Israel using AI weapons system co-produced with Indian firm in war on Gaza

Azad Essa

Source Link

Israeli forces are using an AI weapons system in Gaza co-produced by an Indian defence company that turns machine guns and assault rifles into computerised killing machines, Middle East Eye can reveal.

According to documents and news reports seen by MEE, Israeli forces have been using the Arbel weapons system in Gaza following their devastating invasion of the enclave after the 7 October attacks on southern Israel.

Touted as a "revolutionary game changer that improves operator lethality and survivability," the Arbel system enhances machine guns and assault weapons - such as the Israeli-produced Tavor, Carmel and Negev - into a weapon that uses algorithms to boost soldiers chances of hitting targets more accurately and efficiently.

The past 13 months has seen Israeli forces engage in a catalogue of massacres - from bombing schools and refugee camps and hospitals to conducting executions on the streets of Gaza.

More women and children have been killed by Israeli firepower than in any other conflict over the past 20 years while close to 1,000 entire families have been erased.

Pakistan appears to block social media platform Bluesky amid user surge

Daryna Antoniuk

Source Link

Pakistani authorities appear to have blocked access to the social media platform Bluesky as its popularity surges worldwide.

Data from the internet watchdog NetBlocks confirmed reports earlier this week that users in Pakistan couldn’t access the service without using a virtual private network (VPN).

Pakistan has increasingly restricted social media over the past year, sometimes publicly announcing the decisions. Government agencies, including the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), have not yet officially commented on Bluesky.

In February, authorities limited access to X (formerly Twitter) amid “escalating unrest and protests over allegations of election fraud.” The country has also experienced months of social media shutdowns and internet disruptions tied to its general election.

In November, Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology, a state agency responsible for ensuring laws align with Islamic principles, declared the use of VPNs against Islamic law and advised the government to ban the technology.

Land Force Integration: The Army’s Contribution to Deterring China

Major General James B. Bartholomees III

Source Link

Chinese Coast Guard vessels are ramming Philippine Coast Guard ships at an alarming rate in the South China Sea. Chinese military planes are increasing dangerous intercepts with U.S., Allied and partner planes over the international waters of East Asia. While the high-profile use of military ships and planes is concerning, China is building and training a joint military force designed with one overarching objective in mind—to seize land areas from its neighbors.

U.S. naval and air forces have been contesting China’s maritime and air threats for years. But they alone cannot deny China the ends of its military strategy either through gray zone tactics or use of force. With significant U.S. Army investments in long range fires systems, and lessons of harsh ground combat in the war in Ukraine, the role of land forces in the Indo-Pacific is becoming more apparent. To deter China from seizing terrain as part of the long-term strategic competition, while assuring our regional allies, U.S. Army Pacific is complementing maritime and air forces by improving the ability to defend key terrain, including the sovereign territory of the United States and its Allies. This can be accomplished by increasing the scale and frequency of campaigning activities forward in the region involving long-range fires systems, pre-positioning equipment and supplies, and capitalizing on favorable policy developments.

Ukraine’s ‘IT Army’ Has Lessons for Taiwan - Opinion

David Kirichenko

Source Link

Today Ukraine stands at the forefront of the world’s struggle for democracy and freedom, but tomorrow the front could be Taiwan. Preparations for war with China are currently underway, and Taiwan has been purchasing and stockpiling cutting-edge weaponry from the West to better resist a full-scale invasion. Taipei has also been watching Ukraine carefully and learning from its experience fighting a war against Russia. One oft-overlooked teachable moment has been Ukraine’s ability to mount an effective cyber defense, conducted by a distributed group of backers nicknamed the “IT Army.” Taiwan should look to implement a similar framework and develop its own IT Army for if and when China invades.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine unleashed the first all-out cyber war between two nation-states. Early on, many feared that Ukraine would suffer a “Digital Pearl Harbor” when faced with a full Russian onslaught, but that moment never came. Russian cyber-attacks fizzled out and Ukraine, with help from both public and private partnerships from the West, withstood Russia’s cyber offensive. In parallel, Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation spearheaded the effort to bootstrap an IT Army to ensure maximum resistance. Given the clear benefits of the strategy in Ukraine’s case, the lesson for Taiwan becomes clear: don’t wait until being attacked to bolster IT capacity; rather, take preemptive measures to build the force up during peacetime.

Would the US win a war with China over Taiwan? US lawmakers briefed on the potential outcome

Morgan Phillips

Source Link

House lawmakers were briefed Wednesday about the potential outcome if the U.S. were to find itself at war with China over Taiwan within the next two years, as the global superpower increasingly encroaches on U.S. allies.

The Chinese defense industrial base is operating at a "wartime footing," and now has a shipbuilding capacity 230 times greater than the U.S.’s, making a potential invasion of Taiwan a not-unlikely outcome.

U.S. military analysts have projected 2027 as the year by which China would be fully equipped for a military invasion of Taiwan. And the U.S. has long followed a policy of refusing to say whether it would come to the island’s defense under such a scenario.

But under war exercises gamed out by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 25 times and presented to members of the House China Select Committee, the alliance of the U.S., Taiwan and Japan defeated an amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan, but not without suffering heavy losses.

Roots of the Present Crises: Embracing Communist China Was U.S.’ Greatest Strategic Failure

James E. Fanell and Bradley A. Thayer

Source Link

From the war in Ukraine to the horrific terror attack on Oct. 7 and the subsequent conflict in the Middle East to the roiling waters of the South China Sea, the world today is in crisis. The causes are not found in Moscow or Tehran alone, but primarily in Washington and Beijing. They are the consequence of two fundamental and interrelated grand strategic mistakes made by the U.S. First, the failure to understand the threat from the People’s Republic of China. Second, the failure to balance against it. As a result, the U.S. is at risk of losing its dominant position to an emboldened PRC working in cooperation with Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the mullahs in Iran. Surveying the global unrest, Americans must comprehend three reasons why they face this dire strategic landscape.

First, U.S. elites did not perceive the threat due to the triumphalism of the “End of History” – the false assertion that modernizing nations like China were on the path to democratization and free market economics. Great power conflict was seen as an artifact of the past. This hubris contributed to what we term “threat deflation,” where year after year U.S. decision-makers consistently dismissed or underestimated the threat from the PRC.

Second, U.S. business interests and financiers indefatigably sought economic gain from cooperation with Beijing. This facilitated China’s rise as it entered the West’s economic ecosystem, as did its admission to the World Trade Organization.

Kim Jong-un's Risky Business in Russia

Bruce W. Bennett

Source Link

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is sending North Korean combat troops to Russia to attack Ukrainian forces. This is an extremely risky action on his part, suggesting that he is desperate. While these troops have years of North Korean military training, they have no modern combat experience and are getting little preparation from the Russians. If they are committed to mass assaults on Ukraine's front line, that could be disastrous for the troops and a problem for Kim.

Kim likely understands some of the risks he is running. But prompt action by South Korea, Ukraine, and the United States could amplify those risks and discourage Kim from continuing his combat troop commitments. A failure to act could jeopardize the cohesion of the Ukrainian front lines and could even lead to a strategic breakthrough for the Russian forces which could become a disaster for Ukraine.

If Kim perceives that his forces have succeeded, he may become emboldened to test his military forces against South Korea.

If Kim perceives that his forces have succeeded, he may become emboldened to test his military forces against South Korea.

North Korea has reportedly deployed 12,000 combat troops to assist Russia in expelling Ukrainian forces from Russian territory in the Kursk region. This Ukrainian incursion into Russian territory has been a serious embarrassment for Russian President Vladimir Putin. While Russian forces have slowly pushed Ukraine's forces back, Putin likely hopes that the addition of the North Korean forces will defeat Ukraine's offensive and perhaps even lead to a breakthrough in Ukraine's defensive line.

The True Aims of China’s Nuclear Buildup

Kyle Balzer and Dan Blumenthal

Source Link

Since 2018, American defense analysts have repeatedly identified China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security. They have variously described Beijing as a “systemic challenge,” a “pacing threat,” and even a “peer adversary,” owing to China’s massive military buildup, belligerent behavior in the Asia-Pacific, and global campaign of economic coercion. These vague, buzzy phrases point to a growing consensus: that China’s ambitions greatly imperil American national interests. There is no consensus, however, on the intention behind China’s strategic moves, chief among them its rapid buildup of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. defense community has largely viewed this buildup in a narrow military framework concerned with weapons capabilities and arms-race balance. A recent essay in Foreign Affairs by the researcher Tong Zhao has broadened the analysis by describing China’s nuclear arsenal not as a coercive tool to achieve well-defined military objectives but as a symbol of national strength by which Beijing can earn Washington’s respect as a major player in world affairs. But any understanding of this nuclear expansion must also account for Beijing’s revisionist intentions.

China holds grand ambitions to remake the world in its image. It intends to do so by first dominating the western Pacific and then pulling much of Eurasia—a region that stretches from China’s immediate neighborhood through Central Asia and southeastern Europe—as well as Africa into its orbit. But Beijing has a geographic predicament of which it’s acutely aware: a number of states off its coastline that have signed on to U.S.-led coalitions devoted to the regional status quo, and which are galvanized by China’s own actions. If China escalates by launching a large-scale attack along its maritime periphery, it risks a devastating and coordinated response that jeopardizes its global designs.

The Saudi Solution?

Maria Fantappie and Bader Al-Saif

Source Link

Over the past decade, and especially since the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020, Israel has assumed that its military, intelligence, and technological prowess can buy it allies among the Arab Gulf states. In more recent months, Israeli officials also came to believe that escalation would turn the regional equilibrium in their favor: a wider war between Israel and Iran and its proxies could force the Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, to finally and fully join with the Israelis.

If war engulfed the Middle East, Israeli leaders thought, the responses of Iran and its proxies to Israel’s provocations would erode the already fragile reconciliation between the Gulf states and Iran, leaving them—and Saudi Arabia, in particular—dependent on security guarantees from Israel’s main ally, the United States. Israeli officials believed that Arab leaders’ opposition to Israeli operations in Gaza and their diplomatic efforts in support of the Palestinians were, ultimately, not their primary concern; their own self-interest was. And thus escalation by Israel would confirm that Iran was the main threat to its Arab neighbors, leaving the Gulf states no choice but to align themselves more closely with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly articulated this calculus in his September speech at the UN, referring to the Gulf states as Israel’s “Arab partners of peace” and called for Saudi Arabia to ally with it to counter “Iran’s nefarious designs.”

An Offensive Strategy Against the Houthi Threat

Kevin Zhang

Source Link

Foreign policy analysts increasingly refer to the "axis of upheaval" to describe the growing cooperation among anti-Western powers—Russia, China, North Korea, and Iranian-backed groups. While much of the focus has been on the strategic partnership between Russia and China, the threat posed by Iranian-backed terrorist groups like the Houthis should not be overlooked. Multiple intelligence sources indicate that Iran is facilitating talks between the Houthi rebels and Russia to secure Russian P-800 Oniks anti-ship cruise missiles, significantly boosting the Houthis' capacity to target vessels in the Red Sea. The Houthis are also reportedly granting Chinese cargo ships safe passage, given China's strong diplomatic ties with Iran.

The Red Sea is a critical artery for global commerce. Yet the United States has largely failed to effectively address the growing Houthi threat. Responsible for 10-15% of global maritime trade, the Red Sea has seen a dramatic decline in container shipping—down over 90% since December 2023. Houthi attacks on vessels have forced companies to reroute ships around the southern tip of Africa, adding 1-2 weeks to travel times and increasing fuel costs by $1 million per trip. These disruptions have intensified pressure on already strained global supply chains, amplifying the economic impact on international trade. The U.S. must develop a clear policy toward the Red Sea to address this escalating crisis.

ATACMS Missiles and Ukraine: What Will Donald Trump Do?

Mark N. Katz

Source Link

Will Trump Continue or Reverse U.S. Authorization for Ukraine to Fire ATACMS into Russia?: After many months of Ukrainian leader Zelensky asking, President Biden finally allowed Kyiv to fire U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles into Russian territory.

With a range of only 190 miles, Ukraine clearly can’t use them to attack as deep into Russia as it has done with less powerful armed drones. According to The Economist, the Biden administration has only allowed Ukraine to fire ATACMS in the vicinity of Ukrainian-occupied Russian territory in Kursk in response to the deployment of thousands of North Korean troops there.

In other words, Ukraine can’t use them to attack military targets on Russian territory adjacent to Ukrainian territory that Russian forces are occupying. This, of course, might change. But so far, as several commentators have observed, the Biden administration’s authorization of Ukraine targeting Russian territory with U.S.-supplied ATACMS is an incremental step that might help slow Russia’s advance, but certainly not reverse or even stop it.

The real question is: Will the incoming Trump administration continue allowing Ukraine to attack Russian territory with these weapons, or will it reverse this decision?

Troops-for-Oil? The Real Reason Behind North Korea’s 'Going to War' in Ukraine

Ulv Hanssen

Source Link

Kim Jong-un’s decision to send troops to fight on Russia’s side in the Ukraine War has naturally spurred much speculation about North Korea’s motives. Why did Kim Jong-un decide to plunge North Korea into its first major war in more than seventy years?

Deciphering North Korean motives is notoriously difficult due to the lack of on-the-ground media access and the secretive nature of the regime. One popular explanation among Western analysts is that North Korea wants valuable combat experience, possibly in preparation for a more militant approach to South Korea. This explanation has gained some credence due to North Korea’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric vis-à-vis its southern neighbor throughout 2024 and the intensification of its missile testing in recent weeks.

However, combat experience is only valuable if the soldiers return alive, and with Ukraine’s body count, that is far from certain. Ukraine will undoubtedly place an extra large target on their backs to deter other countries from entering the war on Russia’s side. But even if many North Korean soldiers do return home alive, all the combat experience in the world would not save North Korea were a war break out on the Korean Peninsula.

Trump and the Storm of the Century

Douglas Macgregor & Dave Ramaswamy

Source Link

The fear in many nations’ capitals is that President Donald Trump’s return to Washington might make Israel feel more confident in attacking Iran. According to Mike Evans, founder of the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem, “There is no world leader Trump respects more than Netanyahu.”

The evangelical leader also confides that President Trump would support an Israeli attack before his inauguration on the assumption that the destruction of Iran’s oil production facilities would devastate Iran’s economy, inducing Iran to end the war with Israel before President Trump assumes his office. This thinking by no means excludes an Israeli decision to strike Iran’s nuclear development sites as well.

What Trump will or will not do is unknown. When the illusive stillness in the standoff between Tehran and Jerusalem will end is also unknown.

One thing is certain: If America joins Israel in its war against Iran, the outcome will be a geopolitical showdown that could dramatically alter the world as we know it. It is the storm of the 21st century and, for the moment, the American ship of state is sailing right into it. At a minimum, Trump should demand answers from his civilian and military advisors to four important questions.

Watch A Ukrainian Uncrewed Aerial Mothership Launch Kamikaze Drones

Joseph Trevithick

Source Link

Ukraine’s domestically developed Dovbush T10 drone has taken on a new role acting as a mothership for first-person view (FPV) kamikaze quadcopters. In this configuration, the T10 also serves as a key signal relay node between the highly maneuverable one-way-attackers and their operators.

Serhii Beskrestnov recently posted video, seen below, of an apparent test of a mothership T10 carrying two FPV kamikaze drones, one under each wing, on his Telegram channel. Beskrestnov (sometimes referred to by the pseudonyms Serhii Flash or Flesh; his first name can also be found written as Serhiy) is a Ukrainian servicemember who has been cited as an expert in “radio technologies” and other military electronics. He regularly posts about new uncrewed aerial systems, electronic warfare, and other battlefield developments.

According to Beskrestnov, the T10 mothership can carry up to six FPVs at a time. The footage he shared online shows picture-in-picture views as the kamikaze drones are released while their launch platform continues on separately. A single pickup truck looks to be the test target for both kamikaze drones.

Russia’s Use Of Advanced Missile Sends Signal To West – Analysis

Myroslava Gongadze

Source Link

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned Russia’s use of a fast, powerful new missile to attack the city of Dnipro on Thursday, calling it a “nuclear adventure” and a stark escalation in the war.

The attack has ignited fears of a dangerous new phase in the war. In a nationwide address, Russian President Vladimir Putin later confirmed the use of a medium-range ballistic missile in the strike.

Zelenskyy pointed to the strike as a sign of Moscow’s broader strategy, stating, “It is obvious that Putin is using Ukraine as a testing ground for weapons that threaten the world.”

His remarks underscored the growing alarm in Kyiv over the deployment of advanced Russian missile systems against civilian targets.

In his address, Putin framed the use of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile as a routine test within the conflict.

“The Russian Federation tested a medium-range ballistic missile, known as Oreshnik, during its operation in Ukraine,” he said.

Pentagon Confirms Russia Launched New IRBM Missile At Dnipro, US Provides Ukraine With New Tactical Weapons

C. Todd Lopez

Source Link

The Russians launched Thursday a new kind of missile at Ukraine, what the Defense Department is calling an “intermediate-range ballistic missile,” or IRBM, said the deputy Pentagon press secretary.

“I can confirm that Russia did launch an experimental intermediate range ballistic missile,” said Sabrina Singh during a briefing today at the Pentagon. “This IRBM was based on Russia’s RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile model. In terms of notifications to the United States, the United States was prenotified, briefly, before the launch, through nuclear risk reduction channels.”

The IRBM missile was launched at the city of Dnipro. While Singh said the missile carried a conventional warhead, she also said it’s possible the missile could be fitted with other warheads as well.

“It could be refitted to certainly carry different types of … conventional or nuclear warheads,” she said.

The Defense Department has characterized the IRBM as “experimental” in that it’s the first time a weapon of its kind has been used on the battlefield in Ukraine, Singh said.

MILITARY DIPLOMACY: A VITAL COMPONENT OF STRATEGIC COMPETITION

Derek Ping , Michael Wise 

Source Link

Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine has entered an attritional phase, in which both the West and Russia have begun re-tooling in earnest for protracted conflict. Russia’s reconstitution of its armed forces is supported by a host of illiberal regimes, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Iran, and North Korea. PRC military exercises near Taiwan and coercive activities against the Philippines worry regional leaders about Beijing’s capabilities and intentions. Great power security relationships with African countries, particularly in the Sahel, are in dramatic flux.

Today’s geopolitical landscape is fraught with tensions stemming from divergent interests, incompatible ideologies, and a re-emphasis on inter-state competition for power and influence. While economic, environmental, and technological challenges are significant, security issues dominate foreign policy and global affairs. In this strategic environment, statesmen, diplomats, and military leaders leverage relationships to reduce instability and posture their countries for strategic advantage. They conduct traditional diplomacy via bilateral and multilateral negotiations that seek peaceful settlements according to their interests, conduct intelligence diplomacy to spur collective action and prepare for defense, and military diplomacy to keep partners and allies in the fight.

Should women serve in combat? Military experts weigh in

Peter Pinedo

Source Link

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Defense Department, Pete Hegseth, is facing a firestorm of backlash for voicing his belief that women should not serve in military combat roles. Although the media is largely united against him, opinions among combat veterans and military experts are more split.

Will Thibeau, a former Army Ranger with multiple combat deployments, told Fox News Digital that he agrees with Hegseth wholeheartedly.

"I think soon-to-be Secretary Hegseth stated simple truths that 12 years ago were commonly understood and affirmed by the senior-most leaders in the Pentagon, the rank and file of the military and the culture at large, that war and in particular units that are made and forged to fight in war with no other purpose are units meant for men and men only," he said.

"Biological sex and relationships between men and women is a reality that you can't avoid," he added. "And when you induce stress, physical uncertainty, physical proximity and unique scenarios to that biological reality, you get a fracture of what would have been a typical military team, or a military unit forged for warfighting."

Wanted: A Plan to Secure America’s Railroads Against Cyberattacks

Annie Fixler & Johanna Yang

Source Link

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published a proposed cybersecurity rule on November 6 that would “require the establishment of pipeline and railroad cyber risk management programs,” solidifying prior security directives. The rule is a positive step, but implementing it within the rail subsector will require continued collaboration between the federal government and private companies.

Large and Small Railroads Need Cyber Risk Management

The proposed rule consolidates separate directives the TSA had issued for mass transit, freight rail, and pipelines over the past three years into a single set of cybersecurity requirements. Under the new rule, Washington requires companies to establish and maintain a cyber risk management program; complete annual cybersecurity self-assessments; have a cyber incident response plan; and report physical and cyber incidents to the TSA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, respectively.

Of the more than 600 freight rail companies in the United States, only about 70 are covered under the new rule. The six largest freight rail companies, which account for more than 90 percent of industry revenue, are all subject to this rule. The remaining railroads are much smaller but provide critical ligature between the larger railroads, including serving as essential movers of military equipment, troops, and supplies. A cybersecurity incident at these smaller railroads would have a “significant impact on rail transportation, national security, and economic security,” the TSA noted.

Do the New Missiles in Ukraine Matter?

Andrew Davidson

Source Link

On Nov. 17, the United States greenlit the use of Army Tactical Missile Systems in Ukraine. The stipulations of use and number of systems deployed is not yet clear, but here’s what we know: ATACMS are solid-fueled surface-to-surface ballistic missiles with a range of 300 kilometers (186 miles). When fired, they take a high atmospheric path and fall at a steep angle. They have a capable payload of 225 kilograms (500 pounds) of explosives or cluster munitions, they can be used against wide-area and lightly armored targets, and they have a circular error probability of 9 meters (about 30 feet).

In layman’s terms, this means Ukraine now has the ability to strike much deeper into Russian territory than it previously could, with missiles that are difficult to intercept and that are extremely accurate at their maximum range.

Perhaps the introduction of ATACMS will change the geography of the battlefield. As many as 14 Russian airfields and launch sites now lie within their range, as do key points in Russian logistics, including equipment and troop staging areas and roads. All of the Kursk region of Russia is well within striking distance of Ukraine’s new missiles. Russia’s Ministry of Defense claims to have shot down five of them during a strike on Nov. 19.

Thunderbolt from the Skies: Putin's Doomsday Weapon Puts NATO on Final Notice

Simplicius

Source Link

The escalations continue accelerating as we inch closer to nuclear war. Russia has now confirmed to have unprecedentedly used a new IRBM weapons system named ‘Oreshnik’ to strike Ukraine’s Yuzhmash enterprise facility in Dnipro:

Though I shudder at having to write such a seemingly clickbaity lead line, and while I myself do not actually expect it to come to any sort of WWIII scenario any time soon, one cannot but accurately describe the situation as having brought the doomsday clock a few seconds closer to midnight.

The main reason for this is that, essentially, Ukraine is getting exactly what it wants, underscored by Zelensky immediately launching into an online tirade calling for allies “to do something” against Russia for this escalation. Remember: Zelensky actually unironically wants Russia to outright nuke Ukraine. It would be a very tiny price to pay for salvation. A single nuke would do no appreciable damage at all, but would obviously change the global calculus against Russia. Thus, the developments could only be regarded as quite promising for Yermak and his small factotum.

Of course, they come with great risk for Ukraine as well. It all depends on the allies’ stomach for escalation. Russia’s actions could yield a measure of deterrence and strategic paralysis.

Virtual Media Briefing: Update on the Russia-Ukraine War—Will U.S. Long-Range Missiles Change the Equation?

Max Boot, Liana Fix & Liana Fix

Source Link

CFR experts discuss the implications of President Joe Biden authorizing Ukraine to use U.S. long-range missiles against targets inside of Russia, and the prospects for the Ukraine-Russia war under President-Elect Donald Trump.

LABOTT: Thanks, Isabelle. Thank you, everyone, for joining us to discuss the implications of President Biden’s decision to let Ukraine strike targets on Russian soil with U.S.-made longer-range missiles. And we have another decision this morning about anti-personnel landmines.

So let’s talk about what this means for the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. Will this change the equation? And if so, how? And how will this affect the transition to a Trump presidency in any policy continuity or change?

I have a really terrific panel to discuss this: Max Boot, the Jeane Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and also the author of a fantastic new biography on Ronald Reagan called Reagan—it’s a wonderful Christmas present, just saying; Liana Fix, fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Charlie Kupchan—or, I should say Charles, but I’ll refer to him as Charlie—senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations.

Europe Has Run Out of Time

Norbert Röttgen

Source Link

For decades, the transatlantic alliance has been the bedrock of European security. But today, Europe’s partnership with the United States is at a critical juncture. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, there is a genuine risk that U.S. engagement in Europe could drop precipitously. If the United States halts its military aid to Kyiv, the consequences will be profound, both for the war in Ukraine and for the rest of Europe’s defenses against external threats, a revanchist Russia chief among them.

Although Trump’s second term will most likely usher in a radical break from previous U.S. policy, the reality is that discontent with the European contribution to the transatlantic relationship has been simmering in the United States for years. Europe, however, squandered the time it should have spent investing more heavily into the relationship—including by building up its own defenses. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been the final wake-up call, creating real momentum behind Europe’s effort to become a credible security actor in its own right. Instead, once again, it relied on the United States to take the lead in a European war. Now, that fallback option is at risk of disappearing, and European leaders cannot simply shift the blame for their predicament to Washington.

The Paradox of Israeli Deterrence

Carrie A. Lee

Source Link

Last April, it appeared as though escalation between Israel and Iran could plunge the entire Middle East into conflict. Israel’s strikes on the Iranian consulate in Damascus prompted Iran to retaliate by launching a barrage of missiles and rockets into Israel—the first time that Iran had openly attacked the country. But after Israel responded in a relatively muted way, both countries moved on from the confrontation. Observers, too, put aside their most acute worries, comforted by the fact that both countries had shown that they had no interest in a wider war.

Space Force eyes SpaceX’s Starship for future rocket cargo delivery missions

Mikayla Easley

Source Link

The Space Force is keeping tabs on test flights for SpaceX’s new Starship megarocket, in anticipation that the super heavy-lift launch vehicle could be used by the Defense Department to send military supplies from one point on Earth to another.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman observed the Starship’s sixth test flight from the company’s Starbase facility in Texas on Tuesday, with SpaceX founder Elon Musk and President-elect Donald Trump also in attendance. The 400-foot-tall reusable launch vehicle comprises SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft, giving it much larger payload capacity than any other rocket available today.

Although the launch vehicle’s development is critical for NASA’s plans to resume missions on the moon and exploration of Mars, the Space Force is also tracking Starship for military applications — notably for logistics missions, Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant, commander of Space Systems Command (SSC), told reporters Thursday.

“We are thinking about how we might use it. We think the first, most logical, given the payload volume, … would be some type of rocket cargo delivery mechanism,” Garrant said during a roundtable hosted by the Defense Writers Group. “[We are] absolutely interested in the potential military utility and definitely following their progress.”

Why Have China and India Suddenly Come Together?

Kanti Bajpai

Source Link

In late October, just before the U.S. presidential election, India-China relations turned a corner.

In the first of two sudden developments, India announced on Oct. 21 an agreement with China on patrolling rights in Depsang and Demchok in eastern Ladakh along the two countries’ contested Himalayan border. These had been denied to India after a deadly military clash in the nearby Galwan Valley in June 2020. The resumption of both sides patrolling will be followed by the withdrawal of thousands of Chinese and Indian troops deployed in forward positions since the 2020 clash. This agreement came after stabilizing buffer zones were created at other conflict points in eastern Ladakh in 2021-22.

A New Axis? Bangladesh’s Growing Alignment with Pakistan Sparks Security Concerns for India

Yuvraj Tyagi

Source Link

In a watershed moment since Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, a direct cargo vessel from Pakistan docked at Chittagong port, signalling a thaw in relations between the two nations after five decades of estrangement. The Panama-flagged ship, Yuan Xiang Fa Zhan, arrived on November 11 from Karachi, marking the establishment of a direct maritime route between the former adversaries. This development underscores a major strategic realignment in South Asia, with significant geopolitical implications for India.

The container ship, carrying goods from Pakistan and the UAE, delivered raw materials critical to Bangladesh’s garment industry and essential food supplies. Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Syed Ahmed Maroof, hailed the event on social media as a breakthrough for bilateral trade, emphasizing streamlined supply chains and reduced transit times.

Previously, the absence of a direct maritime link forced Pakistani goods to transit through intermediate ports in Sri Lanka, Singapore, or Malaysia. Bangladesh further facilitated this trade shift by relaxing stringent import restrictions on Pakistani goods in September, a move that had previously caused significant delays.

The Myth of "No Military Solutions"

Michael Shurkin

Source Link

One of the odder bits of dogma one frequently encounters in policy circles is the idea that conflicts have “no military solution.” For example, on 12 November 2024, US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield asserted before the UN Security Council the following regarding Sudan’s civil war:

There is, quite simply, no military solution to this crisis. None. All countries should cease providing military support to the belligerents. And every one of us must continue to press the parties to return to the negotiating table with the aim of ending this conflict.

Taken at face value, the statement is not remarkable. But this is far from being the only time a senior U.S. diplomat or any other senior diplomat has made this assertion about seemingly intractable conflicts. A simple google search with the terms “State Department” and “no military solution” turns up such nuggets as the U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad insisting on 3 August 2021 that there was “no military solution” to the Afghanistan War. He was echoing a State Department spokesman’s statement in 2011 that there was “no military solution” to the Afghanistan War. On 12 September 2022, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken opined that there was “no military solution” to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Similarly, on 9 November 2022, another State Department spokesperson said that there was “no military solution” to the war in Libya. On 7 December 2014, a Washington Post columnist took the Obama Administration to task for insisting there was “no military solution” to no less than three conflicts (Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine). On 1 June 2006, Richard A. Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, affirmed that there “is no military solution” to the conflict in Sri Lanka between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil rebels.

This Foreign Country Holds More US Debt Than Any Other - and It's Not China

Drew Wood

Source Link

At the moment, the United States just recently ticked over $36 trillion in debt … and in the time it took you to read those words the interest on the debt went up another $100,000. How did we get to this point? Who do we owe all this money to? Should we be worried?

How Did the National Debt Grow So Large?

Just like a family budget, the national budget goes into debt when spending is higher than revenues. Crises like wars and the Great Depression caused the United States to incur heavy debt in the past, but in more recent years the debt has increased because of military spending and social programs that are inadequately covered by tax revenues. On average, the U.S. government takes in about $4.4 trillion in revenues every year but spends $6.1 trillion.

Debt Interest: Money Down the Drain

Every day, the U.S. government spends $2.4 billion just on interest on the national debt. Projections indicate that within a decade, interest payments on the debt will surpass what the country spends on Medicare, Medicaid, or discretionary defense items. That’s money that could fund other underfunded programs or do new beneficial things like provide expanded mental health services for veterans, small business loans, improve school funding, build infrastructure, or protect the environment.

The True Aims of China’s Nuclear Buildup

Kyle Balzer and Dan Blumenthal

Source Link

Since 2018, American defense analysts have repeatedly identified China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security. They have variously described Beijing as a “systemic challenge,” a “pacing threat,” and even a “peer adversary,” owing to China’s massive military buildup, belligerent behavior in the Asia-Pacific, and global campaign of economic coercion. These vague, buzzy phrases point to a growing consensus: that China’s ambitions greatly imperil American national interests. There is no consensus, however, on the intention behind China’s strategic moves, chief among them its rapid buildup of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. defense community has largely viewed this buildup in a narrow military framework concerned with weapons capabilities and arms-race balance. A recent essay in Foreign Affairs by the researcher Tong Zhao has broadened the analysis by describing China’s nuclear arsenal not as a coercive tool to achieve well-defined military objectives but as a symbol of national strength by which Beijing can earn Washington’s respect as a major player in world affairs. But any understanding of this nuclear expansion must also account for Beijing’s revisionist intentions.

Israel and Iran Seemed on the Brink of a Bigger War. What’s Holding Them Back

Lara Jakes

Source Link

It has been nearly a month since Israel sent more than 100 jets and drones to strike Iranian military bases, and the world is still waiting to see how Iran will respond.

It is a loaded pause in the high-risk conflict this year between the two Middle East powers. Israel’s counterattack came more than three weeks after Iran launched over 180 ballistic missiles — most of which were shot down — on Oct. 1 to avenge the killings of two top Hezbollah and Hamas leaders.

The first volley of strikes came in April, when Iran decided to avenge an attack on one of its diplomatic compounds by directly bombarding Israel with at least 300 missiles and drones. Even then, Israel waited days, not hours, to respond.

Not long ago, analysts might have predicted that any direct strike by Iran on Israel, or by Israel on Iran, would have prompted an immediate conflagration. But it has not played out that way.

Partly that is the result of frantic diplomacy behind the scenes by allies including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. But the calculated, limited strikes also reflect the fact that the alternative — a war of “shock and awe” between Israel and Iran — could lead to dire consequences not just for the region but also much of the world.

New Missiles Won’t Change Ukraine’s Broken War Math

Jennifer Kavanagh

Source Link

A Ukrainian government expert examines remnants of shells and missiles used by the Russian army to attack the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.

When U.S. President Joe Biden greenlit Ukraine’s use of longer-range, U.S.-provided missiles known as ATACMS to strike targets deep inside Russia this week, he crossed what Russia has deemed a red line. The decision came after months of pressure from Kyiv, European allies, and Ukraine-supporting members of the U.S. Congress who blamed Biden’s foot-dragging for Ukraine’s cascading losses.

Biden’s gambit will fail for the same reason his broader Ukraine policy has: It ignores the conflict’s basic math. Given limits on U.S. stockpiles and defense production and Ukraine’s manpower constraints—all readily apparent from the war’s outset—there has never been a sustainable way for Washington to fuel its partner to total victory over Russia.

Why Emerging Powers Are Welcoming Trump’s Victory

Christopher S. Chivvis

Source Link

Emerging powers in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East have showered U.S. President-elect Donald Trump with congratulations since he won the election. The general response from these countries—with a few notable exceptions such as Brazil and Mexico—has been much warmer than it was after outgoing President Joe Biden’s win in 2020.

“You are my favorite president,” Argentine President Javier Milei said in a call with Trump last week. Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto offered to fly to the president-elect to congratulate him in person. Meanwhile, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently said, “I know today a lot of countries are nervous about the U.S. [election], ok—let’s be honest about it. We are not one of them.”

We’re About to Find Out How Much America’s Leadership Matters

Oona A. Hathaway

Source Link

The global legal order rests on a kind of collective act of faith. For it to work, nations must trust that other nations will behave as if its principles matter. The system is not so unlike the dollar in this respect: It holds value only when — and only because — most of those who use it believe that it does.

This is why Donald Trump’s re-election to the American presidency is such a threat to global peace and security. He is — as an elected official and as a person — committed to breaking principles, not maintaining them. He understands and appreciates the value of the dollar. The global legal order? Not so much.

The last time he was president, Mr. Trump withdrew from critical treaties, launched what critics have deemed unlawful military strikes in Syria and on the Iranian general Qassim Suleimani in Iraq, and set off a damaging trade war with China. This time, his incoming administration appears poised to do far worse. His choice for national security adviser, Representative Michael Waltz, introduced legislation last year to use military force against drug cartels in Mexico. His pick for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has championed service members accused or convicted of war crimes. His choice for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is an apologist for both the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who has massacred his own people, and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, who started an illegal war on Ukraine and is under an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court.

Together with Mr. Trump’s, their ideas embody the rejection of a system that is grounded in the idealistic — but until now remarkably successful — faith in the willingness of nations to abide by a set of shared principles that guide their behavior. If they have their way and America’s commitment to supporting this legal order ceases, we may find out how much the global rules — and principled American leadership in support of them — really matter.

Lebanon’s Day After Will the Country Survive the War With Israel?

Maha Yahya

Source Link

On October 8, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the Lebanese people to rise up against Hezbollah, giving them a stark choice: “Stand up and take your country,” he said, “before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza.”

Shortly before Netanyahu spoke, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had visited Lebanon in an effort to shore up Hezbollah’s morale. In the week since Israel began its full assault in late September, the group’s leadership and rank and file had been decimated by successive military operations. Thousands of Lebanese had been killed or injured and more than a million had been displaced by Israel’s heavy bombardment, including in Beirut itself, and the country’s politicians were pushing for a cease-fire. But Araghchi’s visit seemed to have scuttled those efforts. A few weeks later, Iran’s speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Galibaf, declared in an interview with the French press that Iran would negotiate with France on behalf of Lebanon for a cease-fire. Hezbollah is Iran’s protégé, and it is the most powerful actor within Lebanon—more powerful than Lebanon’s own armed forces. Both Araghchi and Galibaf made clear that the fighting would not end until Iran said so.

Netanyahu’s speech and Araghchi’s visit highlighted just how much Lebanon had become the center of the proxy war between Iran and Israel. It is the place where the two countries are most outwardly tussling over the Middle East’s regional order. Lebanon’s role in their fight has, accordingly, received substantial international attention.