Early in the new Trump Administration the war in the Ukraine should quickly move to a structured settlement. As I predicted in 2022, the current front lines mostly reflect the ethnic realities on the ground. Some variation of this will be the new reality. Western leaders must recognize that contrary to our liberal educations, ethnicity is still the ground reality for most of the world. The ethnic Polish parts of the Ukraine will tighten their orbit to the EU. The breakaway regions which were the causation of the conflict are ethnically Russian and will most likely remain behind Russian lines.
EU membership and some partial NATO membership is likely for the Ukraine moving forward. The areas under Russian control are likely to stay that way. J.D. Vance’s plan for a cease fire in the Ukraine is very similar to my own perspective. It is the most likely option to succeed. The issue will be what type of reparations can be foisted on Russian Oil exports. The aftermath of this war will bring change to the Ukraine and Russia. But changes to China, which I believe they have anticipated, will also happen. The United States must be ready for a new reality, one where we must revive a cold war policy.
The policy of 2 and ½. That the United States must be prepared to fight 2 larger wars and 1 smaller war at the same time.
I expect Russian collapses and systemic failures in the next few years after the Ukraine war ceases. The Russians failed to achieve their combat objectives in this war (Lviv and Rivne) Which makes the strategic objective of controlling from the Sulwalki Gap in the Baltics to Odessa in the south now impossible. The Russians inability to control all access routes into their country causes them great alarm. The Russian loss of its greatest ally in the middle east, the Assad Family in Syria, will accelerate Russian anxiety. The Russians have good reasons to be very concerned about invasions across their massive country. Of the nine major routes use to attack Russia, the Russians control about half.
There has been massive demographic damage to Russia caused by this war. While most northern hemisphere countries have been neglecting their own organic populations for decades. Organic combat aged populations are key to 21st century relevance and the Russians are in a particularly bad situation. From preliminary estimates the Russians have about 20 million military aged males. By contrast the U.S. has about 50 million and China 210 million.
China and Russia share a 2600-mile border that has been contested for centuries, with large scale fighting as recent as 1969. The Russians would not be able to secure this border against an invasion by the CCP. These impending issues within Russia point to systemic instability. The type of systemic instability that could be exploited by the CCP.
The Chinese, who routinely exploit one of the major American political parties, will start a campaign to replace Putin with a witting or unwitting proxy of their choosing. This proxy will inherit what mostly likely be an absolute disaster across all sectors of the Russian society. They will have the CCP’s funding and social engineering at their back. This proxy will seek to enable Chinese objectives inside and outside Russia.
Since the start of the Ukraine war Western Oil companies, who are the only experts able to extract oil from the Siberian tundra have been banned from doing so. The infrastructure and technology to do this is not organic to the Russians. The loss of the ability to obtain this resource opens the door for China. Not only to possibly extract the oil but provide Chinese companies' exclusivity to do so. I would expect the Russian CCP proxy would also encumber the Russians with Chinese loans. The sale of large swaths of Siberian resources to the CCP would enrich Russia but also further enable CCP expansion. Why risk invasion when the Russians might sell it to them. Or more likely, through political and economic maneuvering, the CCP would “own” it anyway.
Regardless of how, China is going to expand and Russia will contract. There is a good possibility both just might strengthen themselves in doing so. The war in the Ukraine has reset the global pecking order but it will not have eliminated Chinese or Russian expansionist desires. In the future we need to be much more cognitive of the 3rd order effects of warfare. We need to win our fights, but we need proportionality in our responses. Syria shows devastating enemies results in power vacuums that worse actors rapidly fill.
The Cold War U.S. Military doctrine was a two-war framework for conventional combat forces. This framework developed and deployed forces for one or possibly two large wars, one in Europe and one in Asia. The clearest example is the force structure of the Cold War up to national mobilization like seen during World War II. Then there would be enough forces for a smaller half-war such a Central America or the Middle East. Think of the half-war as being SOF focused efforts like Panama or Afghanistan, interventions like Serbia, and supporting an Ally like South Korea or Isreal.
The biggest problem is that we no longer have the force structure of defense infrastructure that we had just 25 years ago. Base closures and consolidations are just one symptom of the erosion of our national defense structure.
The Clinton Administration started this process. Not only was the warrior culture of the military attacked but the Army was just under 500,000 active-duty soldiers during the 1990s. This from a total of over 800,000 in the 1980s. The Army grew under the Global War on Terror to about 560,000. There has been another downsizing process in the last few years. During the Global War or Terror, the reserve units of the Army (National Guard and Army Reserve) has consistently been around another 500,000 soldiers. Not only will the size of our military need to expand but the ability to quickly assimilate reserve troops and convert civilians into combat troops quickly will be a key capability.
We must expand the size of our military and the defense industry. But size is not everything, we must embrace the ability to scale the capability rapidly. The post-World War II defense infrastructure is gone. At the end of World War II the U.S. ship building program built over 6000 ships in 4 years. Now China has as much as 200 times the ship building capability in tonnage. United States and China have relative parity in overall economic output. In terms of shipbuilding, however, China has 46% percent of the global ship production. South Korea is second with 29% and Japan third with 17%. The U.S. has only 0.1% of ship building capacity. While I am not an expert Naval Warfare, the lack of capacity still shows U.S. atrophy in major weapons program production.
What will aid in the assistance of the Defense Industry production is the on-shoring and expanding US manufacturing production capability. A major part of the rapid expansion of China’s military buildup is they have leveraged commercial market production capability. Most of the CCP’s weapons systems utilize the exact same production infrastructure they use for automotive, appliance, electronics, and heavy industry that most of the world has outsourced to them. The U.S. should make every effort to on-shore production of all manufactured goods. The U.S. should also radically upscale support for access to additive manufacturing. In particular for alloy additive manufacturing. This allows for the immediate distribution of defense articles across a massive potential infrastructure.
Additive manufacturing allows “garage shops” to mid-sized companies the ability to radically up scale production overnight. A key Defense Infrastructure capability will be speed of production to deployment. This means how long does it take for an item to be built, assembled, transported, and then deployed. The War in the Ukraine has shown the speed and dispersion of warfare has expanded radically. Much like the Gulf War in 1991 was the seminal event for a new generation of warfare. The Ukraine has demonstrated battle field innovations in a very tight cycle. Drone Warfare has had new innovations and the counter to those innovations in a matter of days. In some situations, these innovations are designed, developed, and deployed in the combat zone. The U.S. should consider this speed of innovation will not be limited to UAS.
This rapid and distributed manufacturing capability has already been demonstrated in the U.S. commercial firearms market. The AR-15 is similar, yet different in function, to the military grade M4/M16 rifle. With modifications to the production equipment that ability for small manufactures to produce a military grade rifle could be activated in hours. The U.S. commercial market already makes more firearms that the Department of Defense and our NATO allies acquire every year. This is enabled by the distribution of the free and complete specifications across the industry of all parts.
The entirety of wartime production of small arms could easily be distributed to the thousands of small machine shops across the country. This would enable the mid to large size companies to take on more complex defense production. This would allow for a distribution of defense production across the nation. This would reduce the ability of an enemy to destroy domestic production. It would also reserve the more capable manufacturing capacity for the most complex defense technologies. With the advent of alloy additive manufacturing, defense articles could be made in “garage shops” within specifications. The production could even be centrally coordinated to meet real time combat demands. Where additive manufacturing is making a rifle component one day, a missile nose cone the next, and drone bodies the next.
With distributed production, assembly, and post processing the United States will have an unprecedentedly resilient production capability. To ensure this distributed capability, modularity and commonality in defense technologies should be implemented whenever possible.
This new global reality also means that we will need to project force across the globe where Americans and American interests are threatened. We should also realize that does not mean long duration expeditionary efforts but the direct and indirect support of regional allies. We need to develop our allies' capabilities to create a global defense in depth.
The core nations of this Defense in Depth concept are the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This will also immediately extend into Greenland. These core nations will create the bulk of the military, economic, and resource power of American 21st century defense policy. Mexico provides cheaper production costs than China does. The U.S. and Canada coupled with Greenland has the natural resources needed to reestablish U.S. Defense production dominance. In this inner core of nations will be focused on inner security first https://plumbprecision.com/2019/09/20/is-the-united-states-a-target-of-unconventional-warfare/
The need to remove bad actors, criminal organizations, and embedded foreign Unconventional Warfare experts is of utmost importance.
Hawaii and Alaska take the center of the chessboard in the Pacific Ocean. Canada, Alaska, and expansion into Greenland covers the center and flanks of the Arctic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is controlled by Greenland, the Eastern U.S. Seaboard, down to Florida and the Caribbean. The United States is in a great position lock down its next ring of defense.
The second objective is the dominance of the Atlantic, Arctic, and the Pacific Oceans. The United States should start to adopt more OCONUS and North American force projection to constrict movement into the Atlantic, Arctic, and Western Pacific. In North America alone the United States can find all of the resources it needs to dominate throughout the 21st Century. Force projection and area denial assets in these locations will provide a further stand-off range for any aggressor attempting to strike the center of North America.
The third objective is the direct and indirect reinforcement of regional allies and nearby nations exposed to threats. These are nations who share our anti-communist values and adherence to common individual rights. The focus should be leveraging common objectives and bringing each of these nations to more capable and integrated defense posture. The Department of Defense and Political leadership should seek to develop as much of a system and component commonality as possible. From ammunition, batteries, engines, missiles, to all classes of supply our regional allies should be integrated and commonality developed as soon as possible. Most of this article will be focused on North America and the Pacific as the objective much clearer. The European theater of operations is more complex. The collaboration between Marxists and Muslim Subversive Colonizing has a caused deep destabilization and will be addressed in a separate article.
In Special Forces we use a phrase “by, with, and through” Panama is the first example of a nation that needs tighter integration with the U.S. Not only is control of the Panama Canal critical, but Panama is a potential bulwark against South American instability. If the United States focuses on maximizing economic effort in North America, this will extend into Central America. This will dampen illegal immigration and stabilize the region. South and Central America is the soft underbelly of American National Security. For many reasons it needs a renewed focus.
If China is the primary Geo-political competitor, the most important of our immediate allies to be reinforced is Japan. Japan lives in the shadow of China. For decades they have watched the PLAN, the Chinese Navy grow in capacity and scale. China is dependent on ocean going trade, but Japan is even more dependent. The threat the PLAN is against the survival of Japan is palpable to everyone in Japanese leadership. They have not been sitting idle. The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force now has F-35 capable carriers and 22 highly advanced submarines. Japan has F-35’, F-15’s, and the F-1, a plus sized F-16. Japan is producing the F-35 and F-1 domestically. Japan will have the ability to directly alter any battle in the pacific. Japan is capable of a much higher level of force projection. Japanese technical, engineering, and production are world class. The reinforcement of Japan is of utmost importance as they will be the most resilient and capable of our Far West Pacific allies in case of open war with China. Japan needs to achieve parity with the next most important Far West Pacific ally.
If Japan lives in the shadow of China, South Korea has lived in perpetual darkness of China’s threat. Not only is this from the direct Chinese threat but also the nuclear equipped North Korea. South Korea has lived under the threat of war during its entire existence. This is reflected in mandatory service requirements and a very advanced organic defense industry. Like Japan South Korea is only sustained by its ocean-going economic lifeline. China and North Korea possess two of the largest submarine fleets and air forces in the world. I consider submarine fleets as a very important factor in the Western Pacific. The ability to constrict shipping is going to be of utmost importance in open hostilities, there is no better platform to do that than the submarine. The ability for South Korea to make ships is only surpassed by China. This ship construction capacity needs to be leveraged to expand the capability of the allied navies in the region. South Korea also organically produces fighter planes, tanks, and other advanced armaments. The U.S. Defense Industry would be wise to leverage this capacity.
If Hawaii and Alaska are the center of the chessboard, Taiwan is the knight at F7 reinforced by a bishop putting the opponents queen and rook at risk. Taiwan’ significance is far more important than the board game reference implies. Taiwan provides an unprecedented level of control over the primary sea routes China depends on. Additionally, the top tier semiconductor production in Taiwan makes defense and support of this nation critical. This nation in many ways the fulcrum of the balance of power in the Pacific Ocean for the foreseeable future. U.S. policy should be focused on relocation of globally sensitive production and making a military conquest by a hostile nation far too risky to attempt.
Much like Taiwan and Japan the Philippines Islands are directly threatened by CCP expansionist plans. The Philippines sits directly on the eastern edge of the South China Sea. The ability for force projected from the Philippines into the South China Sea to massively constrict shipping and resources is profound. This is not lost on the Chinese. The constant harassment by the PLAN of Philippine Coast Guard and Navy assets show China is acutely aware of the threat form the Philippines. The Philippine Navy is on pace to acquire 3 submarines soon and has only 3 blue water combat ships. The Philippines has no real Air Force to speak of. Which opens the door for the U.S. and other regional allies to assist in the development of the Philippines military forces. The Philippines is perfect recipient of surplus 4th gen fighters and future cost-effective submarines. The Philippines is the perfect opportunity in taking a under equipped military and turning it into a modern partner force. We should also consider an extensive modernization of Subic Bay Naval and Clark Air Force Base. Many of us with exposure to the Philippine Military know they could be a valuable asset to regional security.
Australia is also a key nation moving forward. It has a smaller population than most in the Western Pacific but it occupies close proximity to all of the key shipping lanes that enter the region. For a population fraction of the size of may of the other nations listed, Australia has a military that is equal in size to some of the nations already listed. The Australians do have some GWOT combat experience and routinely train with US forces.
Australia operates a diesel-electric submarine called the Collins class. They have 6 of them and they started being deployed in 1993. In March 2023 Australia stated they will buy three Virginia class submarines from the US and possibly two more. This will take time to develop and shows a critical capability, submarine construction and deployment, is on an achingly slow time line. The Australian Navy also has 3 destroyers and 7 frigates which could employed in a crisis. The Australians do have a modernization effort underway across the entirety of their navy.
The Australian Air Force although small is modern and capable. It has 72 F-35s and 24 F-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft. It also has an additional 12 Electronic Warfare EA-18 Super Hornets. These aircraft would be a vital addition to and combat action in the Far West Pacific. Australia has a population less than the state of Texas yet provides critical capability to any Chinese aggression.
The fourth objective is to start solidifying relationships with nations whose security is leveraged by Chinese expansionism. This first and most important is India. India is the fulcrum Asia hinges on in the 21st Century. India shares a border with China and several other hostile neighbors. India has quietly had a military in low intensity conflict for the better part of 50 years. Often this constant state of hostility will flare into limited conflict. There are many examples with China and Pakistan. India has a larger policy of trying to not fall to far into one geo-political camp. This often highlighted by Indian defense purchases.
India sits in a unique position as it thrusts like a dagger into the Indian Ocean. India has the ability to constrict all maritime traffic from Europe, Africa, and the Middle East into the Western Pacific. This capability is being actively developed by the Indian Navy and Air Force. The Indian Navy has 2 aircraft carriers, a converted Russian ship and one built in India. To highlight the diversity of Indian defense purchases, the new carrier uses French Fighters, US anti-sub helicopters, and Russian rescue helicopters. The Indian Navy has another 26 surface combat ships, 2 Nuclear Missile submarines, and 16 submarines of Russian, French, and German designs. The Indian Navy is focused on securing the regional waters of the Indian Ocean.
The Indian Air Force is the 4th largest in the world. With hundreds of fighters from the Russian SU-30 and MiG 29. They have indigenous built aircraft such as the HAL Tejas. But a large part of their force is made up of older Mig21’s, British Jaguars, and French Mirage 2000’s. The Indian Air Force also has a very good compliment of ballistic, cruise, and nuclear missiles. India has the potential to supplant China as the predominate military and economic power in Asia. India has a far better demographic balance, and they are the largest population on earth. They will become the essential counterbalance and hedge to Chinese expansionism.
Kenya has a highly antiquated Air Force with 2 dozen out of date F-5 fighter jets. Its Navy is in worse shape with about 8 costal missile patrol boats. Kenya has questionable capability to project combat power within its own borders much less into the Indian Ocean. Kenya has a good deep-water port in Mombasa. With proper development a more modern military could restrict movement from the Atlantic into the Indian Ocean. Kenya’s primary trade partner is the United States and we should seek to develop a more robust military capability in Kenya. Unfortunately, it will be much more of a developmental project than increasing the Philippine Military capability.
If the focus is constricting Chinese expansionism or preventing the movement of resources by water in open hostilities, Indonesia is of critical importance. Every single path from the Indian Ocean to Chinese territorial waters is constricted by Indonesia. Indonesia has a decent amount of moder fighter aircraft which are F-16s and SU27/30s. They also have a few dozen South Korea built light strike aircraft. They also possess a moderate sized navy of 4 submarines and 45 small surface combat ships. Historically the Indonesian government seeks its own designs and interests. They are fully aware of the unique geo-political position they are in. The United States has been aware for some time the Indonesia is critical in any possible conflict with China.
In particular the East Timor crisis in 2000 made relations between Indonesia and the U.S. strong. Indonesia, with U.S. assistance, transitioned to democracy with free elections. The U.S. also assisted with effective counter-terrorism strategies. Past U.S policy has celebrated the shared democratic values even though the nation is over 80% Muslim. In 2010 Indonesia and the United States formed a Comprehensive Partnership Agreement. This began enhancing the defense, economic, and educational efforts. With a very large population and a key strategic location, Indonesia needs to be a nation of greater focus in the future.
This document does not address Europe and the Middle East in detail. Those environments have much more complex geo-political issues. In particular Western Europe must decide to save itself from Muslim Subversive Colonization. For if the current trends continue there might to be much left in Europe to defend. If Europe loses this culture war it will complicate global relations, and that extend into the Middle East and Africa.
