Token (non) Forces

I'll continue with yesterday's Boko Haram situation by looking at what is happening vs. the options I suggested for effective action.  From Time:

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the team “could provide expertise on intelligence, investigations and hostage negotiations, help facilitate information sharing and provide victim assistance. It would include U.S. military personnel, law-enforcement officials with expertise in investigations and hostage negotiations, as well as officials with expertise in other areas that may be helpful to the Nigerian government in its response.”

Not sounding promising; what else?

White House press secretary Jay Carney said President Obama and Kerry would discuss the ongoing effort to locate the girls in their meeting Tuesday afternoon.
“We are not considering at this point military resources,” Carney said, saying the military personnel being sent are to take on an advisory role for the Nigerian government.
“What I can tell you is that it is certainly Nigeria’s responsibility to maintain the safety and security of its citizens,” Carney added.

Emphasis mine.  The last point about Nigeria being responsible for its' citizens is of course correct, however dismally the government has discharged that responsibility.  I will state that unless things are more than they seem here, precious little will actually be accomplished toward the necessary goal of neutralizing these jihadist assholes.  Getting the girls back is morally imperative but a tactical (bandaid) action.  Smashing the Boko Haram organization (like AQ was smashed in Iraq, and AQIM has been smashed in Mali) is the strategic objective, and only "military resources" can achieve that.

Salafists/jihadists, what-have-you are vermin, and like vermin they can be managed but not exterminated.  There is little to stop the determined lone-wolf terrorist (Boston Marathon bombings as an example), but when they are roaming the countryside in large groups wearing stolen army uniforms with armoured vehicles, the threat has metastasized and requires serious bombs and drones-type action.

The drones are of course a modern tool, guys with infantry weapons and determination have and can still do the job without them. I guess Obama's team figures this gives them a fig leaf to hide behind and say "Look, we did something!", but that's all I see here.  Hostage rescue negotiators? Seriously?

In the slightly-less-useless category we have the ongoing Western response to events in Ukraine.  Canada has sent "several dozen" ground troops to Poland for exercises while six more CF-18s are bound for Romania.  It was confirmed that the planes will not be flying armed, BUT the Chief of Defence Staff was explicit about the weapons being available should the situation change from a "training" one.  That is already more ballsy than the American administration has been; the NATO commander is an American who knows what needs to be done so I won't blame their armed forces.

Things are hotting up in Ukraine and it's already a low-level civil war.  When it gets to the real deal the Russians will move in officially, and then we'll have an actual war to decide what to do about.  Ukraine has decided to fight, and if it comes to it I'm a bit conflicted on if we should help them directly or not.  Geopolitically it should be Europe's problem; that's way above my pay grade, moving into UN Chapter VII territory. 

Legion Etranger a louer?

The world (e.g. mainstream media) has finally figured out that Boko Haram is an unpleasant organisation.  Think of them as Al-Queda of the sub-Sahara and you get the idea; they've been running amok in Nigeria for a few years now, so everyone posting "Bring Back our Girls" to Facebook are both behind the times and useless to the actual situation.

As is my wont, I don't simply enumerate problems, I propose practical solutions.  Knee-jerk response is for Nigeria to get its' head out of its' ass and send the entire army on a search and destroy mission to wipe BH from the face of the earth.  Rank corruption and incompetence make that impractical or it would have happened already, so something else then.

The French have shown the way in Africa (Mali and most recently Central African Republic), and as un-PC as it is, it's 1st-World armies to solve 3rd-World problems.  In my world, if it's locals causing the problem, opposed locals should be able to solve it with minimal assistance.  People on Facebook seem to think this is America's responsibility, a default option with surprisingly racist undertones if you think about it.  Normal media racism is directed solely against whites (damn all that privilege!) but when you assume that Western armies are the only ones capable of dealing with African problems, that's a flat-out colonial attitude.  What's worse is that it's demonstrably true (Rwanda's RPF in 1994 an exception).

The key to an effective military is professionalism, something that the anarchy and crony despotism of most African states doesn't produce a lot of.  I'm reminded of a report I saw from the mess in South Sudan earlier this year.  In an army column sent to rout some rebels there was one young Sandhurst-trained Lt who appeared to know his business, but the rest of them were hopeless.  Individual platoon commanders led by crony generals don't get much done, however.

So Nigeria needs western troops to do the job right, but the West is broke, tired and overstretched, not likely to jump into things.  The necessary ingredients for a successful intervention are:

1. Competent, motivated troops;
2. Political will, and;
3. Money.  

"We" have 1, Nigeria has 3 (pay us in oil if need be), and as long as Nigeria has 2 as well, we can make something work.

I think this was the origin of "Hammer's Slammers" but using our trained volunteer troops as mercenaries is as close to an optimal solution to this problem as we are likely to see.  There is no shortage of type-A adrenalin junkies in Western armies to volunteer for a unit like this and putting an English-speaking international Brigade Group together is feasible, however unlikely it may be. 

Failing that, maybe it's time to bring "Mad" Mike Hoare out of retirement.  He's a bit past it of course, but he and the other Congo Mercenaries showed how it could be done.  Nigeria is unlikely to hire a bunch of primarily white mercs for this job, but I wonder how close we are to the point where the government and the populace will countenance anything that will get the job done?  As things stand, the government is the problem so I don't hold out much hope for improvement in the near term.

Update: the Yanks are sending people to help out at the request of the Nigerian government, so we'll see if they provide the nucleus of a force to wipe Boko Haram off the map. I'm willing to be surprised.

You can do everything with bayonets, except sit on them.

Always on the lookout for the plausible, I saw this and pass it to you with little editorial as it is educated speculation already.

Staunton, April 28 – Many in Russia and the West have speculated that the combination of Vladimir Putin’s policies against Ukraine, Moscow’s increasing isolation internationally, and deteriorating economic conditions at home will eventually lead to a Maidan-style challenge to his rule.

That is possible, of course, but a man identified as a former FSB officer and speaking on condition of anonymity suggests that there may be another and more immediate threat to the Kremlin leader: a coup by the siloviki [power ministers] and groups allied with them who believe that Putin’s policies are hurting not only the country but their personal interests.

“Everyone understands that there is simply no reason to fight with the entire world in the name of some absurd historical principles,” he says, adding that “everyone understands that the Soviet phobia of the FSB that the American enemy is close and will soon attack has lost its significance.”

Instead, he says, they recognize that “war in the 21st century more typically takes the form of economic blockades and information propaganda rather than guns and military technology.”

 A game changer if it comes to pass, with effects to be felt far beyond the current Ukraine mess.  The one thing I am almost certain of is that the Americans would manage to fumble even that magnitude of an opportunity to get Russia back into the world and working with us as they should be.

Proxy confidence building

At the time of my last post, there were two main paths events were likely to follow.  The first was Ukraine and NATO would remain completely supine and allow Putin to do what he wants, and under conditions existing at the time I weighted this course of (in)action at >50%.  The other option was the girding of loins, etc. to put troops in harm's way and tell the Russians that they have gone as far as they are going to go.  I wasn't confident this would happen, mostly due to irresolute Western leadership, and things haven't improved there as much as I'd like, but sometimes it doesn't take much to change conditions significantly.

Ukraine’s military launched assaults to retake rebel-held eastern towns on Thursday in which up to five people were reported killed, a move Russian President Vladimir Putin warned would have “consequences”. …
In Slavyansk, a flashpoint east Ukrainian town held by rebels since mid-April, armoured military vehicles drove past an abandoned roadblock in flames to take up position, AFP reporters saw.
Shots were heard as a helicopter flew overhead, and the pro-Kremlin rebels ordered all civilians out of the town hall to take up defensive positions inside.
“During the clashes, up to five terrorists were eliminated,” and three checkpoints destroyed, the interior ministry said in a statement. Regional medical authorities confirmed one death and one person wounded.
Earlier Thursday, Ukrainian special forces seized back control of the town hall in the southeastern port city of Mariupol with no casualties, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said. Separatist sources confirmed the loss of the building in the port city, whose population is 500,000.

The moral support which makes this possible is redeployment of NATO forces to Poland and the Baltic states.  The Americans didn't land the entire 101st in Estonia or anything, but like in Georgia in 2008, a tripwire of NATO troops tells the Russians that the rules have changed.  There were some Americans who were dismissive of the half-dozen CF-18s Canada deployed to Poland, but it's important to note two things.  First and foremost, the Poles were NOT dismissive of our small contribution. Second, even six obsolescent fighter bombers (and the Americans sent more) with modern smart munitions and the determination to use them are not to be lightly dismissed.

Would Canada commit those planes and crews to a shooting war?  Over Ukraine itself most likely not, but over an invasion/infringement of a NATO ally, most definitely, and that's what's important here.  The Poles in particular have both the experience to know what Russia is capable of and the determination to not let it happen again, so they're the right group to reinforce.  The Balts have motivation to keep the Russians out too, so they need and are getting some help.

Canada has played a leadership role in all of this, and we are putting what "money" we have where our mouth is, both with the (small) military contribution and now election monitors for the upcoming election in Ukraine.  There is some evidence that even the chary Europeans see the election verification as something sufficiently unprovocative to get behind.  At this point it must be obvious to everyone in NATO (looking at you, Germany) that they still need to be able to project military power, even if it's just next door or your own border, but again I await developments as do we all..

Here we go...

SLOVYANSK, Ukraine — Ukrainian special forces moved in Sunday to confront a separatist revolt in eastern Ukraine, engaging in gunfights with armed pro-Russian militants who had stormed a Ukrainian police station here. At least one officer died in the operation and several others were injured, along with four local residents, Ukrainian officials said.

The police station was one of several security centers in the eastern region of Donetsk seized on Saturday by unidentified masked gunmen in a series of coordinated raids that Ukrainian authorities denounced as Russian “aggression.”

This is the sort of thing that Putin or anyone else trying to make a move on contested territory will be prepared to take full advantage of.   The next few days will tell, but unless there is some serious moves to get NATO troops into Ukraine to counter the nearby Russian forces, it looks like the latter will go for it.  "Special forces" in this case means that numbers are still small and the Speznatz greatly outnumber anything the Ukraine can put in the field, so tit-for-tat fights like this will quickly swing Russia's way.

NATO commanders have been trying to get the politicians to take things seriously, but so far only the Poles are doing so, and they mostly in their own legitimate self-interest.  Were I the Ukraine right now, I'd mobilize everything on a full war/tactical footing and get dug in as advantageously as possible.  A stand up fight is the one thing the Russians don't want, as it destroys any semblance of "will of the people".  Watch and (hopefully don't) shoot.

Vimy Ridge and the perils of a land war in Eurasia

9 April marks the anniversary of the 1917 attack by the Canadian Corps on the German position atop Vimy Ridge in France.  This is held up as the battle which forged Canada as an independent nation, and that is certainly arguable.  What is also arguable is whether or not it was worth it.  Pierre Burton (spoiler alert) is of the opinion it was not, and the scale of the carnage makes this view compelling.

3598 soldiers of the Canadian Corps were killed and another c. 7000 wounded in a battle which was 90% over in one day, finished in three. For this reason (and that we did what the French and British armies had failed to do) Vimy should also be remembered in the hope that we can avoid it happening again.

Canada lost over 66.000 men in WWI and 45,000 in WWII, so some lessons were learnt, albeit at the expense of the Soviet soldiers who died in heaps fighting the bulk of German forces on the Eastern Front.  My take-away from all of this is "stay out of Europe", and current events are reinforcing that view.

Speaking of the Eastern Front, the Russian shenanigans are in play again in Eastern Ukraine, specifically the Donetsk/Kharkov area.  Hearkening back to my last post, my notional Putin Risk Matrix is looking more like Risk, the game.  An exaggeration of course, but the current government building take-overs and calls for referendums in Donetsk, etc. is exactly the same play as Crimea and shows no signs that the West's stern finger-wagging is in any way a deterrent.

I've heard some vague reports of Ukraine mobilizing some forces to take out the agitators occupying those facilities, and if so it's about time.  I'll not hold my breath, but it could happen.  My point here is that things could get messy, and in this case no-one outside of Ukraine cares enough (proven by lack of concrete, effective action) to start a war over it being carved up. As lethal as modern warfare can be, the Vimy casualties are comparable to US losses in Iraq over an eight year period, so whatever could happen in Ukraine (militarily) won't be WW magnitude.  That said, our tolerance for losses is not what it once (sort of) was so our bar for expenditure of blood is much lower. 

Prediction?  I'll go out on a limb based on available info and say there's another putsch in Donetsk.  Again, no warranty on that opinion is expressed or implied.  I will put money on no Western troops confronting the Russians over this, and hope that I'm right.  That's not because I wish any ill to the Ukrainians, but because if their cause isn't worth enough for them to bleed for it, our people shouldn't either.

  

Greater Eurasian Co-Prosperity Sphere

The trigger for me to reactivate this blog was the Crimea crisis, and that is not yet over at time of writing.  A number of people have been impressed by how PM Harper is sticking it to the Russians over this, but I don't see the value of it.  I'm pretty sure Putin realises that this posturing (authentic as the feelings may be) is political in nature, but it doesn't look to have made any difference on the ground whatsoever.

Putin continues to play his cards close to his vest and my appreciation of the Donetsk basin as the next potential flashpoint is still in play.  As the US tries to figure out what Putin plans, I will put out there what I suspect is happening in his head on this.

As stated previously, Russia needs Russians, and there are a lot of them in the eastern Ukraine.  That is the grand plan, recreation of as much of the Russian Empire as they can without getting in a (big) shooting war to do so.  Second factor, Putin has proven himself a highly adept geopolitical opportunist, which plays into the empire building as well as general manoeuvring.  When faced with such inept (America) and beholden (Europe) opposition as Russia is right now, Putin is king of the hill.

Canada is making a principled stand against the annexation of Crimea, but principles are cheap when you have no skin in the game.  Crimea is not going back to Ukraine barring force majure and that's not happening.  It didn't work so well last time either.

My question is whether the Kremlin's threat assessment of international action in case of "assistance" to Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians comes up plus or minus.  If Putin gains more than he loses, he'll probably go for it.  The sanctions we can/will bring to bear are limited in effect on a country as large and endowed with resources as Russia.  Equally important, the Chinese and the Indians, as well as most of Central Asia will continue to trade and otherwise work with Russia, China more so if it discomfits the US.

It has also been said that Ukraine had better show some willingness to fight for its' territory, and I think this an excellent point.  Russia would beat them handily, but just because you will probably lose isn't sufficient reason to not fight in this case.  What does get drowned out in all of this is the political/social mess that Ukraine is, so I have no real faith in their ability to put an effective military force in the field even if they are inclined to do so.

 At this point I think military force is the only credible deterrent to Putin, and even then only when it will actually be used.  An armed, contested invasion of Ukraine is an undeniable act of war and contravention of international law, and that was enough to get people to defend Kuwait 24 years ago.  Ukraine doesn't have the oil of Kuwait, but it does occupy a strategic buffer position in Eurasia, so you'd think the Europeans might take some issue with carving it up.

I suspect that most Europeans consider Ukraine not worth the bones of a single Swabian Panzer Grenadier, so it's up to the Poles and other border countries to stand up and conduct some "exercises" of their own in Ukraine.  An attack on the troops of a NATO member would force NATO to act, and forcing NATO to act is in the "minus" column for Putin.  As a side note, if NATO isn't prepared to act to counter Russian territorial aggrandizement, it might as well pack it in, as that's what it was set up to do!

Putin could over-reach himself, but under current conditions taking the Russian-majority areas of east Ukraine wouldn't be stretching too far, so consider that.   I think the decision on what to do will come in the next few days, and will depend heavily on what the US does.  On past performance, I'll bet on Putin having effectively a free hand, whatever that portends.