States has been spending the last 70 years either forgetting it, or ignoring it.
Don’t believe me? When was the last time that the USA actually declared war on another nation? 1941. We have not declared war since WW2. Fought in wars, sure. Won some, lost some, and settled for a draw or 2 (or 3 or 4 or…we’ll get to that in a minute). But we have fought as part of “police actions” or given “authorizations of force” alone or under UN sanction.
“So what?” you say. “Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc. were all wars and everyone calls them wars and they are fought by the military so what’s the big deal?” The big deal is that it shows us refusing to actually fight a war properly. To never seek an actual victory. To try and fight with “minimum” damage and avoid serious confrontation.

We think this is somehow more moral. That we are somehow better than those who fought in WW2 or other conflicts. But WW2, for all the worldwide devastation only lasted (for the US) 4 years. And call me crazy, but I don’t see Germany and Japan as a threat anymore. In fact, I don’t see NAZI-ism or Japanese Militarism, the philosophies behind WW2 as a threat. We took a draw in Korea and we STILL HAVE TROOPS THERE because the North Korean threat has NEVER really went away. We fought in Vietnam over 10 years without victory or even thinking about victory. We invaded Iraq twice then stayed a decade, and now are talking about going back again.

The old term “police action” lost favor after Vietnam, but it is an accurate one. Our decade long occupation of Iraq was just that. We acted like very heavily armed cops. In WW2 we burned the city of Dresden to the ground. Now we fire smart missiles from drones. Some pilots never came home from the initial raids on Dresden. The pilots who did survive over Dresden saw the carnage they wrought as did the civilian leadership in Washington and London. Do you think any of them were in a rush to start another war? No. They did what was considered necessary but they understood the consequences as well . Now some bean-counter in DC sees video from a drone of a smart missile hitting a building. He doesn’t see the body parts or a huge fire incinerating someone just a grainy thermal image of a house going boom. The drone pilot’s life isn’t in any danger. He goes home to see his family. In WW2 bomber pilots over Germany had a higher casualty rate than troops on the ground in North Africa. So just how scared will that DC politician or pilot be of another war? Not very. We look at smart weapons and pat ourselves on the back and use them as an excuse that what we are fighting isn’t even a war.

Here’s a question. How did your grandpa clear a room in WW2? He threw in a grenade…a real one not a flashbang…then they sprayed the inside with a BAR or a Thompson on full-auto. Ask any returning Iraqi war vet about the rules of engagement when searching for terrorists…excuse me, I meant insurgent, we can’t say the “T”-word. I’ll bet that spraying a room with a tommy-gun was not how they did it. Well, a least not how we did it around the media at least. Al-Qaida was so evil that even Saddam loyalists eventually started to help us. Yet Washington stood by ROE that were barely more open to aggressive combat than the ROE in Ferguson.

In fact, that brings up the next real question; If we use soldiers as cops, how long before we use cops as soldiers? Answer, not very long at all. Give a man military style training, a military uniform, military weapons, …hell, even give him military drones, helicopters, and armored vehicles…and how can he NOT think like a soldier? When riots hit LA years back who did we send in? Elements of the First Marine Division and the 7th infantry division. Now I once took the oath, and know that it includes enemies “domestic” but I believe that is meant more at civil war than civil unrest. Especially now since that is a specific role of the National Guard.
We now face potential enemies all over the world. Do we think Putin fears the NYPD? Because that is what we have been trying to turn our military into. Does ISIS fear an anonymous drone? Or would ISIS fear the US declaring war and doing to them what we did to the Nazis? After all, when we saw the atrocities the Nazis did, we HANGED THEM! Did we hang a single captured member of Al-Qaida? No. We have been giving them 3 hots and a cot, DVD’s and occasionally sent them back home if they promised they wouldn’t be bad. (And how are those promises workin’ out?) We treat them better than prisoners in Maricopa county Arizona.

No, I am not saying we need to be brutal. But I am saying that war needs to be treated as such. If we really think ISIS is a threat, or Russia, or China, or Mexican Drug Cartels, or whomever our perceived opponent is, let us quit playing at war. Fight to the finish, not a draw. If other countries don’t like it then fine. If it is messy, then it is messy. If we win then don’t act embarrassed about running the show. Put the bad guys in front of hangman’s noose if we fight someone as heinous as ISIS. We weren’t afraid to impose banning Nazism on Germany or force a constitution on Japan. Don’t be afraid to say “no, you can’t allow Islamic Fascism to be taught” if we win against them. If they hide in a mosque then blow up the mosque. WW2 was fought by a US that considered itself Christian but we burned a lot of cathedrals in WW2. If we lay siege to a city there is nothing in the rules of war against blowing the city to shards with artillery. Would it be a nice thing to do? No, but it is war. Maybe then both sides—and that include the US– and will think twice.

And then once we have once seen what a military truly does for a living we wont be in a hurry to turn our cops into soldiers either. Put away the BDU’s and the MRAPs. For pity’s sake, the Department of Education has a SWAT team with automatic weapons—why? No Federal agency except MAYBE DHS should have them…and DHS could use National Guard units trained as SWAT or the FBI HRT. The war on drugs wasn’t a war. If it had been, then we would have bombed and invaded the Columbian countryside with full force. That would have been horrible but it might have actually worked. Instead we used Spec-ops like really well trained cops. Sure we took out Escobar with SEALs…but he was replaced in a few months by even more ruthless cartels. Who replaced Hitler? Nobody. We went to war with Germany. We didn’t go to war with the drug cartels, we used the military like cops. Moreover, maybe if faced with the choice of actually fighting the “War on Drugs” as a war, then we would ask “is it worth it going to war over?” and come to our senses and said if some idiot wants to ruin their life with drugs that’s their business. We could probably finance the entire USMC if we ever legalized pot and taxed it.Think about this; what if the cops in Ferguson had been all armed with the new multi-shot Tasers and shotguns loaded with rubber pellets instead of AR-15’s and wearing police uniforms. They would have looked like cops not an army and yet still been able to defend themselves. The optics the protestors wanted wouldn’t have happened. And when molotovs went flying who would have been the bad guys?

Lets fight wars as wars. Use Soldiers as Soldiers. Cops as Cops. Then maybe we will fight less wars, and have better troops and better cops.

#military #militarization of police #military readiness #military philosophy #combat

The Putin Strategy: Stolen from Reagan?

This is my fear: Putin is trying to flip the Reagan Strategy on us. For those who’ve forgotten or weren’t born during the 80’s, let me refresh you on President Reagan’s plan for winning…not fighting, winning…the Cold War.

He believed-correctly-that Russia was facing economic ruin with the triple challenges of keeping on to its empire (i.e. Eastern Europe), facing off against the USA in an arm race, and a failed state-run economic model.   He decided to give the USSR a big nudge to finishing that breakdown: He ran the arms race up to incredible lengths building a 600 ship navy with a Marine Corps to match. For that matter he even armed an entire class of Coast Guard cutters with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes just to emphasize it. The naval build-up included enough subs that they could shadow nearly every single ballistic sub the Russians put to sea. He financed not-very-clandestine arms supplying operations to satellite states the foremost being Afghanistan where the Russians had a defeat that made Vietnam vets say “sucks to be you”. He rebuilt our nuclear forces with new ICBMs and resurrected a cancelled B-1B bomber. He started the “star wars” anti-ICBM program which he knew the Russians couldn’t possibly match—he never even had to actually build and deploy it, the threat was scary enough.

The result: The fall of the USSR. Yes, there were Russians like Yeltsin and Gorbachev, but they would never have attained any power had the KGB/GRU not seen the writing on the wall.

KGB like Putin. Putin was on the receiving end of the Reagan Strategy. Czar Putin. We may has well call him that he has been president and prime minister and each time whatever post he is in becomes the top post. So yes, he is the Czar of Russia in fact if not name. And yes he is a dictator…Czars aren’t known for democratic feelings…but he is also a fiercely proud Russian. He wants his empire back.

And Reagan showed him how. Putin has been studying the US. He sees a country in a 10 year old recession. A country whose government is no longer stealing from our children but our grandchildren to meet its bills. And oh, most important of all: a country that cannot afford to so much as get new amphibious craft for the Marines.

In fact we are sacrificing our Army and Marine Corps’ basic vehicle needs just to pay for a new fighter that is hideously expensive. In fact, the US has probably spent more on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last ten years then they spent keeping Eastern Europe under their thumb and in their Afghanistan war over 40 years. (I am sure Putin has a laugh every time he realizes we have been in Afghanistan longer than Russia was and we’re not even trying to keep it!)

The invasion of the Ukraine was a “hat trick” for Putin; he got 3 goals in one game. First, every Czar and Soviet leader since Ivan the Terrible has taken and/or tried to take Crimea so they could have a port that wasn’t frozen 1/3 of the year. (Told you he’s a Czar.) Second it puts Eastern Europe on notice that Russia is back from the dead and wants its empire restored. I took a Russian history course in college once and you should know that Russia has ALWAYS went after Poland and the Baltic states whenever a truly strong leader appeared; Ivan, Catherine, all the “big” Czars did. Finally, and most important he wanted to see what we would do. He predicted the US would do nothing. He was right.

And now? We see bombers at our borders…just like the Cold War. He is updating his nuclear arsenal…just like Reagan did. Rebuilding his navy including better submarines…just like Reagan did. He is restarting the arms race. He is betting America will go bankrupt like Russia did or back down and let him restart the Empire in another 5-10 years. Putin will build and wait like Reagan did in his bid to be the first Russian Czar in 100 years.