How bad is the Patriot missile shortage?

 

A Patriot Missile battery in Poland. AP.

The United States and Europe is reportedly suffering from a lack of Patriot missiles. AP. Patriot missiles are the only known weapon system that can intercept Russian ballistic missiles, and the lack of missiles in Ukraine may prove to be a turning point in the war. Ukraine was given many missiles but have used the vast majority of them up. In addition, as many as 1500 missiles were used in the Iran conflict. However, the Pentagon has disputed those numbers. Missile production has increased, including a new plant opening in Europe, and there is some hope that France and Italy's untested SAMP/T NG system could make up for shortfalls, but the weapons have never been tested in combat and have a lower range than the Patriots. 

My Comment:

This is kind of irresponsible reporting by the Associated Press, but rumors of a lack of Patriots have been ongoing for months now. At the very least, it's incredibly clear that there aren't any more missiles for Ukraine at the very least, but are things as bad as this report says?

Well, there's good news and bad news about that. The good news is that I think these reports are exaggerated. We did use quite a bit of our Patriots in the Iran conflict and gave away far too many to Ukraine, but I seriously doubt that we went through 1500 missiles during the Iran conflict. 

The bad news is that even if we had full stocks we would be in trouble. Why? Because modern warfare has changed quite a deal and the Ukraine war has been a perfect laboratory for Russia to experiment with how to defeat the system. 

A major problem with Patriots is that they now have to be volley fired to intercept Russian missiles. Russian ballistic missiles now have decoy packages that require more than one missile being used if they want to have a viable chance of shooting them down. And that's not counting Russian hypersonic missiles, which are almost impossible for Patriots to intercept period. 

And that's not counting Russia's advances in air power. Russia hardly has to worry about their jets being intercepted by Patriots as they drop their glide bombs, like the FAB series, far behind enemy lines. Though Patriots are the best weapons we have in terms of air defense, they aren't quite good enough anymore. 

Does it matter? I don't really think so in the short term, unless the Iran conflict goes hot again. Right now the conflict is frozen, so we should be able to slowly build up our weapons. But I also think that the idea of an actual conflict between Russia and NATO are overblown. Yes, I know that the meeting with the CIA director yesterday was supposedly warning Russia off of some kind of attack, but even that seems far fetched to me. Like I said yesterday, the idea that Russia would start something with NATO while it is winning in Ukraine seems like madness to me, and Russia is one of the more rational actors on the world stage. And if there is somehow a conflict between Russia and NATO, the world will have a lot bigger problems than the lack of a few interceptor missiles. 

Senator Josh Hawley has opened an investigation into Flock license plate readers.

 

A Flock camera in Beverly Hills California. Fox News/Getty.

Senator Josh Hawley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, has opened an investigation into the controversial Flock license plate readers. Fox News. Hawley said that Flock has 120,000 cameras in 49 states and they scan 20 billion vehicles every month. Hawley wants to know what Flock is doing with that data. The cameras have become very controversial due to concerns about the 4th amendment, that bans unreasonable search and seizure. Hawley said that people do not give up that right when they are in public if the government is building a record of civilian movements. 

My Comment:

It's hard to get excited about this, there are few things in the world more useless than a Congressional investigation. I have zero doubt that nothing much will come out of Hawley's investigation, it's going to mostly be theater.

But it does show that the tide might be turning against these cameras. Very few people like these cameras and nobody wants the government to build a database that tracks what you do and where you go. Even if that wasn't a violation of the 4th amendment, which it totally is, it's downright creepy too. I don't think there are very many people that want to see their actions in a database somewhere.

The potential for abuse is rather extreme. Both the left and the right know that if the other side takes power forever they could use those cameras to track their enemies, making it a lot easier to send them to prison or the morgue if they didn't approve of what they had to say. It would make organizing any kind of resistance to the government almost impossible. And it could be abused in other ways, like insurance companies using them to increase your rates if you slam on your breaks to hard or something. 

And some folks will say that "your phone tracks you and you are probably recorded every day via ring cameras and regular security cameras". That is true to an extent but there is at least one major difference between those problems and these Flock cameras. If the government wants to track you via these methods, they have to go to a judge and get a warrant. They can't just track you arbitrarily. 

I do think there is political implications to this though. Polling has been scarce but Flock cameras usually end up with lower end approval ratings and it is an issue that could be used to gain support. The cameras do have some supporters, almost every issue does, but it's possible Hawley is positioning the Republican party as the anti-Flock party. Given that opposition of these cameras is bipartisan, 

Despite reports of many communities banning Flock and ending contracts with the company, the company is still expanding. These cameras are everywhere now and I have spotted more than a few in my own communities. Getting rid of them still seems like a tall order. 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe makes clandestine meeting with Russia.

 

A C-17 Globemaster landing in Latvia, believed to be carrying CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Reuters. 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a clandestine meeting with Russia today. Reuters. This is the first visit to Moscow by a CIA Director since William Burns did in 2021, just before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out. Neither the CIA or the Kremlin provided any details of how the meeting went or what the purpose of the meeting was. The visit was planned for several days as Ukraine was asked to not strike Moscow or the general region while Ratcliffe was there. The meeting comes during a crucial moment in the Ukraine conflict and right after President Trump launched an "economic D-Day" on Russia's ally, Iran. 

My Comment:

There is very little information about this is about and it's leading to quite a bit of rank speculation. The facts are as I stated above, it was a secret meeting that was in the works for a few days, nobody is admitting what it is about and it comes at a critical time, both in the Ukraine conflict and the Iran conflict. 

My general reaction is confusion, but I do say that at least both sides are talking. The optimistic take is that this is an effort to warm relations and end both the Ukraine and Iran wars. Russia is obviously a huge player in both and it's possible that this is the start of a major diplomatic effort to end the fighting. 

The more pessimistic take is that Russia was planning something and this was a diplomatic warning to not do whatever they were planning. That was the purpose for the last high level diplomatic meeting from a CIA director in Russia, it was the Biden Administration's failed attempt to avert the Ukraine conflict, so it's not like there isn't a precedence.  

Some people on social media have said that this meeting was to head off a provocation from Russia in the Ukraine conflict, to test NATO's mettle. This makes little sense to me, Russia has little reason to do so. Ukraine's position is not good, largely due to the lack of Patriot missiles, and there has been some positive developments on the battlefields as well for Russia. In short, I don't see Russia being desperate enough to escalate. 

A more likely explanation is that this had to do with Iran. The optimistic scenario is that the US wanted Russian help to try and reach a diplomatic deal with Iran to end the conflict. Russia does have some sway over Iran and could be a useful partner. 

The more pessimistic and realistic option is that this was more about sanctioning Iran and warning Russia that the could be hit by these sanctions. If I had to guess for the purpose of this meeting, I would say this is the most likely scenario. Trump does want the Iran conflict to end, and a diplomatic message to Russia is an appropriate action to these sanctions. However, I should point out that the pessimistic and optimistic explanations related to Iran are not mutually exclusive.  

Finally, it's possible that the meeting had little to do with Ukraine or Iran. The main thing I could think of is that this is some kind of hostage negotiation. Russia still holds some Americans in prison for various crimes, some legit and some not so much. President Trump has made getting folks released a major priority so it could be that instead. 

Of course, it's possible that more than one of these scenarios could be happening at the same time, and I would expect that to be the case. After all, even if the meeting was about Iran, Ukraine would come up too. 

Either way, we don't really know what is happening right now and the best I can say is "at least they are talking". My gut says that it's probably related to Iranian sanctions and it's probably not as significant as folks are taking it. But either way, it's a mystery as of this writing. 

The Trump administration is, again, trying to impose a $100,000 fee for H1B visas.

 

Reuters. 

The Trump administration is again trying to impose a $100,000 fee for the controversial H1B visas. Reuters. President Trump attempted to impose the fee last year, but a judge ruled it was unconstitutional as the court considered it a tax. The new effort would allow a notice and comment rulemaking demanded by the judge and would be framed as recovering costs for the Department of Homeland Security. 344,000 people were approved for H1B visas so far this year, down dramatically from a peak in 2023 with 794,000 visas sought. It is unclear if the new rule will survive lawsuits. 

My Comment:

I still say that the entire H1B visa program should be scrapped. I don't believe that any of the jobs that are held by H1B visa holders are so impossible to staff that an American couldn't be found to work them. Indeed, in many cases, Americans would love to work those jobs, especially in the tech sector. And in the few cases that there aren't we could use the other visa programs, like the O-1A, O-1B and EB-1A visas. 

But this is probably the only way we are going to get any reform on this issue, unfortunately. In theory, this would cut down the most excessive abuses in the H1B program, you wouldn't see jobs like a gas station cashier or hotel worker going to H1B visa holders. $100,000 is not chump change and would ensure that the employers couldn't staff these jobs with foreigners. 

The problem is that it's unclear what the courts are going to say. Congress does have jurisdiction over taxation. Is this new effort a tax? I am sure a left wing judge would argue so, but I would say no. The Federal government is allowed to collect fees and doing so with these visas would at least help fund immigration. But who knows what the courts will do?

What is frustrating is that the Democrats effort at lawfare have been effective. I don't really think it matters too much if the rule is just or now, the Democrats will judge shop until they find another one that will rule this new effort unconstitutional as well. And it won't get fixed until it reaches the Supreme Court. 

Regardless, even if this new rule only goes into effect for a few months, anything that reduces the number of H1B visa holders is a good thing. Like I said, these jobs should be going to Americans. There's zero reason for someone from India to take a job that an American would be very happy to have if the wage was fair. 

Syria and Israel hold high level talks after airstrikes.

 

A Syrian Soldier manning a machine gun at the disused Abu Duhar airbase. AFP.

Syria and Israel held high level talks after Israel bombed a disused airbase in Northern Syria. AFP. Israel bombed the Abu Duhar airbase in Northern Syria in an effort to deny the base from Turkey. Turkey denied it was going to take the airbase. Tensions between Israel and Turkey are high and the strikes are the most recent strike among hundreds since the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The talks, which was brokered by the United States and hosted by Jordan. Syria is an ally of Turkey but tensions between Turkey and Israel have left Syria in the crossfire. 

My Comment:

These talks were moderately successful. Israel and Syria seem to have made some progress, but not so much that tensions went down all that much. It does seem that Syria wants a security agreement with Israel, but the absolutely terrible relationship between Turkey and Israel is complicating things dramatically. 

Indeed, the entire incident was based on the fact that Israel attacked an airbase just because they suspected that Turkey was going to use it. If there was any real relationship between Turkey and Israel at all, then that absolutely would not happen. Indeed, we aren't even sure that Turkey was going to actually use the airbase. 

It fits a habit that Israel has fallen into. They often tend to strike first and ask questions later. It's one of the reasons why tensions are high with Turkey and in the region generally. I can understand why they wouldn't want a regional rival take an airbase that could be used to strike Israel's interests, but the evidence that Turkey was going to do so is pretty difficult to prove. 

Why are tensions so high between Turkey and Israel in the first place? It goes back to the October 7th attacks and the Gaza war that resulted. Turkey and Israel traded diplomatic insults since then, with Erdogan calling Netanyahu "Hitler" while Israel recognized the Armenian Genocide. I have to say that i think the Israelis were right, given that Hamas are terrorists and are hardly the "freedom fighters" that Turkey calls them. 

Things have gotten worse, not better, since Iran was humbled in the Iran conflict. There was a power vacuum that resulted from the conflict that both Israel and Turkey have tried to take advantage of. Both countries want to lead the Middle East and both are making major diplomatic push to do so. 

And Syria? They got caught in the crossfire. Syria is the buffer zone between the two countries. Turkey has a lot of influence over the Syrian's new former jihadist government and is arming and training them. But Israel does not want to end the progress it made by simply letting Turkey replace Iran. Israel has a long history of dealing with terror attacks coming from Syrian territory, and does not want Turkey to become the new Hezbollah. 

Regardless, it's not surprising that the Untied States is trying to ease tensions. We are in the unfortunate position of being allied with both Israel and Turkey. Israel was our partner in the Iran conflict and we provide them with billions of dollars in aid. Turkey is the largest member of NATO after the United States and is, arguably, the one with the most competent military.