* This is an archive of my own online blog and notes, with weekly entries collected by month.
* THE WEEK THAT WAS: When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, he promoted a new economic order that became known as "Reaganomics", based on the dual premises of cutting taxes and shrinking government. As discussed in a video from REUTERS.com, current US President Joe Biden has a counterpoint to Reaganomics, called of course "Bidenomics". Biden explains it as follows:
QUOTE:
First, making smart investments in America. Second, educating and empowering American workers to grow the middle class. And third, promoting competition to lower cost to help small businesses,
END_QUOTE
Bidenomics is a rejection of Reaganomics, with the Biden Administration seeking to fund its agenda by taxing the wealthy, resulting in an economy that grows from the "middle out, the bottom up, instead of just the top down -- when that happens, everybody does well."
Biden wants to boost priority industries, such as chip making, clean energy, and electric cars. The goal is to revive US manufacturing and put US workers first: "Made in America -- not a slogan, it's actually happening!" Add to that, as discussed here in week 22, a careful approach to international trade through "securonomics" and "friendsourcing".
Any such economic initiative will take time to show clearly visible results, with Americans unhappy about high inflation. Biden says that US growth rates are excellent and employment is high. For now, only a minority of Americans are buying the Bidenomics story -- but economies go in cycles, inflation is steadily dropping, and it's a fair bet that the economy will be on the upswing in 2024.
* Regarding the rebellion of the Russian Wagner mercenary force discussed here last week, one "Yasmina (@yasminalombaert)" outlined just how foolish Putin has been:
QUOTE:
Putin regime:
1: Allowed a criminal to organize an illegal private army.
2: Allowed the recruiting of drug addicts, murderers, & pedophiles into this army.
3: Supplied this gang with weapons.
4: Pumped tens of billions from the state budget into this gang.
5: Praised this gang on TV.
6: Advertised this gang at every turn.
7: Rewarded the leaders of this gang.
8: Released killers and pedophiles from this gang to freedom.
9: Persecuted those who criticized this gang.
10. Turned a blind eye to public executions.
And when the gang, brutalized by weapons, money, blood and impunity, rebelled, the Putin regime blamed the West for everything, and declared itself the savior of Russia.
END_QUOTE
* That result is exactly what might be expected of Putin: having gone down a one-way dead-end street, Putin has nowhere left to go. As discussed in an essay from ECONOMIST.com by China commenter "Chaguan", Chinese President Xi Jinping doesn't see any reason to change direction either. According to Chaguan, Beijing doesn't see that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a disastrous blunder:
QUOTE:
Even as Russian troops and mercenaries commit atrocities in Ukraine, China's diplomats and propagandists have stuck to an unvarying script: namely, that the war is the fault of the West, which pushed Russia into a corner by expanding the NATO alliance, and is being prolonged with weapons supplied for the profit of American arms dealers. They have hewed to those pro-Russian talking points even as they undermine China's image in many Western capitals, notably in Europe.
END_QUOTE
Xi has emphasized his close relationship with Putin. The Chinese are annoyed with Putin for his incompetence, but:
QUOTE:
... if outsiders expect to hear Chinese leaders fretting openly about backing a loser, they fail to grasp the nature of the two leaders' bond. The rulers of China and Russia are united, powerfully, by contempt for the West and its liberal, democratic norms. Their words reveal a shared conviction that an older, bleaker world order -- based on balancing the interests of individual states, with special deference paid to great powers -- is coming back. Each country brings very different tools and techniques to that fight. In China, officials and scholars agree, semi-publicly, that Russia can be a reckless and sometimes alarming friend. But they also call this struggle for dominance a long one. What matters is that the West should be driven from the global center-stage in the end.
END_QUOTE
Chinese media provided relatively unfiltered reports about the Wagner rebellion to the public -- suggesting that Beijing is either giving itself wiggle room, or just doesn't see it as a serious issue. Indeed, Xi can take encouragement from the facts that the People's Liberation Army is strictly obedient to Beijing, and that Chinese leadership would never permit the rise of an alternate military force that could be disloyal. Beijing doesn't see Putin as a loser, just a wayward student in need of wise counsel from China:
QUOTE:
Stability-obsessed China might sound an unlikely supporter of Mr, Putin's reckless, murderous adventure in Ukraine ... but China's goals are larger than this conflict. If the war drags on and if the endgame finds the West weary, divided, and weakened -- as China still hopes will happen -- party leaders in Beijing will forgive a bit of Russian chaos on the way. In the meantime, PLA commanders can expect fresh lectures about absolute loyalty to Mr. Xi.
END_QUOTE
The problem for Xi is that he is betting on an endgame that isn't going to happen. Where will China be if Russia suffers total defeat in Ukraine, and Putin's regime then collapses into chaos? It will be hard for Xi to then deny that he might have indeed made a big mistake, leaving him at a loss to deal with the consequences.
* Environmental advocates took notice of an innovation from South Korea, in which the cities of Daejong and Sejong put 32 kilometers (20 miles) of solar panels in the median of a freeway. On top of that, they ran a two-lane bike path underneath the solar panels, with underground interchanges to allow bike riders to get into and off of the path. Bike riders have mixed feelings about the idea, wondering just how enjoyable it would be to ride a bike along the pathway. Of course, bike riders could concentrate on speed and not worry about the scenery.
* As discussed in a release from the Biophysical Society ("Harnessing Plant Molecules To Improve the Efficiency of Solar Panels", 22 February 2023), current photovoltaic (PV) cell technology is based on solid-state physics. Lahari Sada -- a researcher at the University of Maryland -- is investigating an alternate approach, using biomolecules such as chlorophyll to come up with PV panels that are, in potential, cheaper, easier to recycle, and more efficient.
The approach involves leveraging off the fluorescence of biomolecules. Sada explains: "Any sort of molecule that fluoresces, gives off light. If we excite [such a fluorescent molecule], it can transfer its energy to metal nanoparticles, and if the particles are close enough to each other, they will knock off electrons and generate current." Sada adds that the molecules don't necessarily have to be fluorescent, they just have to have high absorption of light -- examples being chlorophyll, beta carotene, or lutein. Each of these is relatively inexpensive and easy to derive from plants.
The research is in an early phase, but for the moment it seems promising. It even may be possible to come up with a "designer molecule" that can be synthesized in bulk cheaply and optimize its properties. However, there's a long way to go before we get there, if we ever do.
BACK_TO_TOP* THE WEEK THAT WAS: As discussed in an article from MSNBC.com ("Trump-Appointed Judge Restricts Officials' Contact With Social Media Giants" by Steve Benen, 5 July 2023), on the 4th of July, a Federal judge blocked key Biden administration agencies and officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about "protected speech".
The judgement was in response to a Federal lawsuit pressed by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri. The lawsuit challenged government officials engaging in outreach to social media companies, encouraging them to act responsibly. For example, officials asked companies such as Twitter and Facebook not to allow promotion of vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic.
Judge Terry Doughty hadn't come up with a full decision on the 4th of July, with the judgement instead being a preliminary injunction, restricting government agencies -- from the White House to the Department of Health and Human Services to the FBI -- from talking to social media companies for "the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." He believed that the Biden Administration was targeting commentary from the Right. The target was actually disinformation; it just so happens that the Right is fond of spreading disinformation.
The injunction didn't simply target communications concerning public health, THE NEW YORK TIMES adding in a report that that Federal agencies and tech giants "have long worked together to take action against illegal or harmful material, especially in cases involving child sexual abuse, human trafficking and other criminal activity. That has also included regular meetings to share information on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups."
Such communications are nothing new, having taken place in the Trump and Obama Administrations as well. This is not Doughty's first wild shot at the Biden Administration; he had "previously blocked the Biden Administration's national vaccination mandate for health care workers and overturned its ban on new federal leases for oil and gas drilling." Blogger Kevin Drum commented:
QUOTE:
As recently as a few years ago, this case would have been dismissed with extreme prejudice and the lawyers told they'd be held in contempt if they ever wasted the court's time again with stuff like this. Today it produces a bizarre injunction against half a dozen agencies -- The entire Census Bureau! All of the CDC! The Surgeon General! -- along with several dozen named Biden officials, prohibiting them from entirely voluntary interactions with a specific set of 21 social media platforms plus "like companies".
END_QUOTE
The judgement is so unrealistic and unenforceable that it might simply be ignored, but it is likely to be appealed -- and then shot down by the appeals court, hopefully with prejudice.
* In other news of Right-wing lunacy, according to an article from REUTERS.com ("Swing State Republicans Bleed Donors And Cash Over Trump's False Election Claims" by Tim Reid and Nathan Layne, 5 July 2023), long-time Republican donors in swing states are getting fed up with state GOP party officials pushing Donald Trump's fraudulent claim that he was cheated out of the 2020 election.
Real estate mogul Ron Weiser, for example, has been a big donor to the Michigan Republican Party, and was even a chair of the party for a time. Now he's disgusted with Trump-driven lies about the election, calling them "ludicrous", and is halting his funding. Weiser said: "I question whether the state party has the necessary expertise to spend the money well."
He's not the only donor in battleground states to reconsider his support, with others in places like Michigan and Arizona deciding to halt funding as well. Both the Michigan and Arizona parties are now suffering from funding shortfalls, having "astonishingly low cash reserves," as one observer put it. Part of the shortfalls were in part due to legal fees incurred in futile election challenges by the party organizations. Backing Trump-aligned candidates who were slaughtered at the ballot box didn't help their credibility either.
"It's too bad we let the Right wing of our party take over the operations," said Jim Click, whose family has been a longtime major Republican donor in Arizona. He and other donors said they would give money directly to candidates or support them through other political fundraising groups.
The Republican parties of some swing states are doing much better. In addition, state parties don't rely solely on individual donors, they also receive money from national party organizations, outside groups, and political action committees. Nonetheless, it is not hard to see that efforts to back Donald Trump as his legal worries pile up are not promising of success in 2024. Trump barely won in 2016, lost handily in 2020, and shows no signs of being in better shape in 2024. Unfortunately for the GOP, the MAGA extreme is heavily entrenched in the party; MAGA has no future, but it's hard to see what happens to the GOP as it goes down.
* As discussed in an article from JANES.com ("Lockheed Martin Reveals Work On New JAGM Variants" by Andrew White, 13 September 2022), the US military has obtained a follow-on to the venerable AGM-114 Hellfire missile, the multi-service "AGM-179 Joint Air To Ground Missile (JAGM)". The program that would lead to JAGM was begun in 2002, originally to develop the "AGM-169 Joint Common Missile (JCM)" -- but JCM went off track, to be canceled in 2007 and resurrected as JAGM. JAGM is only now going into service.
JAGM, at 49 kilograms (108 pounds), is a follow-on to the semi-active laser (SAL) guided AGM-114R Hellfire II AKA Hellfire Romeo and the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire, guided by a millimeter-wave (MMW) radar system from the launch platform. It is effectively an improved Romeo Hellfire, with a dual SAL and MMW seeker. Now Lockheed Martin is working on "JAGM-MR" -- "medium range" -- which will have greater range and more sensor options than the original JAGM. Initial all-up flight tests were in late 2022. Along with JAGM-MR, Lockheed Martin is also considering a "JAGM-ER" -- "extended range" -- variant, along with maritime and "short-range air defense (SHORAD)" variants.
* As discussed in an article from THEDRIVE.com ("Is Ukraine Using Old S-200 SAMs In The Land-Attack Role?" by Thomas Newdick, 10 July 2023), the Russians have released a video showing the impact of what clearly seems to be an antique S-200 surface-to-air missile (SAM) -- which was given the NATO reporting name of "SA-5 Gammon" -- diving into a target in Russia Bryansk Oblast, bordering on Ukraine. The Russians have reported other attacks with what appears to be the S-200, and say they have shot a number of them down.
The S-200 was introduced into service in the late 1960s, being fired from fixed sites to take on high-flying intruders. It was launched using four solid-rocket boosters that then dropped off, the missile then flying using a liquid-fuel rocket motor driven by storable propellants -- which, as a class, were notorious for being toxic, corrosive, and spontaneously igniting when mixed together. The S-200 was a big missile, about 10.7 meters (35 feet) long, with a 215-kilogram (480-pound) fragmentation warhead, and a range against aerial targets of about 300 kilometers (185 miles).
Ukraine has old S-200 batteries in service, and it seems stockpiles of old S-200s, which could be augmented by missiles from other ex-East Bloc nations. The long range and big warhead of the S-200 would make it an attractive weapon for ground attack, if fitted with a GPS-INS guidance system and possibly a more optimized warhead. It is, of course, possible that S-200s have been actually used as SAMs, to miss their targets and fall to earth. Of course, Russian reports are never to be trusted; the Ukrainians are not talking, but they are known to have used old Tupolev Tu-141 drones as cruise missiles, so the idea of using S-200s for ground attack is not ridiculous.
* According to an article from REUTERS.com ("Canadian Farmer's Thumbs-Up Emoji Leads To $62,000 Fine" by Ismail Shakil, 7 July 2023), a Canadian farmer who replied to an image of a contract to buy a crop of flax with a "thumbs-up" emoji has been ordered to pay more than $82,000 CD ($61,750 USD) in damages for non-delivery of the flax.
Chris Achter, the owner of a farming company in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, got the contract from South West Terminal (SWT), a grains buyer in 2021, and replied with the emoji. SWT never got the flax and sued Achter, who replied that the emoji just indicated he'd seen the contract. That was lame; in any case, an intensive search for legal precedents suggested the thumbs-up emoji indicated acceptance.
Saskatchewan Judge T.J. Keene said: "I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Chris okayed or approved the contract just like he had done before except this time he used a thumbs-up emoji. In my opinion the signature requirement was met by the thumbs-up emoji originating from Chris and his unique cell phone."
BACK_TO_TOP* THE WEEK THAT WAS: As discussed in an article from ECONOMIST.com ("The American Left And Right Loathe Each Other And Agree On A Lot", 13 July 2023), a recent book by a sitting US senator blasted the "neoliberalism" that came in the wake of Ronald Reagan, saying it led to a "free-market fundamentalism" that was not really in America's interests. The book proposed three solutions: "putting Wall Street in its place", bringing "critical industries back to America" and resurrecting "an obligation to rebuild America's workforce".
This sounds like the words of Bernie Sanders, but it's actually from DECADES OF DECADENCE by Marco Rubio. Although the culture wars consume the USA, there's actually some common thinking on economic policy:
QUOTE:
The diagnoses from the new Right and new Left of what ails America are strikingly similar. Both sides agree that the old order that prized expertise, free markets and free trade -- "neoliberalism", usually invoked as a pejorative -- was a rotten deal for America. Corporations were too immoral; elites too feckless; globalization too costly; inequality too unchecked; the invisible hand too prone to error.
END_QUOTE
Both sides agree that the state must take charge, using tariffs and industrial policy to boost favored industries, coupled to redistribution to cut the big corporations down to size. American Compass, a think-tank leading the charge on the Right, recently released an anthology of policy essays called "REBUILDING AMERICAN CAPITALISM: A Handbook for Conservative Policymakers" that took an axe to Republican sacred cows:
QUOTE:
Trade deficits are obsessed over; Federal budget deficits are hardly mentioned. Child benefits for parents should be made much more generous, as Democrats suggest, though only on the condition that parents work. Financial engineering should be resisted, with share buy-backs banned. Organized labor is to be encouraged rather than being dismissed as a hindrance.
END_QUOTE
That sounds like a straightforward Left-wing agenda, but maybe things have changed. Thomas Piketty, the famous French economist who has made a career of taking on inequality, says: "Beginning with the 2008 financial crisis, we've seen the beginning of the end of this sort of neoliberal euphoria and the pandemic accelerated this transformation."
Piketty finds much to like in the Biden Administration's economic policies, but wants them to go farther. He calls for a return to the high marginal tax rates on income in effect during the mid-century postwar years, as well as a new steeply progressive wealth tax to redistribute wealth. Joe Biden really wants to raise taxes on the ultra-rich -- with plenty of public support for that goal as the Elon Musks of the world publicly demonstrate their arrogance and foolishness -- but Republicans are not keen on that idea.
Indeed, just how far does this convergence on economic thinking really go, as long as the Republicans are stuck with the culture wars as the basis for their policy? Lunacy has become normal to them; efforts to be constructive have disappeared from public view. Battles over reproductive rights and trans rights go nowhere, except to ultimate Republican defeat. The Republicans are facing political disaster in the 2024 elections -- and should it come to pass, will have no one to blame but themselves. How the confused and toxic agenda of the Right will sort itself out after that is impossible to say.
* In another article from ECONOMIST.com ("The New Asian Family", 8 July 2023), at one time the leaders of East and South-East Asian countries were fond of promoting "Asian values" of disciplined government and tight family life. The notion that these governments were more disciplined than their Western counterparts went out the window after the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Now the story of the primacy of the Asian family is fading out as well.
In China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, millions of young people are opting for looser, often isolated, and less male-dominated arrangements. In a region with over a fifth of humanity, the socioeconomic and demographic consequences will be far-reaching and potentially destabilizing:
QUOTE:
In Japan, where the shift first became evident, married couples with at least one child accounted for 42% of households in 1980, and single people 20%. That has flipped. In 2020 couples with children accounted for 25% of households, and singletons 38%. And the decline is continuing. Last year [2022] 17% of Japanese men and 15% of women aged 18:34 said they would not marry, up from 2% and 4% in the early 1980s, and China recorded its lowest-ever number of marriages, half as many as a decade ago.
END_QUOTE
This trend follows that of Europe. Between 1960 and 2010 Europe's marriage rate fell by half, with the same forces in action: families became economically burdensome, with steadily inflated housing costs being a particular problem, and male-dominated family structures increasingly anachronistic:
QUOTE:
Alternative domestic arrangements are becoming more accepted; besides singledom, they include intergenerational flat-sharing and, less often, cohabiting and gay partnerships. And growing numbers of middle-class women are putting off marriage to concentrate on their careers.
END_QUOTE
Women concentrating on their careers in the region are faced with an uphill slog, forced to work harder to achieve less than their male counterparts. Add to this the East Asian distaste for single motherhood, and the result is collapsing fertility rates:
QUOTE:
South Korea's, at 0.78, is the lowest recorded anywhere and Taiwan's only slightly higher. Japan's and China's are just above half the replacement rate. China's cruel one-child policy, now replaced by panicked officials with calls to have three, exacerbated its demographic squeeze. But as the regional picture shows, it would have happened anyway. The total population of the four East Asian countries is predicted to shrink by 28% between 2020 and 2075.
END_QUOTE
Governments there won't encourage immigration to ease the shortfall, instead provide perks for getting married. That approach has clearly failed. Governments have shown little taste for supporting alternative lifestyles, such as gay marriage and adoption -- Taiwan being an exception, having both of them. Governments need to rethink policies:
QUOTE:
To make family life more attractive, they need to deal with its gender imbalances as well as its costs by, for example, making paternity leave routine. They should look beyond heterosexual marriage, as their citizens have, and extend legal recognition to cohabiting, gay and other non-traditional arrangements -- and afford them the support married couples now enjoy, especially over child-rearing. It is self-defeating and outrageous that China prevents single women from freezing their eggs, or that Japan makes it nearly impossible for gay couples to foster children.
END_QUOTE
How much of an impact on demographics such changes might have is not clear. What is clear is that they would reflect the will of the citizens. The governments may not like facing reality, but they cannot live in a fantasy world any more.
BACK_TO_TOP* THE WEEK THAT WAS: The race towards the 2024 election is picking up, with Joe Biden energetically promoting "Bidenomics", while Donald Trump promotes any bonkers idea that comes into his head. There is certainly good reason to dread the prospect of Trump being re-elected, but there's not so much reason to actually fear it. Trump had the weakest win in 2016, lost handily in 2020 -- like he'll be in a stronger position in 2024, as the indictments pile up? The MAGA faithful circle their wagons around him, but nobody with at least half a brain and any conscience will vote for Trump in 2024. [ED: Unfortunately, 77 million Americans didn't have either.]
Joe Biden seems on a roll. Michael A. Cohen, writing for MSNBC, had fun with the "silly season" that inevitably occurs early in a presidential race:
QUOTE:
First, there was the Robert F. Kennedy JR boomlet, pushed along by polls that showed the political neophyte winning up to 20% of the Democratic primary vote. What followed was a series of splashy profiles and a feeding frenzy so intense that political reporters were turned away from accompanying him to campaign events. A month later, the bottom has fallen out. A recent poll of New Hampshire Democrats shows Kennedy with a favorability rate of 9% and unfavorability rate of 69%. Those are "Vladimir Putin in Ukraine" numbers.
Odd as it might seem, a candidate who praises Donald Trump, promotes insane conspiracy theories, and takes positions more popular with Republicans is not faring well among rank-and-file Democratic voters. More significantly, there has been the usual Democratic hand-wringing over Joe Biden's prospects for re-election, CNN saying that Biden's re-election effort "lacks energy", adding that "multiple big donors aren't locking in" and "grassroots emails are sometimes bringing in just a few thousand dollars."
Days later, the Biden team reported that the president had raised $72 million USD for the second quarter of 2023 -- with $77 million USD in cash on hand. That total was more than double former President Trump's fundraising haul for the same period. And, whatever you want to say about Biden, a new internet ad featuring an unintended endorsement of his legislative accomplishments from House Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests that his trolling / social media / political advertising game remains formidable.
Then came the quadrennial fantasy about a third-party presidential candidate. The latest incarnation comes courtesy of "No Labels", a group of centrists who have convinced themselves that a third-party bid could upend the two-party system and seriously compete in a national election. Never mind that third-party candidates consistently underperform the closer it gets to Election Day, or that this deeply polarized political era -- where partisan identity is the greatest predictor of voting -- is possibly the worst time to run as a third-party candidate.
Nonetheless, some Democrats have gotten themselves in a lather about the possibility that a No Labels candidate could take votes away from Biden and elect Trump. Of course, as the old saw goes, you can't beat something with nothing. No Labels seems to be pegging their hopes on West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who, aside from being deeply unpopular in his home state, is thoroughly disliked elsewhere. The chances that the attention-starved but politically calculating Manchin will run or have a serious impact on the outcome next November are close to nil -- but it makes for a good story.
If political reporters really want to give their audience a sense of what the electorate is thinking, they should point to this week's special election in Wisconsin's 24th Assembly District, where Republican Paul Melotik defeated Democrat Bob Tatterson. That might sound like good news for the GOP, but Melotik won by only 7 points in a district that Donald Trump won by 17 points in 2020. Tatterson even outperformed Democratic Governor Tony Evers, who lost the district by 13 points on his way to re-election in 2022.
Democratic strength in special elections has become a consistent trend this year. According to the folks at DAILY KOS ELECTIONS, who have put together a handy spreadsheet of special election results so far in 2023:
These numbers do not even take into account the results of a May Supreme Court election in Wisconsin, in which the Democratic candidate running on an unambiguously abortion-rights platform trounced her Republican opponent by 11 points, in the same state that Biden won by less than a point.
END_QUOTE
In the meantime, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has been attempting to promote himself as a presidential alternative to Trump for the GOP, is sinking into a bottomless hole. He was heavily promoted by FOX for a long time, but FOX has largely abandoned him, the mainstream media is laughing at him, his campaign is running out of money, and he's going nowhere in the polls.
In a recent interview, DeSantis denounced "post-birth abortions" -- a fantastical lie concocted by the no-choice gang.
* The US HIMARS multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS) has been a huge asset in Ukraine's war against Russian invaders. Along with the Americans, the Turks have been major arms suppliers to Ukraine -- and now they are providing their answer to HIMARS -- the TRLG-230 missile system. Each rocket has a diameter of 23 centimeters (9 inches), a weight of 210 kilograms (465 pounds), and a maximum range of 70 kilometers (43 miles). The warhead has a weight of 42 kilograms (93 pounds), and features an explosive charge scattering with steel balls.
The missiles have GPS-inertial midcourse guidance and laser-seeking terminal guidance, to permit precision strikes using targeting by a drone. The baseline launcher for the TRLG-230 missile is a four-axle truck. It can carry two "sixpacks" of missiles, for a total of 12 missiles.
The TRLG-230 was preceded in service by the TRLG-122, which is similar in general configuration but is much smaller, with a diameter of 12.2 centimeters (4.8 inches), a weight of 76 kilograms (168 pounds) -- including a 13.5-kilogram (30-pound) warhead -- and a maximum range of 30 kilometers (19 miles). There are 20 rockets in each launch pod. Both rockets are successors to the earlier TRG series rockets.
BACK_TO_TOP* THE WEEK THAT WAS: Since spring, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) have been conducting a grinding offensive against Russian invaders. It's made slow progress, though movement seems to be increasing now. In late May, a Twitter poster known as "NoelReports" spoke with retired US Army General Mark Hertling, who provided a balanced view of events, with the narrative edited down a bit [and a few additional comments sneaked in]:
QUOTE:
NR: The offensive has been going on for more than 1,5 months now, what do you think of the current progress of the Ukrainian Army?
MH: Truthfully, the current progress is about what I expected. It is also what I predicted back in February, as we all saw increasing evidence of Russia's shift toward massive preparation of defensive positions in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts. We also have to consider a couple of other factors. The Russians have shifted from offensive to defensive operations -- defense is much easier to execute -- and they also began incorporating some lessons from the failed initial invasion. While their leadership remained dysfunctional, and their ability to conduct maneuver warfare hadn't improved, they did incorporate much more electronic warfare capabilities, proper placement of air defense, and viable security zones.
The AFU also had some additional challenges. Their forces were accepting and incorporating myriad new equipment, of all types, and with that comes an increased challenge to logistics and maintenance. They also began preparing for large scale offensive operations -- training in a variety of other countries outside of Ukraine, conducting massive counter-artillery fights, mobilization of new troops, and a very much expanded air defense fight. From a commander's perspective, those are all overwhelming requirements for a force that has never been faced with those kinds of challenges before. Especially difficult was the execution of combined arms maneuver at the large unit level. That is exceedingly tough for a force that never did it before.
Throughout my Army career, I alternated assignments between operational and training units. During my time at the major US training centers in both California and Grafenwoehr Germany, I saw many brigade-sized units -- 5000:10,000-soldier organizations -- attempt to conduct offensive operations against prepared defensive positions. Those are always the most difficult kinds of missions, and militaries always approach them thinking they will succeed more easily than they do. Ukraine is doing that with a much larger force, over a much larger area, against an enemy that has been preparing for the attack for over half a year. Many would like it to go much faster than it's going. Personally, I don't know how that could have been possible. For that reason, I think the AFU is doing the best that can be expected in a tough mission against a prepared enemy.
NR: The AFU seems to be struggling to get through the minefields that have been halting their advance quite a bit so far in the south. Did the West underestimate how much demining equipment Ukraine needed and focus too much on tanks and combat vehicles?
MH: I wouldn't say Ukraine is "struggling." Rather, I'd say their tempo of operations is slowed because of the conditions they are facing. And those conditions are extremely tough. Whenever any army, even the inept Russian Army, is given months to prepare against anticipated offensive operations, their defensive positions -- minefields, trenches, dragon teeth, and all the other hindrances to maneuver -- are going to be formidable. That's especially true with the Russian Army, because anyone who has studied their capabilities [also knows they make good use of mine-laying equipment, artillery-delivered mines, and trenchworks.]
As to the question of not enough focus on demining gear, that's not a simple issue. Demining is performed by armored vehicles fitted with plows and rollers, along with "Mine Clearing Line Charges (MICLICs)" and other overpressure explosive devices that clear lanes for vehicles to pass through. There's a mix of equipment involved, and trying to get enough of it from limited stocks is a challenge.
NR: We see that Russia still has a large presence of combat aircraft and combat helicopters. Can the AFU really attempt to break through defensive positions without adequate air support? And what does that say about Ukraine obtaining F-16 fighter jets?
MH: Yes, Russia has a large contingent of fixed and rotary wing aircraft. However, Russia has mostly failed to employ those aircraft on the Ukrainian side of the "Forward Line of Troops (FLOT)". Russian pilots are poorly trained, their air-ground coordination is almost non-existent, and the delivery of great quantities of air defense equipment to the AFU by their allies -- including infantry-portable (MANPADS), short range air defense (SHORAD), and more recently high-&-mid-range air defense (HIMAD) missiles -- has kept Russian combat aircraft out of Ukrainian skies. They can't get air superiority; they barely have air parity, in my view -- against a Ukrainian Air Force that is constrained, on its part, by dense Russian air defenses.
As for F-16s and other Western aircraft, delivering them to Ukraine will not, in itself, make Ukraine's air force capable of doing the kinds of things most uninitiated believe they can do immediately. The US has practiced joint (different services), combined (different branches within a service), and logistic operations that support air-ground coordination for years. It's easy for those who lack experience in these areas to say: "Just give them the F-16s, because the US would never try to do this without air support." While that seems true, it takes years to get to the kind of long-range targeting and associated strikes, air-ground coordination and aircraft technical support capability that are all required in a modern air force.
Add to that, Russian air defense capability, especially the S400, and their EW is good and plentiful. Any delivery of modern aircraft requires more than just pilot training; it requires logistics, maintainers, joint training in air-ground coordination, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), and a variety of other factors that make any air force effective.
I know there are many who say the US is too slow in delivering F16s. It may surprise many that I'm in the camp that support Ukraine eventually getting F16s -- and the associated maintenance training, logistics, the weapons associated with these aircraft, and the other systems that will contribute to their effectiveness on the battlefield. However, I believe the priority for this phase of the operation means other capabilities must be prioritized. [For now, the emphasis is on adapting Ukrainian combat aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-24 to carry advanced Western munitions, such as HARM, JDAM-ER, and Storm Shadow. That's been getting results.]
NR: Can we say that due to the lack of rapid actions and decisions by Western countries in providing necessary military support, Russia has been given too much time to prepare defensive positions and improve their logistics?
MH: On both counts, I disagree. If you look at the hundreds of different types of advanced pieces of equipment and the thousands of short-tons of ammunition that have been provided out of the security caches of the 50-plus countries that are a part of the Ramstein Group [the allied coordinating council] that has helped Ukraine put the Russian Army on their back foot, it has been nothing short of miraculous.
Nations don't have an excess of military equipment or ammunition that isn't allocated against their own national security contingency plans, and that the people of those nations want principally reserved for that purpose. I believe the nations who have contributed to Ukraine have dug deep to provide whatever excess equipment and munitions that they have and they continue to do so. I know that's not a popular stance to take, but I know how tough some of these actions are for a 50-plus nation collaboration to decide upon.
NR: The US recently supplied Ukraine with cluster munitions. To what extent do you think this affects the Ukrainian offensive, and in which area do you think Ukraine can use this most optimally?
MH: This is an area that I watched very closely, as our unit was hit with multiple rounds of "friendly fire" DPICM [cluster munitions] during Desert Storm, and we had over 30 soldiers wounded -- I was one of them. So I've had up close and personal experience with cluster munitions, and I think I can tell the difference between what experts think they do and what they really do. I've also seen unexploded cluster munitions harm citizens in the Middle East and in the Balkans, and understand the issues associated with a "dirty battlefield" after use.
There's also the moral issue of many NATO (and other) nations seeing that the US should be the leader in helping ban these types of munitions and prevent them from being used in war. But having said all that, given the situation with the massive use of precision-guided munitions that we have been providing Ukraine and the depletion of those rounds, means Ukraine needs some additional munitions for survival as the counter-fire fight and offensive operations continue.
Cluster munitions are available in large stocks. Providing them was a tough call by President Biden, but I've come to the conclusion that doing so was the right call. Nonetheless, I'm still conflicted. As to how they should be used and how the AFU can use them most effectively, the priority targets are soft-skinned vehicles (trucks, logistics, fuel, ammo carriers), radars, EW sites, and troop locations. They are not very effective at taking out heavy armor and not so good for trench-clearing, since they pose a threat to AFU infantry moving in.
Ukrainian Defense Minister Reznikov articulated, along with the announcement of the use of DPICM, a set of [conditions: not to be used on Russian territory nor on any cities, records to be kept of where they are used, with the AFU reporting on the use and effectiveness of the munitions.] This was a masterful policy statement by the defense minister.
NR: How do you see this war coming to an end?
MH: At the beginning of the war, I came to a conclusion of what I thought were both Putin's and Zelenskyi's strategic-political objectives for the conflict. My views have shifted somewhat since then. I now believe President Zelenskyi has the objectives: secure the sovereign (pre-2014) territory of Ukraine, protect the Ukrainian people from any further attack in the future, and see Putin stand trial in The Hague. And yes, I believe Ukraine can accomplish these objectives. Putin's new strategic objective, is to "not lose", however he defines that.
In my view he has already lost -- in the destruction of a large part of his army, his (and Russian) credibility on the world stage, and in the economic capability of his crippled nation. However, he is a [tyrant], so I'm not sure how much of his people and his nation he will sacrifice to "not lose" any more.
END_QUOTE
* Incidentally, with reference to the use by Ukraine of the Russian-made surface-to-air missile for land attack -- this last week, an S-200 was clearly film by a security camera performing a strike on Taganrog, a Russian city just beyond Ukraine's border, on the Sea of Azov. There is now no real doubt of what the Ukrainians are doing with their S-200s.
Ukraine has been unable, for whatever reasons, to obtain ATACMS missiles from the US, so is using the S-200 as a stopgap. The S-200 is well bigger than an ATACMS, has about as big a warhead, has comparable range, and appears to be well faster than ATACMS -- Mach 4 versus Mach 3+. Give it an updated guidance system and possibly a new warhead, and it seems it would be as useful as ATACMS for land attack. The S-200 was heavily produced and ended up in the hands of Soviet client states, so it seems likely many are available.
BACK_TO_TOP