We maintain and continue this committee of correspondence in memory of our founder and mentor, Colonel W. Patrick Lang. The image to the right is Marcus, a character from William S. Burroughs’s “The Coming of the Purple Better One.” Colonel Lang would refer to Marcus sometimes in clever jest, sometimes in biting social commentary and sometimes simply because he liked Marcus. May everyone who corresponds here do so in a similar spirit.
Essential Writings on History, War, Religion and Strategy
From the Introduction:
“In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Col. Lang created his own blog which to this day still serves as a committee of correspondence for a large network of former military and intelligence officers, diplomats, and scholars of international affairs.
Since its launch in 2005, the Turcopolier website has had over 40 million unique visits.
Since leaving the government, he has also authored five books, including a Civil War espionage trilogy, a memoir of his years in government service, and a primer on human intelligence.
This present volume—his sixth book—is an anthology of some of his most important writings. The content speaks for itself. So have at it.”
Plenty going on in the world. Write about what tickles your fancy. I’m happy that Ovechkin is now four goals away from breaking Gretzky’s goal record. Predictions are now that he will do it on 13 April against the Columbus Blue Jackets. I’m amazed how politics is tarnishing Gretzky’s image right now. He’s “The Great One” for God’s sakes! And Ovi is being wildly cheered on across America. He’s Russian and a close acquaintance of Putin! You gotta love hockey.
Oh, by the way, happy Liberation Day to all you true believers.
TTG
On Thursday [13 March 2025], the Wall Street Journal, of all media outlets, published a piece relaying the growing concerns of American business leaders over Trump’s economic policies and the direction they are taking the economy. Predictably, Trump threw a tantrum on social media replete with name-calling, and among the epithets hurled at the Journal was this nugget: “Their (WSJ!) thinking is antiquated and weak.” It is awfully rich to see Trump call the Wall Street Journal’s promotion of free trade economic policies as “antiquated,” especially when his own economic policies are ripped right out of the 18th century.
In the 18th century, most Western European economies were characterized by what is known as Mercantilism. Mercantilism is an economic system that was distinguished by the notion that trade and economic prosperity is a zero-sum game. Fundamentally at odds with the belief so recently held by Republicans that in a Laissez Faire economic system “all boats will rise,” Mercantilism focused on the idea that there was only so much wealth to go around, and each country or nation had to grab for itself as much as it could get. 18th century Mercantilist states frequently levied high tariffs against the importation of goods into their countries. They sought to maximize their own exports and minimize imports, obsessing over what they saw as a “favorable balance of trade,” and building monetary reserves. These Mercantilist states often hoarded gold and silver, and sought to accumulate resources, both natural and manufactured.
This sounds exactly like the system Trump seeks to establish. He obsesses over America’s balance of trade and the idea that we are importing more than we export. He recently celebrated the “amount of revenue” we are reaping through his tariffs, and claims that, if we are not extracting more value than other countries out of our foreign trade, they are “winning” and we are “losing.” These sound like reasonable economic policies, right? Sure, except for the fact that Mercantilism is a largely discredited economic system, and even if it wasn’t, Trump isn’t even following it correctly, to boot! For one, the protective tariffs of a Mercantilist system only work if the government subsidizes and provides extra support and incentive to domestic manufacturing and industries where tariffs are being levied against their foreign counterparts. I explain here how badly Trump is misusing and fundamentally misunderstands tariffs, but if all you are going to do is levy 50% tariffs on foreign imports without providing support to the domestic production of those same goods, the only thing you are doing is raising prices for consumers. Any revenue generated from those tariffs is simply being added to government reserves and hoarded by the Trump Administration and its cronies.
More concerning, though, are the many problems associated with Mercantilism. Government intervention in a Mercantilist economy was very heavy-handed in the 18th century. The many trade restrictions inevitably led to the establishment of monopolies and subsequent rise in consumer prices. Britain’s East India Company (yes, the same East India Company that played a key role in the Boston Tea Party) was the multinational mega-corporation of the 18th century. The restrictions on trade led governments to play favorites, to grant de facto monopolies. The stories of these companies in the 18th century are rife with tales of fraud and corruption. But tellingly, these monopolistic tendencies also tamped down or even eliminated competition and significantly stifled innovation. They prioritized short-term gain over long-term growth. And they also served to accumulate resources in fewer and fewer hands, and this is where many of the most chilling effects of Mercantilism lead.
Comment: This is a short extract from an article by an unnamed historian writing under the pen name of Peter Porcupine. He’s a recent, but prolific writer for Daily Kos. Besides being a clear and concise explanation of mercantilism, this article struck me, not as much for its description of Trump’s economic and trade policies, but for the head long rush back to the age of empires. And it’s not just the US that’s heading in this direction.
Putin’s Russia has been very emphatic that her near abroad is hers and hers alone. The now independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe is an aberration. They should either return to Mother Russia or acquiesce to her influence. I viewed Russia’s foray into Syria to be appropriate and welcome at the time to counter the immediate threat of ISIS. It flew in the face of our imperialistic “Assad Must Go” policy, but it was a prudent and wise policy until Russia either got tired of it or, more likely, became unable to continue the intervention. But now she’s getting rather froggy in Africa with her now expanded Africa Corps. The Africa Corps does harken back to the days of the British East India Company.
I think China views everyone as a competitor, even her “friends without limits” relationship with Russia has serious limits. She is definitely taking advantage of Russia’s current predicament. China also has ambitions beyond just reincorporating Taiwan into a greater China. She is pursuing a military and maritime expansion in spite of internal economic strains. Her investments abroad are legendary and includes port facilities throughout the world. I think the BRI is just part of this.
I would argue that the US has always had an expansionist and imperialist streak as early as the days of manifest destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. Monroe, by the way, was especially desirous of Canada. We became an empire almost by accident with the Spanish-American War. Our forays in Central America on behalf of the United Fruit Company was blatantly imperialistic and mercantilistic as Smedley Butler spelled out in his “War is a Racket” in 1935. Then, after WWII, we were the last country standing and took the mantel of world leadership which we kept since then whether the world wanted it or not.
The old concept of competing empires gave way to peer competitors, but the meaning hasn’t change much. This was addressed in the 2023 JCS paper entitled “Joint Concept for Competing” where strategic competition is the normal state rather than deterrence and warfare. Strategic competition is defined as a persistent and long-term struggle that occurs between two or more adversaries seeking to pursue incompatible interests without necessarily engaging in armed conflict with each other. Strategic competition is an enduring condition to be managed, not a problem to be solved. That sounds very much like the age of empires to me. The only difference is that this concept calls for close cooperation with allies rather than colonies or satellites. NATO was a centerpiece of this concept.
That is now changing with what may become the Trump Doctrine. We intend to go it alone in a competitive world. NATO and the Europeans may no longer be seen as allies, but only as economic competitors. We have become expansionist in outlook seeking to claim Canada as our 51st state, Greenland as maybe the 52nd and to reclaim the Panama Canal Zone as our own. China seems to be the reason why Trump believes we have to own Greenland and the Canal Zone. The real reason he wants Canada still eludes me. Fentanyl is an absolute bullshit reason and we already dominate Canada economically.
Another sign of a return to the age of empires is the shifting alliances among the empires. In the past, empires sought temporary alliances with other empires if only to keep other empires from gaining too much power or too big an advantage. Even fairly recently our policy was to ensure that Russia and China would not become too cozy. That idea may still be lurking in Trump’s mind, but the strategy has changed. Since he no longer views NATO as an alliance worth investing in and an independent Ukraine definitely as not something worth supporting or investing in, he sees no reason not to buddy up with Putin. His desires for Canada and Greenland are fully compatible with Putin’s desires for Ukraine. Why not be buddies? they’re cut from the same avaricious cloth.
TTG
(Reuters) – Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison will not sign a deal next week to sell its two port operations near the Panama Canal to a BlackRock-led group, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said, amid growing pressure from Beijing. China’s market regulator said it will carry out an antitrust review on the Panama port deal in accordance with law to protect fair competition and safeguard public interests, its official WeChat account showed late on Friday.
The telecoms-to-retail conglomerate owned by tycoon Li Ka-shing this month agreed to sell most of the global $22.8 billion ports business, including assets it holds along the strategically important Panama Canal, to a group led by BlackRock.
Definitive documentation for the two port operations near the Panama Canal was expected to be signed by April 2, according to the sale announcement made on March 4. One of the people, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter, did not elaborate, saying only that the definite documentation would not be signed due to “obvious reasons”. The person added the development does not mean the deal has been called off, and April 2 is not a hard deadline. The second source, who also declined to be identified for similar reasons, said talks are still very much underway.
Negotiation for the overall deal that covers a total of 43 ports in 23 countries is on exclusive basis between CK Hutchison and the consortium for 145 days. Local media including Singtao Daily and The South China Morning Post first reported the news. CK Hutchison did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The conglomerate has been caught in China’s crosshairs in the highly politicised deal which is expected to garner the firm more than $19 billion in cash. Chinese authorities have reacted negatively to plans by the conglomerate to sell its ports assets, while the deal was hailed by U.S. President Donald Trump who said he wants to retake control of the strategic waterway. Over the past two weeks, pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao has published a series of commentaries criticising the deal for harming China’s national interests and depicting it as a betrayal of China and is a “perfect cooperation” with the U.S. strategy to contain China. China’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office reposted some of the commentaries on its website, which fueled speculation Beijing could take steps to try to scupper the sale.
A CK Hutchison unit operates two of the five ports adjacent to the Panama Canal, which manages about 3% of the global sea-borne trade. Panama first awarded the concession to the company in 1998 to run the ports and extended it for another 25 years in 2021. Beijing’s criticism of CK Hutchison’s move to sell its ports business is a precursor to heightened political scrutiny of major Chinese business divestments involving American buyers, analysts have said.
Bloomberg News, earlier in the week, reported that Chinese authorities had told state-owned firms to hold off on any new deals with businesses linked to tycoon Li and his family.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ck-hutchison-not-sell-strategic-105813668.html
Comment: If I was a member of the Li family, I wouldn’t be making any long term plans. That last warning issued by the Chinese authorities is ominous. Someone could end up with a bullet in the head or making little rocks out of big rocks.
Seems the Chinese government does consider the CK Hutchison ownership of two ports at either end of the Panama Canal a strategic asset, not just another commercial arrangement. Until today, I thought The buyout of CK Hutchinson’s interest in the ports by Blackrock would defuse the issue. It wouldn’t have been an outright ownership by the US, but it would have ended Chinese ownership. The CK Hutchison Ports group operates 43 ports in 23 countries, including two of the four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal. The deal would have given the BlackRock consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere. The Blackrock ownership of all those ports would have given Trump something akin to a British East India Company.
Trump should have been briefed on this by now, but given how he’s been caught ignorant of major events lately, he may still think the Blackrock deal is a go. Wait until he catches up with reality. He will be livid. He’s going to go all Red Queen on China and Panama. Send the fleet! Drop the paratroopers! Or maybe he’ll do something with a little more finesse. But I’m not sure if his national security team is up for it.
TTG
Here are two videos of the construction of a Greenland style kayak. The first is how they were made by the Netsilik Inuit of western Greenland and the Arctic coast of Canada. The video is from “The Stories of Tuktu,” a video series shot by the Educational Services Incorporated of Canada. The series used color footage “of the Netsilik Eskimos at a time when southern civilization had not disrupted the ways of these people living at the Northwestern edge of Hudson’s Bay, the series presents an old man reminiscing about the daily activities of his youth. We learn about the ways in which the Inuit gathered food, made clothing, constructed sleds, kayaks and igloos, and raised their dogs. More important, perhaps, we acquire a sense of the land, harsh and yet beautiful, in which they lived, and of the social and religious customs which made their lives, so difficult and dangerous at times, still so beautiful and joyous.” The whole series is interesting, but this particular video shows how the kayaks were constructed using bits of driftwood scavenged over time from the barren shores of Arctic Canada.
Compare and contrast the kayak design and construction methods of Tuktu’s kayak to the modern work of Brian Schulz of Cape Falcon Kayak in building his West Greenland kayak. The design has hardly changed although Brian has access to an abundance of wood and modern tools, including power tools. He’s not limited to a mouth drill and crooked knife.
I find the continuity of the design and the methods of construction to be downright religious. But that’s just me. I built my first kayak out of scrounged materials, not driftwood, but scraps found around the barn and neighborhood. I built it to a xeroxed copy of a plan from “Popular Mechanics” using a handsaw, pocket knife, hand drill and fishing line rather than sinew, real or synthetic. I covered it with similarly scrounged canvas and painted it with house paint. It may not have been worthy of Tuktu or Brian Schulz, but it was great fun in my youth… and I think the spirit was there.
TTG
Greenland and Denmark appeared cautiously relieved early Wednesday by the news that U.S. Vice President JD Vance and his wife are changing their itinerary for their visit to Greenland Friday, reducing the likelihood that they will cross paths with residents angered by the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the vast Arctic island, a semi-autonomous Danish territory. The couple will now visit the U.S. Space Force outpost at Pituffik, on the northwest coast of Greenland, instead of Usha Vance’s previously announced solo trip to the Avannaata Qimussersu dogsled race in Sisimiut.
President Donald Trump irked much of Europe by suggesting that the United States should in some form control the self-governing, mineral-rich territory of Denmark, a U.S. ally and NATO member. As the nautical gateway to the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America, Greenland has broader strategic value as both China and Russia seek access to its waterways and natural resources. The vice president’s decision to visit a U.S. military base in Greenland has removed the risk of violating potential diplomatic taboos by sending a delegation to another country without an official invitation. Yet Vance has also criticized long-standing European allies for relying on military support from the United States, openly antagonizing partners in ways that have generated concerns about the reliability of the U.S.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told Danish broadcaster DR Wednesday that the Vances’ updated travel plans are a good thing. The minister said the change was a deescalation, even as he said the Americans are treating it as the opposite, with Vance suggesting in an online video that global security is at stake. Anne Merrild, a professor and Arctic expert at Aalborg University in Denmark, said recent anti-U.S. demonstrations in Nuuk might have scared the Trump administration enough to revise the trip to avoid interactions with angry Greenlanders. Still, Merrild said, even a visit to the space base shows that the U.S. administration still considers annexing Greenland to be on the table. “It’s a signal to the whole world, it’s a strong signal to Denmark, it’s a signal to Greenland,” she said. “And of course it’s also an internal signal to the U.S., that this is something that we’re pursuing.”
Vance is allowed to visit the base, said Marc Jacobsen, a professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, because of a 1951 agreement between Denmark and the U.S. regarding the defense of Greenland. “What is controversial here is all about the timing,” he said. “Greenland and Denmark have stated very clearly that they don’t want the U.S. to visit right now, when Greenland doesn’t have a government in place,” following the election earlier this month. Coalition negotiations are ongoing.
Ahead of the vice president’s announcement that he would join his wife, discontent from the governments of Greenland and Denmark had been growing sharper, with the Greenland government posting on Facebook Monday night that it had “not extended any invitations for any visits, neither private nor official.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told Danish national broadcasts Tuesday that the visit was “unacceptable pressure.”
Usha Vance’s office said Sunday that she would depart Thursday for Greenland and return Saturday. She and one of the couple’s three children had planned to visit historic sites and learn about Greenland’s culture, but her husband’s participation has reoriented the trip around national security, her office said. Vance said leaders in Denmark and North America had “ignored” Greenland for “far too long.”
Comment: I guess the Trump administration was smart enough to avoid the possibility of Usha Vance being photographed being surrounded by a sea of angry Greenlandic Inuit wearing those red “Make America Go Away” hats at the dogsled race. But they’re still too pig headed to forgo sending the Vances to Greenland even if it’s just to visit the Space Force outpost at Pituffik, out in the middle of nowhere. If they fly directly to the Space Force Base, they’ll avoid all those Icelandic MAGA hats.
From a strategic point of view, I can understand Trump’s fixation on Greenland. As the Arctic Ocean thaws, the island sits astride a major shipping route between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. I also think the Mercator Projection is fueling Trump’s fascination. What I don’t understand is his fixation on owning Greenland. I guess it’s his aversion to alliances, especially NATO that is driving his need to own Greenland outright. He’d be better off working with NATO on strengthen defenses and surveillance systems astride this increasingly critical sea route rather than doing it alone.
TTG
The Pentagon, which recently promised to put employees through polygraph tests in an investigation into leaks of classified information, is now the source of its own leak. On March 15, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed real-time information about a military strike and its aftermath in a group chat on Signal, a messaging app, that included several other top administration officials and — wait for it — Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Although defense officials have repeatedly stressed they are committed to being the “most transparent” in history, it is unlikely that this is what they meant.
Goldberg wrote on Monday that he was invited to the chat group earlier this month, and was privy to a March 15 message from Hegseth that included operational details of planned strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Hegseth sent the group battle plans of the strike two hours before it occurred. He and CIA Director John L. Ratcliffe, who was also on the chat, appear to have also shared details of intelligence-collecting methods used before the strike.
It is not exactly clear why Goldberg was added to the group. Goldberg wrote that he received a connection request from National Security Advisor Michael Waltz on March 11, but no one on the group seemed to notice his presence until he voluntarily left it. The March 15 post from Hegseth provided operational details about how the U.S. military would attack the Houthis, including “information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.” The good news is that keeping the chat secret was, apparently, on Hegseth’s mind during the exchanges. He texted the group that “I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC,” and later wrote that “We are currently clean on OPSEC.”
National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes indicated on Monday that Goldberg’s reporting is accurate. “At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote in the statement to Task & Purpose. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our service members or our national security.”
OPSEC, or operational security, refers to not releasing any information that could compromise military operations or put troops in danger. It’s also a subject of numerous mind-numbing briefings and makes a frequent appearance in the comment section of stories on military news — often posted by someone who doesn’t fully grasp what OPSEC actually means.
Goldberg’s revelation comes after the New York Times first reported that Elon Musk, a top ally of President Donald Trump and head of the Department of Government Efficiency Team, would be briefed on the U.S. military’s war plans for China when he visited the Pentagon on March 21. Trump denied the story, and the New York Times subsequently reported that the planned briefing had been called off. Afterward, Hegseth’s chief of staff Joe Kasper announced an investigation that would refer people who leak classified national security to law enforcement agencies for criminal prosecution. “The use of polygraphs in the execution of this investigation will be in accordance with applicable law and policy,” Kasper wrote. It is unclear if the defense secretary will have to be subjected to a polygraph the next time he uses Signal.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/houthi-atlantic-goldberg
Comment: These damned cellphones are going to be the death of us. Signal is a pretty secure messaging app using end to end encryption, but that makes no difference if you don’t know who’s connected to the encrypted chat. Plus, there’s no way Signal is approved for secret or top secret communications. This incident was lazy and careless.
In my day, there were STU-III encrypted phones for secure communications. Towards the end of my time in DIA, I learned of STU-III cell phones. I never used them. They seemed too easy to misplace or lose. These were replaced by the STE which uses crypto cards rather than the old STY-III little black keys. I was pretty surprised to learn that certain key DIA officers were allowed to have a STU-III at home, but the key was carried on the person at all times. I’m sure presidential cabinet members did the same. But, apparently, that’s not convenient enough today. These dainty snowflakes have to use their cellphones. So we’ve learned nothing since Hillary Clinton.
Beyond being an egregious security breach, this incident highlights a few other point about Trump’s administration. They really don’t like Europe and seem to be in a snit because crushing the Houthi threat to shipping will help Europe. The VP was upset that this would help Europe and that would be inconsistent with the President’s wishes. They want to extract some kind of remuneration from Europe. I really can’t see us staying in NATO.
The most disconcerting revelation is how disconnected the President is from things. After the story came out, Trump was asked for his reaction. He seemed clueless. Why wasn’t he immediately informed of the breach as soon as the story broke? A similar clueless reaction occurred after the story about Musk and the China war plan briefing broke. Initially I figured that the NYT got it wrong, but subsequent details indicate that such a briefing was indeed scheduled. Trump rightly thought that such a briefing to a businessman with strong ties to China was a terrible idea. Who scheduled that briefing in the first place? Hegseth? Who the hell is in charge in the White House?
TTG
An update on the war following a recent trip. The situation has improved compared with Fall 2024. Russian offensive momentum slowed significantly over the winter, though it is premature to claim that the front has stabilized, especially following AFU withdrawal in Kursk. Russian advances were stalled for three reasons: materiel exhaustion from losses in the fall, effective Ukrainian adaptation to how Russian forces were prosecuting offensive operations, and winter weather conditions which affected the pace of operations. This dynamic may not hold as we get further into the spring. Russian forces appear to be regrouping for renewed offensive operations. Ukrainian forces have improved tactically at countering how RF fight, employing UAS to compensate for a deficit of manpower at the front.
AFU is successfully attriting Russian forces at 0-30km through a combination of mining, drones, and traditional fires. This enables a low density of forces to hold the front. Russian units often don’t reach defensive positions and much of the equipment is lost in assaults. Ukraine invested in this approach last year by significantly expanding drone units such as Birds of Madyar, Lasar Group, Achilles, etc. It also invested in scaling up mine and drone production. Drone formations are the primary stabilizing factor along the front right now. Drones are responsible for over ~60% of the daily RF casualties at this point, and are the principal means of stopping attacks in combination with mining, and traditional artillery. Better integration has led to a more systemic approach at the tactical level.
Drones continue to expand their role as counters to other types of drones. There is a growing role for UGVs in logistical roles, and as part of breaching operations. Actual automation is slowly coming along with terminal guidance, uncrewed turrets, etc. Ukraine is now making much of what it needs for day-to-day combat needs, from mines to drones. But, it remains dependent on the West for long precision strike (GMLRS), interceptors for air defense systems, parts/maintenance, and other non-materiel forms of support. Ukraine received significant amounts of arty ammunition and equipment over the winter, and increased its own production of drones. Across much of the front there is relative parity in artillery fires and strike drones with some asymmetries in specific categories of systems.
The recent appointments of a new commanders, especially Drapatyi taking over both Land Forces and OSUV Khortytsia, has had positive effect on the morale of subordinate units. In May 2024 Drapatyi took over defense of Kharkiv on the second day, stabilizing the situation. Training reform is finally being tackled, and there are prospects for change under the new Land Forces commander, improving the quality of training, facilities, updating the content, replacing instructors, and tying training to actual combat needs.
A structural deficit of manpower continues to be Ukraine’s leading problem. Mobilization remains insufficient to address these challenges & the sizable absent without leave (AWOL) problem. The amnesty law has led some to return to units, but AWOLs continue to sap the force. Ukraine has thankfully suspended creating new brigades, reversing what was one of the more puzzling force management choices in 2024. And there is progress being made to stand up new Corps formations, which are closer to divisions, based on the AFU’s best brigades.
In recent months Russian forces have not advanced significantly near Pokrovsk, Chasiv Yar, Kupyansk. Much of the Russian progress has been around Velyka Novosilka, Kurakhove, and Kursk. However, in Kursk AFU has been forced to withdraw from most of the territory held. Recent Russian advances in Kursk were taking place well before the suspension of US military assistance/intelligence. The battlefield geometry of a salient was inherently unfavorable. Russian forces chipped away at Kursk until they could interdict the few resupply routes. DPRK assaults pressured Ukrainian lines, but the core problem was logistics as Russian fiber-optic FPV drones increasingly interdicted resupply routes. That said, AFU withdrew without major personnel losses, and the retrograde looked somewhat better than Avdiivka. Unfortunately, there will be significant equipment losses due to the withdrawal, and the vehicle loss ratio is going to at best be 1:1 over the course of the operation. But there was no mass encirclement at Kursk. I know most folks understand this, but it merits repeating.
Given the character of the fighting, territory changing hands is a lagging indicator for what’s happening between the two forces. Consequently, ‘gradually then suddenly’ transitions are going to be common when a set of positions become unsustainable.
In my view holding Kursk wasn’t doing much for Ukraine at this point. Trading it for something seemed an unlikely proposition. The offensive did not lead to a change in the overall dynamic in the war, or a large shift of RF forces from Pokrovsk/Kurakhove axes. I retain an overall mixed view of the Kursk offensive, and think it would have been best as a 1-2 week raid. That said, it also could have also gone a lot worse than it did. It was gamble that yielded initial tactical success, but ultimately didn’t pay off in my view.
Russian forces continue to suffer from low force quality, but also a general inability to overcome prepared defenses, backed by mass precision. The scale of attack, whether infantry, lightly motorized, or mechanized is typically insufficient to break through AFU positions. Over the course of 2023-2024 Russian forces had adapted emphasizing assault groups and detachments, essentially ‘majoring in the minors.’ These tactics yielded incremental gains, grinding through the front, but do not lead to operationally significant breakthroughs. For more on Russian military adaptation, assault groups, and why Russian forces ended up fighting the way they have been, you can check out this much longer report from 2024:
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/assessing-russian-military-adaptation-in-2023?lang=en
RF has been dealing with a degree of materiel exhaustion after high loss rates in the fall, but current RF contract rates continue to provide replacements and enable rotations. RF recruitment went up considerably in the second half of 2024. The bottom line is that despite the observed accelerated gains in the fall, the Russian military is visibly underperforming relative to its materiel advantages, and those gains were made at very high cost.
Though it is too early to assess if Ukraine is on track to stabilize the front, or if this is an intervening period, and Russian offensive intensity will resume later this spring, and into the summer. The front line is not about to collapse. Despite AFU being largely pressed out of Kursk, the overall situation from Pokrovsk to Kupyansk improved. The implication being that Ukraine is not in a desperate situation requiring a rushed ceasefire under unfavorable terms. Ukraine still has a chance to stabilize the front, if positive trends are sustained, manpower and force management issues addressed. UA and the West have to plan around the prospect that no ceasefire is imminent, or that in any case it will not lead to a durable peace.
https://x.com/KofmanMichael/status/1902694940485767451
Comment: I don’t have much to add to this analysis by Michael Kofman, a senior fellow and defense analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace… if it still exists. I do strongly recommend you read the linked article on “Assessing Russian military adaption in 2023.” It’s a detailed piece concentrating on Russia’s adaptions, but it also covers some of Ukraine’s adaptions over the years.
I think the key take away is that drones and EW are dramatically altering military organization, strategy and tactics for both offensive and defensive operations. Ukraine and Russia have learned these lessons the hard way, but they are now the worldwide leaders in how to wage war. We will see how fast the US, Europe and China can learn these lessons.
TTG
On a cold, blustery day in January, as bay advocates greeted one another in the General Assembly building in Richmond, I was reminded of the humanity sometimes lost in walking these halls and speaking with lawmakers about protecting our cherished Chesapeake Bay and its most important fish, the menhaden.
And for the third consecutive year a bill to fund a badly needed study of bay menhaden, as proposed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, has failed. After hundreds of phone calls, visits, letters and petitions signed by 25,000 concerned citizens, how can this be?
The health of the bay and menhaden in particular should be of concern to all because these little baitfish are the base of the bay’s food chain and critical for a healthy ecosystem. Striped bass, once our most valuable fishery, are particularly sensitive to declines in menhaden. As usual, we are up against powerful lobbyists, big political donations and misinformation that clouds so many of today’s issues.
Concerns about overharvesting have grown with recent research that shows osprey chicks in the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay are starving due to lack of menhaden. Often viewed as the “canary in the coal mine,” osprey are yet another red flag, and this finding is consistent with the observations of many who note a decline in menhaden over recent years. Menhaden are a vital public resource yet the public has little say in how they are managed.
This is impacting the recreational fishing economy in Virginia — for example, fishing charters, bait shops, marinas and tourism — as well as important commercial crabbing and fishing. The American menhaden bait industry, which supplies crabbers and fishermen along the coast, is also impacted because the vast majority of the coastal quota goes to Canadian-owned Omega Protein, which grinds them up for animal feed.
In Virginia, the epicenter of the East Coast menhaden harvest, the bait industry gets only 10% of the quota while the foreign company gets 90%. And since Virginia is the only East Coast state that still allows this fishing, our near-shore waters get hammered all summer long. If you frequent the bay, you have no doubt witnessed those big blue industrial fishing machines wreaking havoc.
Thousands have asked our government officials: Why are we allowing a foreign company to practice industrial scale fishing in the bay, the most important estuary on the East Coast and nursery to many fish, like striped bass? They are taking up to 112 million pounds annually with no understanding of the impact on the bay’s fragile ecosystem. And when we raise these issues to the industry, they are quick to respond “there is no science to support your concerns.”
Fishery regulators are hesitant to act because of a “lack of science,” which the industry constantly touts. Yet, the industry lobbies against funding for a scientific study, despite being involved in the design of the study two years ago. To add insult to injury, the industry refuses to share their detailed catch data with scientists who could use it to estimate menhaden health in the bay.
Are we risking the health of the bay’s ecosystem and economy so that a Canadian company can make higher profits? By allowing the lower-cost harvesting in the bay versus the ocean, the state is subsidizing the industry with absolutely no understanding of the impact.
This “Canada first” policy must end. Move industrial menhaden fishing out of the bay until science can show it is not causing harm. Perhaps then they will become a responsible company and support needed science.
Steve Atkinson is president of the Virginia saltwater sportfishing association. contact him at steveatkinson52@verizon.net.
. . .
Comment: This editorial caught my eye because I remembered a heartbreaking story in the paper last summer. This are has a large Osprey population. I often see them catching fish in the Rappahanock around Fredericksburg. Last spring we saw a record number of Osprey hatchlings along the river. That was happily heralded in the paper, but late last fall, there was a disquieting story about a large number of those Osprey hatchlings starving to death. It was due to a lack of Menhaden in the Rappahannock.
I’m happy to post this editorial by Steve Atkinson. Maybe it’ll reach the right person or people. Given that Canada is the perpetrator here, maybe our governor should get word to the White House. They’re supposed to be buddies. I also have two senators and a representative to contact. They’re all Democrats, so they probably don’t have much pull right now. But my former representative is still there and he’s still a huge proponent of the Bay and its wildlife. And he’s the right political party. Time to compose some emails.
TTG
The readout from the President’s press secretary:
Today, President Trump and President Putin spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace. They also stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia. The blood and treasure that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people.
This conflict should never have started and should have been ended long ago with sincere and good faith peace efforts. The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.
The leaders spoke broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts. They further discussed the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons and will engage with others to ensure the broadest possible application. The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel.
The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside. This includes enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability when peace has been achieved.
President Trump’s comment on Truth Social:
My phone conversation today with President Putin of Russia was a very good and productive one. We agreed to an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine. This War would have never started if I were President! Many elements of a Contract for Peace were discussed, including the fact that thousands of soldiers are being killed, and both President Putin and President Zelenskyy would like to see it end. That process is now in full force and effect, and we will, hopefully, for the sake of Humanity, get the job done!
The full statement from the Kremlin on the call:
“The leaders continued a detailed and frank exchange of views on the situation around Ukraine. Vladimir Putin expressed his gratitude to Donald Trump for seeking to promote the noble goal of ending hostilities and human losses.
Reaffirming his fundamental commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the Russian president declared his readiness to work together with American partners on a thorough examination of possible ways of a settlement, which should be comprehensive, sustainable, and long-term in nature. And, of course, take into account the unconditional need to eliminate the root causes of the crisis and Russia’s legitimate security interests.
In the context of the United States President’s initiative to introduce a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side has identified several essential points concerning effective control over a possible ceasefire along the entire line of contact, the need to halt forced mobilization in Ukraine and the rearmament of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The serious risks associated with the inability to negotiate on the part of the Kyiv regime, which has already repeatedly sabotaged and violated the agreements reached, have also been noted. Attention has been drawn to the barbaric crimes of a terrorist nature committed by Ukrainian militants against the civilian population of the Kursk region.
It was emphasized that the key condition for preventing the escalation of the conflict and working towards its resolution through political and diplomatic means should be the complete cessation of foreign military assistance and the provision of intelligence to Kyiv.
In connection with Donald Trump’s recent appeal to save the lives of Ukrainian servicemen surrounded in the Kursk region, Vladimir Putin confirmed that the Russian side is ready to be guided by humanitarian considerations and, in case of surrender, guarantees the life and decent treatment of AFU soldiers in accordance with Russian laws and norms of international law.
During the conversation, Donald Trump put forward a proposal for the parties to the conflict to mutually refuse to strike energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days. Vladimir Putin responded positively to this initiative and immediately gave the Russian military a corresponding command.
The Russian president also reacted constructively to the idea expressed by Donald Trump of implementing a well-known initiative concerning the safety of navigation in the waters of the Black Sea. It was agreed to start negotiations to further elaborate the specific details of such an arrangement.
Vladimir Putin said that on March 19, the Russian and Ukrainian sides would exchange prisoners – 175 for 175 people. In addition, 23 severely wounded Ukrainian servicemen who are undergoing treatment in Russian medical institutions will be handed over as a goodwill gesture.
The leaders confirmed their intention to continue efforts to achieve a Ukrainian settlement bilaterally, including taking into account the above-mentioned proposals by the US President. Russian and American expert groups are being set up for this purpose.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump touched upon other issues on the international agenda, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. Joint efforts will be made to stabilize the situation in crisis spots and establish cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security issues. This, in turn, will contribute to improving the overall atmosphere of US-Russian relations. One positive example is the solidarity vote in the UN on the resolution on the Ukrainian conflict.
Mutual interest was expressed in normalizing bilateral relations in light of the specific responsibility of Russia and the United States to ensure security and stability in the world. In this context, a wide range of areas was considered in which our countries could establish cooperation. A number of ideas were discussed, which are aimed at developing mutually beneficial cooperation in the economy and energy sector in the future.
Donald Trump supported Vladimir Putin’s idea to organize hockey matches in the United States and Russia between Russian and American players playing in the NHL and KHL.
The presidents agreed to remain in contact on all issues raised.”
Comment: The Kremlin readout is far more detailed than anything coming from Washington. It lays out the Russian position that a ceasefire will require far more details about how it would work along the entire line of contact. That’s an important and realistic point. A ceasefire will not come about at the mere declaration of a ceasefire. It also lays out the unrealistic conditions of a total cessation of Western military and intelligence aid to Ukraine and an end to Ukraine’s mobilization efforts before a ceasefire can be implemented. Trump desperately wants to be the peacemaker in this war, but I doubt he’s fooled by this. He probably knows Putin is interested in a victory, not a peace. He may not admit it, but he knows it.
Concerning the thirty day ceasefire, notice the different wording. Trump talks about a “ceasefire on all energy and infrastructure.” The Kremlin statement specified a ceasefire on energy infrastructure for thirty days, not on energy AND infrastructure. The Kremlin noted that Putin “immediately gave the Russian military a corresponding command.” I assume that means he doesn’t intend to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure. I believe this was an attempt to force Ukraine to pause her drone strikes on Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure. Those strikes must be having an effect on Russia’s economy and war effort. I doubt this effort to stop the attacks on Russian oil and gas targets will work unless Trump threatens to cut off intelligence and materiel support to Ukraine.
Both the White House spokesperson statement and Trump’s own comment paint a rosey picture of the situation. However, shortly after the phone call, Secretary of Treasury, Scott Bessent, talked about Trump’s instructions to him about sanctions. “And President Trump has instructed me that if we need to, we will go to a 10 with sanctions to bring president Putin to the table. But I’m optimistic that he will be able to get him to the table without increasing the sanctions. But all options are on the table to increase and go to maximum energy sanctions on Russia if needed.” Perhaps Trump does realize Putin is trying to play him, that Putin has no intentions on ending the war on anything other than his terms.
Trump is not Krasnov.
TTG
Sir Keir Starmer thrashed out plans for a western peacekeeping force of more than 10,000 troops for Ukraine yesterday at a virtual meeting of the “coalition of the willing”. Two minehunter ships, which were transferred from the Royal Navy to Ukraine’s fleet last year, are also taking part in training exercises, ready to be deployed to the Black Sea in the event of a ceasefire. They have been unable to enter during the war because the Bosphorus Strait has been closed.
Senior government sources said the prime minister has won the backing of “considerably more” than the three countries that originally offered to supply ground troops, though the bulk of the force is likely to come from Britain and France. “Things are quite advanced,” a senior government source said, refusing to provide more specific details of who will contribute what since it could “help Russia”. But the source added: “It will be a significant force with a significant number of countries providing troops and a much larger group contributing in other ways.”
A military source said the size of the final force would be “comfortably north of 10,000”. About 35 countries have agreed to supply weapons, logistical and intelligence support to the mission, which is described as a “tripwire force”. In the event of a ceasefire between Russian and Ukraine, it would deter Vladimir Putin from launching a fresh invasion.
After a conference call of 29 leaders yesterday, Starmer announced that military leaders from around the world will meet in London this week as plans for the multinational peacekeeping force move to an “operational phase”.
On Thursday, John Healey, the defence secretary, will meet military chiefs at the Permanent Joint Headquarters — the British tri-service headquarters in Northwood, northwest London, where all overseas military operations are planned and controlled. A senior official described the speed at which the peacekeeping force was being put together as “unprecedented” and said it was evidence that Anglo-French relations are at their closest since the two countries’ joint military intervention in Libya in 2011, which was designed to stop Colonel Gaddafi’s forces wiping out civilians.
At a press conference in Downing Street, Starmer said the “world needs action now” and “new commitments” had been made on peacekeeping and tightening sanctions on Russia during the call, which included the French president Emmanuel Macron and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. Rejecting Putin’s “yes, but” approach to a proposed ceasefire with Kyiv, the prime minister said the Russian president would have to negotiate “sooner or later”.
Starmer said: “Sooner or later Putin will have to come to the table. So this is the moment. Let the guns fall silent, let the barbaric attacks on Ukraine once and for all stop, and agree to a ceasefire now.” He added: “Now is the time to engage in discussion on a mechanism to manage and monitor a full ceasefire, and agree to serious negotiations towards not just a pause, but a lasting peace, backed by strong security arrangements through our coalition of the willing.”
Asked about what action a peacekeeping force could take, he said this would be a subject of discussion between military chiefs on Thursday. He said: “There are different capabilities from different countries, but those are the operational discussions that are going on in relation to what this coalition of the willing will be able to provide.” Among the other attendees at yesterday’s meeting were Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, who reportedly had been considering not joining the call due to scepticism about Anglo-French peacekeeping proposals. As well as European nations, the leaders of Australia, Canada and New Zealand joined the call, as did the Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte. The meeting followed an intense week of diplomacy in which American officials put a US-Ukraine proposal for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire to Russia.
But the Kremlin has so far resisted the proposal, saying it would only agree to a ceasefire if Ukraine also agreed to abandon its aim of joining Nato and gave up some of its territory to Russia. Speaking from the cabinet room in No 10 yesterday, Starmer told world leaders they could not “sit back and wait” for a ceasefire in Ukraine, adding: “We have to keep pushing ahead, pushing forward and preparing for peace, and a peace that will be secure and that will last.” Earlier in the day, Putin’s first prime minister, Mikhail Kasyanov, who now opposes the Russian president, said his former boss would not accept Nato or European troops being deployed to Ukraine, but might agree to soldiers from “friendly countries” such as India and Brazil.
Comment: I wonder if troops from any of those 29 countries in this coalition of the willing would be acceptable to Moscow. I doubt it. But any peace keeping force is a long way off. I think this whole exercise is more a show of solidarity with Ukraine than arranging a serious peacekeeping force. If it comes together and is deployed, by some miracle and/or act of collective courage, it will serve as a security guarantee to the Ukrainian people. As a matter of practicality, such a force should also keep an eye on Ukrainian long range missiles, drones and SOF to help assuage Russia’s fears. Will anyone do the same to protect Ukraine from Russian long range drones, missiles and SOF? I bet that won’t even be a consideration in the peace talks whenever they come about.
TTG
RSS