2 June 2022

Inside the Army’s Mission to Build Course-Correcting Artillery

Kris Osborn

For years, enemy armored vehicles, troop formations, and weapons systems have been deliberately hidden for the specific purpose of eluding U.S. Army precision-guided weapons such as GPS-guided Excalibur artillery rounds.

A proven success since it was first used in Iraq in 2007, Excalibur has been used to pinpoint enemy targets to within one meter from thirty kilometers away, something that changed the paradigm for ground warfare. Enemies have now learned of this capability and have taken decided measures to counter precision strikes. Hiding in areas obscured by terrain can make it extremely difficult for Excalibur rounds to attack and destroy certain enemy targets, as the GPS-guided rounds typically follow a parabola-like trajectory and descend upon fixed targets.

The U.S.-China Competition for the Indo-Pacific Is Just Beginning

Patrick McLaren

The Asia-Pacific has become one of the most prominent focal points for both the West and China. Overwhelmingly, the central themes of engagement in the region relate to trade and development, security cooperation, and global governance. It is within this context that both the West and China each seek to strengthen their respective ties to, and influence within, the region in furtherance of their respective national interests.

Although markedly diminished in its engagement with the Asia-Pacific during the Trump administration, the United States has sought to dramatically reorient its approach to the region under the Biden administration. In 2021, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced a new security partnership, AUKUS, in which they will pursue the development of new deterrence capabilities for Australia and facilitate greater innovation through technical collaboration. Under the Biden administration, high-level representation to the region has again become a regular occurrence as Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Vice President Kamala Harris, and most recently, President Joe Biden, have each made visits to the region. At the U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit in mid-May, the United States announced several commitments to ASEAN and the broader region through support for development and climate action, as well as deeper and more comprehensive trade opportunities.

Should We Burn More Fossil Fuels, Not Less?

Suhaas Bhat  and Connor Chung

This February, in the same week that Russian armed forces plunged Europe into war, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came together to finalize its latest report. The job of the panel, a United Nations-sponsored collaborative of thousands of top scientists worldwide, is to produce comprehensive summaries of what scientists know about our warming planet. And from ivory towers in the United States to bomb shelters in Ukraine, a clear call arose: The chance to limit warming to the bounds of the international Paris Agreement is still alive, but only with “urgent and ambitious action at all scales.”

The juxtaposition was lost on few—least of all, many Ukrainians: “This is,” as the nation’s top climate scientist put it, “a fossil fuel war.” From the hundreds of millions of dollars in oil money funding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military aggression each day to the years of efforts by Western fossil fuel companies to prop up Russia’s economy, the connection between the age of combustion and global destabilization has in many ways never been clearer.

The Navy Made America a Superpower Once. Can It Again?

Alexander Wooley

In 1987, with the publication of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, historian Paul Kennedy ignited a firestorm. His sin was forecasting the United States’ decline. The notoriety ensured that his book became a bestseller and that Kennedy would be consulted by U.S. presidential candidates; a copy even made its way onto al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden’s bookshelf. But critics lashed out at Kennedy’s apparent defeatism; military strategist Edward Luttwak’s review of the book was titled “Paul Kennedy’s Rise and Fall.”

Victory at Sea is not The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers—neither groundbreaking nor likely to be controversial. Instead, it hearkens back to his The Rise And Fall of British Naval Mastery in its theme of maritime superiority being intimately connected to economic power and industrial capacity. Kennedy, the J. Richardson Dilworth professor of history and director of international security studies at Yale University, is clear at the outset that the book began as brief text to accompany acclaimed maritime artist Ian Marshall’s paintings of warships, and it grew from there. (And the paintings are stunning: If you’re not stirred by a portrait of the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto at La Spezia, Italy, a marriage of painter Claude Monet and Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan, this book may not be for you.) The result is part coffee-table book, part sweeping, single-volume narrative. The scope is most reminiscent of historian Craig Symonds’s 2018 World War II at Sea: A Global History.

India’s Last Best Chance

Lisa Curtis

India’s neutrality over the war in Ukraine has exposed its vulnerability. New Delhi depends on Russia for military supplies, and so, even though Russia is blatantly violating Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty in an attempt to re-create its erstwhile empire, India has opted to stay silent. It has done so even though India, as a former colony, knows all too well what it’s like to be the victim of imperialism. It has done so even though its own territorial integrity is threatened by another authoritarian power—namely, China. India, it seems, feels caught in a vise grip by Moscow.

To some extent, New Delhi’s concerns are understandable. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not been shy about cutting trade with states that condemn his invasion. But viewed more broadly, New Delhi’s approach is shortsighted and risky. It ignores the dangerous precedent that Russia’s reckless behavior is setting in other parts of the world. It provides diplomatic cover to China—Moscow’s most conspicuous international backer—to also ignore Russia’s bad behavior. And although criticizing the invasion might worsen relations with Russia, refusing to take a stand could alienate an even more powerful country: the United States.

Is China Preparing To Destroy The U.S. Navy?

Peter Suciu

Practice makes perfect – a statement that is absolutely true in advance of a military operation. Soldiers, sailors, pilots, and other warfighters typically spend much time “training.” Sometimes, the training doesn’t always go as planned – as was noted in the ill-fated Operation Tiger, the massive dress rehearsal for the invasion of Normandy, when a German patrol caught the Allied forces completely off-guard.

However, other times the training proved to be vital to success.

Such was the case with the Imperial Japanese Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese forces trained for about a year to prepare for the attack.

“Simply put, how the Japanese prepared for the attack is what assured their success that morning, and it is likely the Americans could have done nothing to alter significantly the outcome of the attack,” the U.S. Naval Institute noted in a feature on the history of the Pearl Harbor assault.

US military hackers conducting offensive operations in support of Ukraine, says head of Cyber Command

Alexander Martin

US military hackers have conducted offensive operations in support of Ukraine, the head of US Cyber Command has told Sky News.

In an exclusive interview, General Paul Nakasone also explained how separate "hunt forward" operations were allowing the United States to search out foreign hackers and identify their tools before they were used against America.

Speaking in Tallinn, Estonia, the general, who is also director of the National Security Agency (NSA), told Sky News that he is concerned "every single day" about the risk of a Russian cyber attack targeting the US and said that the hunt forward activities were an effective way of protecting both America as well as allies.

Libya’s Transition Out of Civil War Has Stalled

Mary Fitzgerald

Libyans could be forgiven for feeling an uneasy sense of déjà vu in recent months. Last year many had hoped the country was finally moving on from a long struggle between rival authorities. But the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity, or GNU, that was established in 2021 as part of the United Nations-led political process has been challenged since March by a rival government appointed through a disputed parliamentary vote.

Earlier this month the head of that parallel authority, Fathi Bashaga, sparked militia clashes when he tried to install himself in the capital, before ultimately being forced to leave. The episode recalled how Bashaga’s current ally, Khalifa Haftar, a septuagenarian military commander based in eastern Libya, launched an unsuccessful offensive to wrest control of Tripoli in 2019, triggering a war that drew in foreign intervention and mercenaries on both sides. That Bashaga was then a key figure in the effort to thwart Haftar’s offensive is a reminder of how often alliances shift in Libya.

US Army secretary: 5 lessons from the Ukraine conflict


WASHINGTON: Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has provided US Army leaders several lessons in the future of warfare, from how to command troops to safeguarding soldiers against drones and insecure communications, according to the service’s top civilian.

“We are very much looking every single day in real-time at what’s happening in Ukraine, what we’re seeing with the Russian military and trying to glean as many lessons learned as we can for what we think that means for the Army in the future,” Wormuth said.

Army leaders have said that its massive modernization effort, which predated the Russian invasion and ranges from helicopters to secure communications, has been validated by the conflict. The fighting has also raised questions about the potential for a permanent presence of US soldiers in Europe to further deter Russia. Speaking today at the Atlantic Council, she said those conversations are ongoing.

Will the United States Provide Long-Range Rockets to Ukraine?

Mark F. Cancian
Source Link

This week’s controversy is whether the United States should provide long-range rocket systems to Ukraine. Ukrainian officials have been asking for them, and advocates in Congress, think tanks, and the press have supported these requests. The administration seems to be inclined to provide them, but recently the president raised concerns about whether some capabilities would be provocative. What are these systems? What capabilities would they provide, and why are they controversial?

Why Ukraine Has Asked for Rocket Systems

The great value of rocket systems is that they quickly provide a lot of fire. Within about two minutes, a single rocket battery (nine MLRS launchers) can fire 108 nine-inch rockets each with a 200-pound warhead. (The author personally saw these rockets employed during his tours in Iraq, and they are truly impressive.)

China aims to take out Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites


Chinese state researchers are calling for the development of anti-satellite capabilities against Elon Musk’s SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet constellation, citing the broadband system’s potential military applications and threat to China’s national security.

Starlink consists of thousands of satellites in near-Earth orbit paired with ground terminals, giving its users high-speed internet access. With more than 2,300 satellites in operation, Starlink is considered a robust and durable system, capable of functioning even if some of its satellites were taken out.

Quick Take on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework Launch

AidanArasasingham and Emily Benson

Last week’s big event was the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) during President Biden’s visit to Tokyo. Here at CSIS, the Economics Program and the Scholl Chair combined to produce an analysis of it shortly after the launch. In addition, the two primary authors, Aidan Arasasingham, program coordinator and research assistant with the Economics Program, and Emily Benson, associate research fellow with the Scholl Chair in International Business, have written a shorter version which, conveniently, is just the right length for my column. So, rather than reinvent the wheel, I am borrowing their work (with their permission) to bring you up to date on the IPEF:

At a hybrid event in Tokyo on May 23, 2022, President Biden and 12 regional counterparts officially launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). Coming almost five years after the United States withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the IPEF aims to reassert U.S. economic engagement in the region and provide a U.S.-led alternative to China’s economic statecraft in the Indo-Pacific. Though this framework contains no new binding commitments at present, the joint statement solidified some details of the agenda. However, questions remain about the ability of the United States to incentivize closer economic cooperation in the region with this framework.

What Are the Key Strengths of the China-Russia Relationship?

China has largely eschewed formal alliances, but over the years Beijing has increasingly courted close ties with Russia. On February 4, 2022, just weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Beijing and issued a historic joint statement emphasizing that the bilateral relationship has “no limits,” and that “there are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation” between them.

Why did China commit to the relationship at such a pivotal moment? Why did Beijing double down on the relationship by refusing to criticize the Russian invasion of Ukraine? This ChinaPower feature explores how the relationship came to be so close, up until the time of the invasion. This analysis centers on five key ways in which China benefits from the relationship, each of which is examined in detail:Russia supports China’s core interests;

Vladimir Putin personally supports Xi Jinping and his key initiatives;

Russia helps to magnify China’s global reach at the expense of Western influence;

Russia enhances China’s military power through arms sales and joint military exercises; and
Russia assists China in meeting important economic and energy needs.

Supporting China’s Core Interests

Three More Nations Join Ukraine Planning Cell Run By Army Special Forces


Three more countries have joined a coordination effort set up by U.S. Army special forces to help Ukraine, the Army secretary said Tuesday.

“When Russia went into Ukraine in late February, we sent the 10th Special Forces Group to develop a coalition planning cell that enabled us to bring together 20 different nations to coordinate information with international [special operations forces] partners and allies,” Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said during a virtual event with the Atlantic Council. “And that has again, I think, contributed significantly with the effectiveness and the speed of the assistance and training that we've been able to provide.”

The planning cell had 17 members in April, when Lt. Gen. Jonathan Braga, the commander of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, testified to senators.

Russian Military Is Repeating Mistakes in Eastern Ukraine, U.S. Says

Helene Cooper

WASHINGTON — The Russian military, beaten down and demoralized after three months of war, is making the same mistakes in its campaign to capture a swath of eastern Ukraine that forced it to abandon its push to take the entire country, senior American officials say.

While Russian troops are capturing territory, a Pentagon official said that their “plodding and incremental” pace was wearing them down, and that the military’s overall fighting strength had been diminished by about 20 percent. And since the war started, Russia has lost 1,000 tanks, a senior Pentagon official said last week.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia appointed a new commander, Gen. Aleksandr V. Dvornikov, in April in what was widely viewed as an acknowledgment that the initial Russian war plan was failing.

President Biden: What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The invasion Vladimir Putin thought would last days is now in its fourth month. The Ukrainian people surprised Russia and inspired the world with their sacrifice, grit and battlefield success. The free world and many other nations, led by the United States, rallied to Ukraine’s side with unprecedented military, humanitarian and financial support.

As the war goes on, I want to be clear about the aims of the United States in these efforts.

America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.

As President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said, ultimately this war “will only definitively end through diplomacy.” Every negotiation reflects the facts on the ground. We have moved quickly to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry and ammunition so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.

U.S. to Send Ukraine $700 Million in Military Aid, Including Advanced Rockets

Michael D. Shear

WASHINGTON — The United States will send Ukraine advanced rocket systems and munitions as part of a new $700 million package of military equipment intended to help the Ukrainians fight back against the Russian invasion of their country, President Biden and White House officials said on Tuesday.

Mr. Biden announced his decision to provide the rocket systems, which can precisely target an enemy from almost 50 miles away, in an Op-Ed published online Tuesday evening by The New York Times. He said the delivery of the advanced weapons would enable Ukraine to “fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

But a senior administration official said later that the weapons system — the most advanced provided to the Ukrainians to date — was promised only after direct assurances by Ukraine’s leaders that they would not use it against targets within Russian territory.

US to Send Ukraine Advanced Rockets; Kyiv Promises Not to Fire Into Russia


The United States plans to send Ukraine advanced long-range artillery that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had requested for weeks, but Biden administration officials said would only be armed with limited-range munitions and would not be used to strike targets inside of Russia.

White House officials on Tuesday announced that the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, would be part of new $700 million arms package for Ukraine, which has received increasingly more advanced and lethal weapons to fight Russia’s invasion.

“At this time, we've decided not to provide the longer range of munitions,” a senior administration official said.


Ian Bond

In 2019, the EU described China as “a co-operation partner with whom the EU has closely aligned objectives, a negotiating partner with whom the EU needs to find a balance of interests, an economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance” – an analysis echoed by the 2022 EU Strategic Compass. In the last three years, however, the balance between partnership, competition and rivalry has shifted. Systemic rivalry is now at the core of Europe’s interactions with China.

Systemic rivalry is now at the core of Europe's interactions with China.Tweet this

For many years, European countries – including the UK – and the EU have based their China policy on one correct and two false assumptions. The accurate assessment is that China is an economic juggernaut: its share of world GDP has risen in 40 years from less than 2 per cent to almost 18 per cent. The false assumptions are, first, that despite its economic importance, China is not politically influential in Europe; and second, that China is a distant country, far removed from European security issues. In fact, as China’s support for Russia in its war against Ukraine has shown, Beijing has become an important actor in Europe’s political and security landscape.

As China’s Economy Falters, Be Careful What You Wish For

Clark Packard

It is becoming increasingly clear that China’s economy is facing significant headwinds. Most of this is Beijing’s own doing. A draconian zero-COVID-19 policy has locked down swaths of the economy, severely hit consumer spending, and curtailed factory output. Aggressive regulation of the technology sector, driven by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s retreat from private enterprise and embrace of Maoist socialism, has paralyzed a once-dynamic industry. A debt bubble in the country’s overinflated real estate sector has led to spectacular crashes, including the default of Evergrande, a gigantic property developer. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is pushing up global prices of food, energy, and other commodities imported by China. For all these reasons, the International Monetary Fund recently lowered its forecast for China’s economic growth to 4.4 percent this year—anemic by past Chinese standards. Bloomberg Economics predicts as little as 2 percent and expects the United States to grow faster than China for the first time since 1976.

Talking to TTP

After years of battling the banned TTP, the state had reopened channels of communication with the TTP, facilitated by the Afghan Taliban. However, if we review the reported demands of the militants, it is easy to understand why a UNSC report has termed prospects of peace between the TTP and the state of Pakistan “bleak”.

Simply put, if the demands were to be met, it would amount to a surrender of the state’s authority over parts of the erstwhile tribal belt where the militants are active.

Among the TTP’s demands are withdrawal of troops from the former Fata area, reversal of the merger of the tribal areas with KP as well as the enforcement of their version of Sharia through the Nizam-i-Adl regulation in Malakand. In fact, some high-ranking militants have reportedly already been released as a gesture of peace.

War Will Never Be This Bulky Again

Phillips Payson O’Brien

Nearly 80 years on from the end of World War II, it is striking how much of that conflict remains with us. This is of course true in terms of historic legacy—politicians who compare themselves to Churchill, for example, or fears of German power within Europe.

But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine makes clear that we still live in World War II’s shadow in other ways too. The Russian military, for example, shares many similarities with the great armies of that period. The country’s ground forces are built around large numbers of heavy armored vehicles, most famously tanks, and concentrations of heavy artillery. Much like the German Wehrmacht’s plans for attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, the Russians expected to blast holes in Ukrainian lines with their big guns, and then move tanks and armored personnel carriers through the gaps to make rapid advances, with Russian fighters and bombers in support. Even the Russian navy, with its large surface vessels not too dissimilar in shape and size from those you could have seen in the Pacific or North Atlantic in the early 20th century, was discussed as a force capable of launching an amphibious assault on the Ukrainian coast, much as the Allies did on D-Day in June 1944.

No One Can Hide From This Weapon in the War in Ukraine

Alex Kingsbury

All wars have their iconic weapons, from the AK-47 to the I.E.D. In Ukraine, it’s the drone.

A vast number and variety of drones — unmanned aerial vehicles — have been used on both sides of the war, including large military-grade machines and smaller consumer models. Drone operators are the new snipers, even though they are often miles from the battlefield.

Consider a video that circulated widely on social media in the past few weeks: A drone hovers above a bomb-shattered neighborhood in Ukraine.

Below it, several troops in Russian uniforms get into a truck. The drone releases a small explosive, which plummets toward their parked truck.

Then the driver throws the vehicle into reverse. Just as the truck begins to roll, the explosive drops straight through the truck’s open sunroof and detonates.

When and how might the war in Ukraine end?

The war in Ukraine, says its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, will be won on the battlefield but can end only through negotiations. When to stop fighting, and on what terms? The West says that is for Ukraine to decide. Yet three months into the war, Western countries are staking out positions on the endgame.

They are splitting into two broad camps, explains Ivan Krastev, of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, a think-tank in Sofia. One is the “peace party”, which wants a halt to the fighting and the start of negotiations as soon as possible. The other is the “justice party”, which thinks Russia must be made to pay dearly for its aggression.

The argument turns in the first instance on territory: let Russia hold on to the land it has conquered thus far; push it back to its starting line on February 24th; or try to shove it even farther back, to the international border, to recover territories it seized in 2014? The debate revolves around much else besides, not least the costs, risks and rewards of prolonging the war; and the place of Russia in the European order.

U.S. Gas Prices to Spike After Europe Partially Blocks Putin's Oil


The European Union's embargo on Russian oil will likely lead to higher gas prices for Americans, according to experts.

The EU on Monday agreed to halt the import of about 90 percent of Russian oil by the end of the year in its latest rebuke of the invasion of Ukraine. The move—which comes after the U.S. already cut off Russian oil imports, contributing to soaring fuel prices—seeks to add to the sanctions already weakening the Russian economy to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to end his invasion.

The ban will lead to higher gas prices both in the United States and across the globe "with near certainty," Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told Newsweek on Tuesday.

Biden, Sinking in U.S. Polls, Seen in Europe As Rising Star for Democracy


As President Joe Biden struggles to reverse a steady decline in popularity at home, the U.S. leader's efforts to champion democracy across the globe has generated some positive reviews among allies in Europe, according to a new study published by the Denmark-based Alliance of Democracies Foundation and Germany-based Latana data tracking firm.

However, the same polling also found that other parts of the world were less enthusiastic about Biden's approach, with Asia, in particular, turning against him.

The findings appeared in the latest installment of the annual Democracy Perception Index, which was released on Monday. The study explored public opinions of democracy among 52,785 respondents across 53 nations and territories surveyed between March 30 and May 10 of this year.

Last year's report described a "Biden Bump," in which "perceptions of the US's influence on global democracy improved substantially in almost all countries, from the spring of 2020 to the spring of 2021."

China aims to take out Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites


Chinese state researchers are calling for the development of anti-satellite capabilities against Elon Musk’s SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet constellation, citing the broadband system’s potential military applications and threat to China’s national security.

Starlink consists of thousands of satellites in near-Earth orbit paired with ground terminals, giving its users high-speed internet access. With more than 2,300 satellites in operation, Starlink is considered a robust and durable system, capable of functioning even if some of its satellites were taken out.

In a paper published last month in the Chinese peer-reviewed journal Modern Defense, a team of five senior scientists in China’s defense industry led by Ren Yuanzhen, a researcher with the Beijing Institute of Tracking and Telecommunications, stated that “a combination of soft and hard kill methods should be adopted to make some Starlink satellites lose their functions and destroy the constellation’s operating system.”

Dewey Murdick’s Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dewey Murdick

In 2018, a Chinese state-run newspaper identified nearly three dozen crucial technologies that relied on specific imports that make China vulnerable to other countries’ potential sanctions and export controls. In a series of articles, the full list of which is provided below in Appendix A, the authors covered topics including:The difficulty with producing rocket engines and aviation landing gear due to limitations in making high-strength steel;
The challenges of building reliable high-resolution LiDAR (or light detecting and ranging sensors) that are the “eyes” of many unmanned vehicles; and
Detailed gaps in China’s ability to produce key semiconductor manufacturing equipment components.

These articles expressed the feeling that the United States and other powers could use these and other limitations to “strangle” China at any time.

The Chinese are keenly aware of their strengths and deficits, and are making strides toward achieving technological self-sufficiency. They regularly leverage a wide range of government powers in an attempt to dominate key technology areas — not just the cutting edge.

Data Snapshot “Growth” Companies in PARAT

Autumn Toney

Our last data snapshot focused on “Startup” companies in CSET’s Private-sector AI-Related Activity Tracker (PARAT). We now highlight the companies categorized as “Growth.” A company in PARAT receives the “Growth” designation when its last funding round was raised in mid-stage rounds (e.g., Series A-C). There are 260 companies categorized as “Growth” in PARAT.

When we filter for “Growth” companies that have at least one AI publication or AI patent, we see 188 such companies in PARAT: 63 with AI publications (24 percent of all “Growth” companies), 30 with AI patents (16 percent of all “Growth” companies), and 95 with both AI publications and patents (36 percent of all “Growth” companies). Below, Figure 1 displays the number of companies by type of AI output.


Richard H. Shultz and Benjamin Brimelow

On the eve of war in Ukraine, US officials told Newsweek they believed Kyiv would fall within days of a Russian invasion, and the country’s resistance neutralized soon thereafter. They were so convinced of this outcome that they even offered to evacuate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Driving this assessment was the fact that prior to the war, much was made of Russia’s vaunted military power, particularly its hardware—all those new weapon systems added since 2008—and on the overwhelming size of the Russian forces.

For instance, nine days before the invasion, a piece by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies offered an in-depth assessment of Russia’s new tanks, planes, warships, missiles, and artillery, providing an ominous picture of what the Ukrainians would face if war came. The “New Look” modernization program was said to make Russia “a far more capable military power today than at any time since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.”