Feed aggregator

Summary: The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), the U.S. Navy’s second-oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, will remain in the Red Sea for an additional month to protect commercial shipping.

-Originally deployed in October 2023, the carrier and its strike group, including the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and destroyers USS Mason and USS Gravely, have conducted operations in the region under the U.S. 5th Fleet.

-The extension follows recent Houthi rebel attacks on commercial vessels in the area.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Extends Deployment in Red Sea Amid Tensions

The United States Navy's second-oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will remain deployed in the Red Sea to protect commercial shipping in the region for at least another month. Late last month, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin extended the deployment of Nimitz-class supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and her strike group.

CVN-69 recently returned to the Red Sea after a brief deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean. The carrier and units of her carrier strike group (IKECSG) – including the Flight II Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG-58), and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Mason (DDG-87) and USS Gravely (DDG-107) – departed their homeports of Norfolk, Virginia, and Mayport, Florida, on Oct. 13 & 14.

The carrier strike group consists of approximately 6,000 sailors.

IKECSG initially arrived in the region as part of a scheduled deployment to the region, but since last fall conducted operations as part of the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Red Sea, Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, Gulf of Aden, and Arabian Gulf including Operation Prosperity Guardian and self-defensive strikes into Iranian-backed Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

The Associated Press reported on Friday that a normal warship deployment averages around seven months, which was reached in the middle of May. However, Secretary Austin previously approved the first order to extend the deployment of the carrier strike group about four weeks ago. The news wire also noted that about 12% of the world's trade passes through the waters of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, which first have came attack last November.

Yemen's Houthi rebels have targeted commercial vessels, claiming it is in response to Israel's ongoing offensive in Gaza. However, most of the cargo ships targeted by the Iranian-back group have little to no connection with Israel, the United States, or its partners.

The Houthis have alleged twice in recent days that they have targeted USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and her escorts with drones and missiles, and made the dubious claim that they achieved multiple "direct hits" on the carrier and a destroyer. The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has not addressed the Houthi claims directly, but said via a statement that it had shot down multiple Houthi munitions.

CVN-69 will continue to operate in waters that should be familiar to the vessel if not the entire crew. As previously reported the ship's first deployment – dubbed Operation Eagle Claw – was during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis, and it operated in the region. One of the carrier's most notable deployments also took place during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, during which she became the second nuclear-powered carrier ever to transit the Suez Canal.

CVN-69 has been deployed for more than 200 days as of the beginning of May, and will now remain in the Red Sea a bit longer.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: The XB-70 was designed to be larger and faster than the B-52. It was 196 feet long, 31 feet tall at the tail, with a 105-foot wingspan, and powered by six turbojet engines.

-It could reach speeds of Mach 3.1 and fly at altitudes over 70,000 feet.

-A sleek, futuristic-looking bomber jet with a large delta wing design, six turbojet engines in a cluster underneath the fuselage, and a length of 196 feet.

-The aircraft is seen in flight, showcasing its impressive wingspan and powerful engines, against a backdrop of a clear blue sky at high altitude.

The Supersonic Journey of the XB-70 Valkyrie: Size, Speed, and Legacy

The six-engined XB-70 Valkyrie was designed for the United States Air Force during the Cold War to be capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m) – and essentially immune to interceptor aircraft.

The sole surviving prototype is now maintained in the collection of the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Dayton, Ohio. While it hasn't flown since it arrived at the base on February 4, 1969, the massive aircraft was moved out of the museum's Research & Development Gallery last month for a good cleaning!

XB-70 Facts You Need to Know: A 3-Minute Explainer 

Here are some high flying facts about the North American XB-70 Valkyrie:

It is Bigger Than a B-52 and Faster

The United States Air Force envisioned the need for a larger and faster aircraft than the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. North American Aviation (NAA) beat out Boeing during the design phase, and in 1958, it was awarded a development contract to develop a bomber that could fly at high altitudes at speeds of Mach 3 and would be capable of carrying nuclear and conventional weapons.

The XB-70 had a length of 196 feet, a height at the tail of 31 feet, and an estimated maximum gross weight of 521,000 pounds. Its delta wing had a span of 105 feet with six turbojet engines side by side in a large pod underneath the fuselage. As initially planned, the XB-70A – which was powered by six General Electric YJ93s of 30,000 lbs. thrust each with afterburner – was to have a maximum speed of Mach 3.1 (2,056 miles per hour, or 3,309 kilometers per hour).

The Speed Came At a Price

The XB-70 met the Strategic Air Command (SAC) goals and was designed to fly at Mach 3 – three times the speed of sound – and higher than 70,000 feet (21,000 kilometers). According to the Federation of American Scientists, the concept called for the entire mission (including return) to be flown at Mach 3. While it could outrun any interceptor, it was vulnerable to Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) of the 1960s vintage.

The issue was "Its straight and level trajectory would have been an easy course to plot and intercept," FAS warned "Further, the technology that made Mach 3 possible yielded an airframe with a large RCS that added to the effectiveness of SAMs against the XB-70.

A Contest Selected Its Name

According to an Air Force Times article published on New Year's Day in 1960, "Valkyrie" was selected following a SAC naming contest. More than 20,000 entries were submitted.

As previously reported, "The Valkyrie were maidens of extreme beauty, who ranged the heavens on their steeds, choosing those who were to die in battle and bearing the fallen heroes back to Valhalla." It was thus a fitting name for the aircraft!

ICBMs Were Cheaper

The XB-70 was both ahead of its time, but also too late. As noted, it would have been vulnerable to SAMs, while less costly, nuclear-armed ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) were also beginning to enter service. The XB-70 design offered payload flexibility but not mission flexibility – and while there were considerations to employ it as a reconnaissance aircraft with a bomber strike capability, as the RS-70, it was determined it wouldn't be ideal in either role. The Air Force already has the far superior SR-71 Blackbird filling the reconnaissance role!

Supersonic Test Vehicle

As noted by the National Museum of the United States Air Force, while the program was canceled, two prototypes (AV-1 and AV-2) were ordered and employed as test vehicles – carrying out 129 flights between 1964 and 1969. Those flights generated a plethora of data on large supersonic aircraft. However, AV-2 was lost in June 1966 after an F-104 collided with the prototype XB-70 in mid-air, killing the F-104 pilot Joe Walker of NASA and XB-70 copilot Major Carl Cross of the Air Force, while North American pilot Al White was able to eject but as badly injured in the incident.

Less than three years later, the surviving prototype was flown to the Air Force Museum – later renamed the National Museum of the United States Air Force – where it is now on display, and following the recent cleaning, looking better than ever!

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The Dassault Rafale fighter jets from the Indian Air Force (IAF) will participate in Red Flag-Alaska 24-2, training with and against U.S. F-16 and F-35 fighters.

-This exercise allows the IAF to evaluate the Rafale against advanced aircraft, particularly as the F-35 simulates the Chinese J-20's capabilities.

-The training, involving over 100 aircraft and 3100 personnel, aims to enhance interoperability and combat readiness in a realistic threat environment, crucial given current India-China tensions.

Red Flag-Alaska: Rafale vs. F-35 in High-Stakes Combat Simulation

The French-made Dassault Rafale will soon go head-to-head against the American-made F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-35 Lightning II in the skies over Alaska as part of this month's Red Flag-AK 24-2, which runs through June 14. Eight of the Rafale fighter jets, operated by the Indian Air Force (IAF), landed at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska, last week – where they will take part in simulated dogfights with the American combat aircraft.

However, this is really about highlight the capabilities of the Dassault Rafale and how it can stand up to the most advanced aircraft operated by China.

"The exercise includes simulated dogfights between the Rafale and the American F-35 stealth fighter, the latter standing in for the Chinese J-20," Defence.in reported. "The J-20, a fifth-generation fighter frequently deployed by China along its disputed border with India, is a key concern for the IAF. The simulation allows Indian pilots to gain valuable experience against an aircraft with similar capabilities, enhancing their preparedness for potential real-world scenarios."

The F-35 and J-20 do have stark differences, with the former serving as a multirole fighter capable of ground attacks, while the latter was designed with air superiority in mind – yet the exercises will still enable the IAF to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the Rafale against a fifth-generation fighter.

According the United States Pacific Air Forces, "approximately 3100 service members are expected to fly, maintain and support more than 100 aircraft from 4 nations scheduled to participate in Red Flag-Alaska 24-2," while primary flight operations will take part in a realistic threat environment over the more than 77,000 square miles of airspace in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the largest combat training range in the world. The United States Air Force has conducted the Red Flag exercises with allies and partner nations since 1975, and the IAF first took part in 2008.

"Red Flag-Alaska is designed to provide realistic training in a simulated combat environment enabling joint combined forces to exchange tactics, techniques and procedures while improving interoperability with fellow servicemembers," PAF added. "Red Flag-Alaska training spans from individual skills to complex, large-scale joint engagements."

The IAF's participation comes as tensions remain high between New Delhi and Beijing.

The IAF's Burst of Fire

The Dassault Rafale – which means literally "gust of wind," or "burst of fire" in a more military sense – was developed as an "omnirole" fighter, meaning that it would replace seven types of combat aircraft in operation at the time of its development.

The new aircraft – originally conceived for the French Air Force and French Navy – was designed to carry out a wide range of missions, including air-defense/air-superiority, anti-access/area denial, reconnaissance, close air support, dynamic targeting, air-to-ground precision strike/interdiction, anti-ship attacks, nuclear deterrence, and even buddy-buddy refueling. It is slated to be the French armed forces’ prime combat aircraft until at least 2050, and has found favor with the IAF.

The fourth-generation combat aircraft utilizes a quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire system that provides for longitudinal stability and superior handling performance across three digital channels and one separately designed analog channel. The close-coupled/delta wing configuration ensures that the Rafale remains agile even at high angles of attack. The airframe radar cross-section is minimized by using appropriate materials and mold lines, including serrated edges to the trailing edge of the wings and canards.

It will now be put to the test against the very best multirole fighter in the world – and if he can hold its own that should only serve to make Beijing worry.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

A recent Bloomberg article reported: “Hong Kong is turning to oil-rich Saudi Arabia for new funds to help offset a growing list of challenges facing its stock market.” That is quite an understatement for what was once one of the freest, cleanest financial capitals in the world. 

The reality is grimmer than the story suggests. Hong Kong may soon climb the ignominious list of finance centers that depend on laundered funds as more legitimate capital flees to locales that have not shed the rule of law. 

Saudi funds are the least of the city’s problems (and an unlikely salvation for the ailing city). More suspect are funds from places like Russia or elsewhere that legitimate bankers avoid. In April, Reuters reported that Hong Kong was among the transit points for Russian firms attempting to pay Chinese companies while evading Western sanctions related to the Ukraine War. Also mentioned were legal entities in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan that are friendly to Russia and convenient for Russia-related business activities—not great company. 

Hong Kong’s fall from grace has been steep. The city was once a British-run capitalist outpost in China known for its professionalism and lawfulness. China’s central government promised this system would continue for at least fifty years after London ceded the colony to Beijing in 1997. Since China’s opening began in the late 1970s, Hong Kong has been a mechanism for China to access capital and for foreigners to invest in China without being impeded by the mainland’s capital controls and communist economy.

Hong Kong’s arrangement worked relatively well until Beijing promulgated a vague and sweeping national security law in 2019. The government has used the law to imprison dissidents ranging from low-level peaceful protesters to Jimmy Lai, the publisher of Hong Kong’s popular pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, which the government shuttered. Recently, the government and judicial system have been occupied by outlawing the singing of popular songs. 

The government and businesses stuck in the city are trying to return to normalcy and portray Hong Kong as the dominant gateway to China. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority still boasts that “Hong Kong originates and intermediates two-thirds of China’s inward foreign direct investment (FDI) and outward direct investment (ODI) as well as most financial investments.” Last year, the government initiated a “Hello Hong Kong” advertising campaign stressing normalcy that even featured the chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce—a dalliance with Chinese propaganda that drew a U.S. congressional inquiry. 

The reality is less hopeful. Hong Kong’s stock exchange had a paltry twelve initial public offerings in the first quarter of this year—the worst performance since the 2009 economic crisis. A Bloomberg article in March detailed a “lost generation” of financial professionals in the former boomtown and summed up the situation: “The damage is underscored by the barrage of layoffs by Wall Street firms, the retreat of global capital into the world’s second-largest economy, and the city’s diminishing role as an international financial center.”

The fall from grace occurs at a time when other banking centers have cleaned up their acts. Switzerland has largely ceased to be the haven used to hide funds from the Internal Revenue Service. A senior finance official in the United Arab Emirates plainly told me that the amount of capital in the country and region means that bankers in Abu Dhabi and Dubai simply aren’t impressed by briefcases of cash from dubious sources—the risk is not worth the reward. In February, the multilateral Financial Action Task Force dropped the UAE from its list of countries at risk of illicit money flows. Last year, Singapore arrested ten foreigners from Cyprus, Cambodia, Dominica, China, Turkey, and Vanuatu and seized $740 million in laundered funds—a reminder that the city-state intends to keep its clean image. 

These developments leave Hong Kong as the path of least resistance for those seeking to deposit dirty money. The Ukraine War has accelerated the creation of new financial pathways and practices, with China and Russia, in particular, breaking from Western-dominated banks and financial data networks. This development creates opportunities not only for laundering funds from those countries but also for corrupt locales and individuals around the world.

Amid this decline, the U.S. government should recognize that Hong Kong is no longer clean or financially distinct from the rest of China and take steps to defend U.S. financial institutions from corruption. First, the U.S. Federal Reserve should revoke the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s right to clear U.S. dollar-denominated transactions, which the Authority delegated to HSBC as its settlement institution. In 2022, several members of Congress criticized HSBC for colluding with Hong Kong authorities to harass pro-democracy activists. The Federal Reserve allows foreign dollar clearing only in Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, and Singapore. This mechanism, extended in 2000 primarily due to time-zone differences, allows Hong Kong banks to avoid the step of working through a U.S. bank when conducting dollar transactions.

Washington should end this privilege. It should also apply enhanced scrutiny to U.S. banks’ business in Hong Kong and encourage them to wind up operations. The Treasury should press foreign governments and institutions that want to curb money laundering to take a more jaded view of Hong Kong’s financial scene.

Should the city back off its repression and demonstrate a desire to return to the rule of law, it can restore its lost luster. Until then, the world should recognize Hong Kong as a repressive scofflaw.

Christian Whiton was a senior State Department advisor in the Bush and Trump administrations. He is the author of Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War and a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Much time has been lost. Many opportunities for preemption, deterrence and collective action have been squandered. It is past time for NATO to stop Russia.

Why is swift, pathbreaking action imperative? For moral reasons.Will NATO really allow Russia’s genocidal campaign to continue on in the heart of Europe? Does “never again” mean anything? For existential reasons. Russia threatens not just Ukraine, but democracies across Europe and beyond. Are NATO countries willing to risk their security and way of life for a temporary reprieve? For peace and stability. Russia brings war, mayhem and trauma everywhere it goes. Would NATO gamble on an elusive compromise with Russia when Putin always uses purported “peace processes” to buy time and cover for more war and aggression? To save what is left of the post-World War II world order. The emboldened Russia-China-Iran axis seeks a new world order dominated by authoritarians. Will NATO miss the chance to send the axis an unambiguous signal and setback by acting decisively against Russia?

Eastern flank countries understand the urgency of stopping Russia and exhort all of NATO to act accordingly. Latvian President Edgar Rinevics warned in an interview with Sky News: “[I]f Russia is not stopped (from) pushing the envelope, testing the limits, at one point it may consider that NATO is not serious about its own defense and then we are in trouble.” Estonian Prime Minster Kaja Kallas and Polish President Andrzej Duda implore NATO countries to increase defense spending to 3% of their GDP and to help Ukraine “right now.” Kallas explained to the BBC, “[B]ecause, what are the lessons from the 1930s and 1940s?” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis laments NATO procrastination in “ramping up readiness” and recently asserted on X that “including Ukraine under the umbrella of NATO collective defense” is “the only way to deter Russian aggression.”

Speakers at a May 21st Atlantic Council event entitled “The Washington NATO Summit: Ukraine and the transatlantic security in the age of marching authoritarians” generally agreed that Ukraine should be admitted into NATO, and that failing to prioritize this at the upcoming summit in July would not be a “good look.” Will NATO finally/seriously address the dire and mounting threats before it? Instead of emphasizing “celebration” of NATO’s 75th anniversary, former Ambassador John Herbst said, NATO should adopt a “crisis mentality.” President of the Center for European Policy Analysis Alina Polyakova added that “an alliance that was awake would be on a war footing.” Prime Minister Fogh Rasmusen of Denmark rightly observed, “While we hesitated, Russia escalated. We must wake up.” Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak warned, “Russia is not going to stop. We have to stop it together.”

In spite of such calls for strong and resolute policy, if the recent past is prologue, NATO is unlikely to act with the toughness and resolve required to “stop Russia.” Thus, it is requisite to emphasize, in advance of the NATO Summit, the terribly high stakes. Let us assess the magnitude of the Russia threat to everything for which the Free World supposedly stands.  

Russia's Wars of Aggression - Not Just Ukraine

Russia’s imperial wars and war crimes obviously extend way beyond Ukraine.

From Czechnya to Georgia to Syria, Russia has demonstrated bellicosity, cruel targeting, torture, deportations and disappearances of civilians including children, and ferocious lust for territory and domination. Russia today has camps, and Russia today engages in ethnic cleansing. Circassians and Crimean Tatars are effectively colonized and kept in check with brutality and oppression. Putin has successfully created a puppet state in Belarus, and is pursuing the same in Serbia. In Armenia and Azerbaijan and elsewhere, Putin has fomented the “frozen conflicts” which suit him so well. Moldova endures a constant threat from the pro-Russian “breakaway province” of Transnistria. And, in spite of the indomitable pro-democracy spirit of the Georgian people, Russia is working to usurp Georgia with the sympathetic government’s “foreign agents law.”

No part of Europe is free from Russia’s hybrid warfare. From the Baltics to the Balkans, Russia seeks to destabilize democracies with disinformation (now enhanced with AI), cyber attacks, electronic warfare and aggressive intelligence operations. Russia is reckless and brazen, with no concern for civilized norms. Estonia recently issued a protest regarding Russia’s jamming of GPS signals, which dangerously affected regional aviation. GRU (Russian military intelligence) methods include sabotage, cyber operations, assassinations and arson. Per the Financial Times, European intelligence agencies have warned that Russia “is plotting violent acts of sabotage across the continent as it commits to a course of permanent conflict with the west.” The EU and NATO response to all this has remained tempered, even as Russia’s malign transgressions have grown.

Russia uses propaganda and “active measures” to divide Americans, and citizens within all Western democracies, against each other, to alienate Europe from the United States, and to split NATO allies. Russia wants to create a fractured, cynical West that no longer knows what it stands for, or why, and lacks the courage of its convictions. What better way to counter this stratagem than for NATO allies to unite in moral-democratic resolve, persistently expose Putin’s lies, reinvent Voice of America-type programs, and engage in vigorous information operations of their own?

The complacency, prevarication and incrementalism with which post-Cold War NATO has dealt with the Russian threat has damaged the credibility and authority of the alliance. No wonder Poland and Estonia are on a war footing. NATO has only 5% of the air defenses needed to protect Eastern flank countries from a full-scale attack according to NATO’s own reports. Moreover, the fact that Russia has not faced staunch, unerring Western resistance to the horrors it inflicts on Ukraine and the nightmares it inflicts on Europe means that Russia is relatively free to simultaneously wreak havoc across the globe, which it assuredly does.

Syria’s murderous dictator Bashar al Assad and allies Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah succeeded in keeping the detested Syrian regime in power through merciless war and atrocities, and NATO countries and others did little to stop them. Appallingly, Arab and Western leaders, including the Biden administration, are moving toward “normalizing” relations with the Assad regime in spite of its ongoing genocidal war on the Syrian people, and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah’s participation in that war, which expands their footprint and power. Thankfully, recent Congressional measures include new sanctions designed to undo some of the damage done by Syria and Iran accommodation.

Putin cultivates Islamist extremists as well as authoritarians, all the while exploiting chaos and despair. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, the Houthis … Russia has relations with them all insofar as that tears at the fabric and security of democracies, and inhibits pro-democracy elements in developing countries. In September 2023, Putin hosted the Taliban for talks. In May, Russia moved toward removing the Taliban from its list of terrorist organizations. Tellingly, Putin hosted both a Hamas delegation and Iran’s foreign minister shortly after Hamas’s October 7th terror attack on Israel. As more evidence emerges, more analysts are agreeing with Mark Toth and Jon Sweet’s assessment that “Putin’s fingerprints are all over the Hamas attack.”  Before as well as after the attack, Russia, China and Iran stepped up pro-Hamas and antisemitic propaganda.

Russia, China and Iran are capitalizing on every vacuum of America-democratic influence. Russia’s Wagner Group, recently rebranded the Africa Corps, has ascended in Africa as US and French influence have declined. Countries in northern Africa and the Sahel have been plagued with a “counterwave” to previous trends toward democratization, with resurgent terrorism and coups, and Russian exploitation of both. Particularly notable was Niger’s revoking of its military cooperation agreement with the United States, and ordering US troops to leave. Sudan, where Russia also makes its mark, has descended into war waged by a genocidal Islamist militia.

NATO's Defense Posture  

NATO’s defense calculations must include the power of Russia, China and Iran combined. These partners/allies benefit from weapons and technology transfers, joint military exercises, energy trade, sanctions breaches and running cover for each other in the UN. Russia uses dual-use equipment from China (which China is now “surging” to Russia) and drones from Iran in its war on Ukraine. Now, Iran is additionally providing Russia with ballistic missiles. To subvert what remains of the US-oriented “world order,” the three countries disseminate fierce anti-democratic propaganda; cultivate ties with North Korea and bad actors across the globe; and work toward devastating cyber and infrastructure attacks on the United States. Add to this China’s dramatic military build-up, plan to subjugate Taiwan and cooperation with Russia on space, cyber and nuclear weapons and the picture gets more alarming.

NATO must contain and counter these hostile, brutal regimes and, although China is America’s most formidable adversary, stopping Russia’s savage, ruinous war on Ukraine is fundamental to that effort. By unequivocally and swiftly helping Ukraine defeat Russia, NATO can deliver a decisive setback and credible warning to them all. The too little too late approach must be replaced with scale and speed. While Biden and Scholz are finally, partially backing away from restrictions on Ukraine firing weapons across the border with Russia, Russia gains momentum when the West dithers. Such is all too evident in Russia’s horrific assault on Kharkiv.

Having prevaricated while the enemy advanced, NATO must also prepare for wider war, while doing everything possible to deter it. At about the time Russia outrageously “decided” to change its sea borders with Lithuania and Finland, Putin was warning European countries that Russia has “weapons that can hit targets on their territory.” As if to brag about the inhumanity with which he targets civilian populations, he said they should “remember that, as a rule, they are states with a small territory but dense population.” All of this is frightening and maddening, and exacerbates the West’s fear of “escalation,” but NATO must stand strong. It is weakness and procrastination that allow Russia’s hostilities and atrocities to escalate. There is no good alternative to “peace through strength” and no excuse for inadequately investing in the defense-industrial base and military modernization.

Failing to act boldly and with urgency is as unprincipled as it is unwise. There must be no more impunity for Russia’s wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. Ukraine must be welcomed into NATO as the tremendous ally that it would be, and swiftly given all the weaponry it requires to defeat Russia, to use in the manner it chooses. In addition to more heavily sanctioning Russian atrocities and hostilities, and more resourcefully countering Russia’s sanctions evasion, Western governments should explore ways, including via Russia’s frozen assets, to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine. As an admiral at a conference I attended remarked, “Putin believes time is on his side. … If Europe isn’t going to step up now, with war in Europe, when?”

About the Author: Dr. Anne R. Pierce 

Anne R. Pierce is an author of books and articles on American presidents, American foreign policy, and American society. She has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, is an appointed member of Princeton University’s James Madison Society, and was a Political Science Series Editor for Transaction Publishers. Follow her @AnneRPierce.

All images are from Creative Commons. 

ANALYSE - Le premier ministre répète qu’un scrutin européen ne peut avoir de conséquences nationales. Sans être certain des réelles intentions du chef de l’État, à Matignon, on se prépare à des temps agités.

Les trois hommes soupçonnés d'avoir déposé des cercueils samedi au pied de la tour Eiffel, dans une possible opération d'ingérence étrangère, ont échappé lundi à une mise en examen et demeurent libres.

Summary: The M1 Abrams, the U.S. Army’s main battle tank since 1980, is undergoing a major upgrade to the AbramsX model. The new version will feature a hybrid electric-diesel engine for improved fuel efficiency and reduced weight, along with AI systems to automate tasks and reduce crew size.

-However, the Pentagon is cautious about funding the project, given concerns about tank utility in modern warfare and potential conflicts with China. General Dynamics aims to address the Abrams' criticisms of being expensive, fuel-inefficient, and hard to maneuver.

-The M1 Abrams is the U.S. military’s most recognized modern tank. A third-generation main battle tank, it has been in service with the U.S. Army since 1980. 

AbramsX: The Future of America's Main Battle Tank

The Abrams is hardly a new platform anymore, but when first introduced it carried several new technological features, from Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, a multi-fuel turbine engine, compartmentalized ammunition storage, and protection against nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry.

Now, the Abrams is getting a refresh. The AbramsX model promises to update the 1980s-designed platform with 21st century tech. Assuming the project is funded properly, the updates will keep the Abrams in service for another few decades.

Close to the Chest

We don’t know a ton about the AbramsX yet. The tank’s manufacturer,  General Dynamics, dropped a teaser clip on YouTube last year, prompting the Washington Post to report that the AbramsX is “the biggest upgrade of America’s military tank technology since early in the Cold War.” 

The biggest expected change that we know about will be a switch to a hybrid electric-diesel engine, which will reduce the tank’s overall weight while improving fuel efficiency.

The AbramsX is expected to be more efficient and economic in general, with a smaller crew requirement than the original Abrams. The new tank will make use of artificial intelligence systems. These will supplement the crew and automate some of the workload.

Securing the Bag

The Pentagon is not entirely on board with the new AbramsX. It is concerned about the cost of the program. According to the Washington Post, the AbramsX “faces an uphill climb in the halls of the Pentagon,” in large part because “Russia’s war in Ukraine has shown the promise and peril of tank technology in a modern battlefield.” And the Pentagon number crunchers, whose top concern is the potential of a future conflict with China, “worry how useful tanks might be in a potential war against China.” A valid concern.

There are also worries about the AbramsX’s reliance on artificial intelligence. Hollywood for decades has served up doomsday scenarios about the integration of artificial intelligence with military technology. It is a mainstream preoccupation.

In general, “it’s going to be hard for the tank community to get resources to do a major upgrade,” Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the Washington Post.

AbramsX: Flawed Platform?

The original Abrams tank is not without its critics. The original Abrams is a Cold War creation designed to combat a Russian tank advance across the plains of Eastern Europe. The Abrams has performed well enough to stay in the military inventory, but the tank is regarded as overly expensive, fuel-inefficient, and difficult to maneuver.

General Dynamics hopes the AbramsX can solve the problems of the original Abrams.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Small island states are pointing the way on finding innovative funding.

Face à l’impossibilité de faire parler d’elles dans les grands médias nationaux, sept "petites listes" candidates aux élections européennes ont publié une tribune dans Libération et protesté lundi matin auprès de l’Arcom. Elles pointent l'inégalité de traitement médiatique dont elles se disent victimes, et s'insurgent contre les règles de fonctionnement du scrutin.

Summary: Russia lagged behind the US in submarine technology during the Cold War. To catch up, they developed the Alfa-class (Type 705 Lyra) submarines, combining brute force with advanced technology. These submarines could dive deeper and move faster than their Western counterparts, boasting titanium hulls the U.S. Navy never used. 

-Despite their impressive performance, they were noisy, required extensive maintenance, and were costly.

-Only seven were built.

-NATO responded with advanced torpedoes like the Mark 48 ADCAP. The Alfa-class left a legacy of technological innovation despite their operational challenges.

Alfa-Class: The Soviet Submarine that Pushed Boundaries and Budgets

The Soviet Union began the Cold War well behind the United States in submarine technology. Although the Soviets acquired several of the most advanced German submarine types towards the end of the war, the United States had amassed a wealth of experience in submarine and antisubmarine practice from the Pacific War and the Battle of the Atlantic. Combined with other technological advantages, the United States leapt out to a significant lead in submarine tech (especially nuclear submarines) in the first two decades of the Cold War.

In particular, early Soviet nuclear submarines struggled to compete with the West in stealth and reliability. After the first few designs came to fruition, the Soviets decided to undertake a combination of brute force and extremely risky high technology. The brute-force part meant building a submarine that could move faster and dive deeper than any Western counterpart; the high-tech part meant innovative hull design, reactor design and material manipulation. The result was the Type 705 Lyra (known as Alfa in NATO), a submarine that the West regarded as a profound, if short-lived, threat to its undersea dominance.

How Alfa Was Born

With the Lyra class, the Soviets sought to accomplish two goals. First, they wanted to produce a weapon capable of changing the character of naval warfare in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, a weapon that could threaten the overwhelming surface advantages of the NATO navies. Unlike their Western counterparts, which preferred multirole platforms, the Soviets were fine submarines dedicated to a single mission: the high-speed “interception” of NATO surface squadrons, especially carrier battle groups. Second, they wanted to jumpstart technological development, producing innovations that future submarines would incorporate, if only in piecemeal fashion. An incidental third goal was to force NATO navies to spend money and time adapting to the threat that the Lyras would present.

The Lyra class certainly met the second criterion. Following an interim design (the K-162 “Papa”-class cruise-missile submarine), the Lyras had a titanium hull in order to produce tolerances necessary for high speed and for extreme deep diving. To keep the size of the crew small, the Lyra class employed advanced techniques for automating key systems, a decision which also enhanced the combat reaction speed of the crew, although it made at-sea repairs and maintenance extremely difficult.

To achieve high speed, the Alfas used a remarkably innovative lead-cooled fast reactor design. This allowed a tremendous amount of power in a compact space. However, it also created staggering maintenance problems, few of which could be resolved by the small crew at sea. Indeed, even in port the Soviet Navy struggled to keep the Alfas in service.

Alfa-Class Performance

The Lyras could put up numbers that no class of submarine has matched (apart from the “Papa” SSGN) before or since. Submerged, they could travel at forty-one knots (and could reach that speed with a startling degree of acceleration). They could dive to at least 2,200 feet, far deeper than any NATO submarine of the time, or today.

The speed and diving depth of the Alfa allowed it to evade most contemporary NATO torpedoes, although in combat this would also have made it difficult for the Alfa to move into attack position. Also because of their small size, the Alfas carried a weapons arsenal smaller than most other Soviet boats—a mix of eighteen to twenty-one torpedoes and cruise missiles. Nevertheless, this arsenal could wreak havoc on a NATO group without the means to effectively respond.

The Alfas were not particularly quiet, especially when they approached at high speed. However, their ability to dive deep gave them some stealth capabilities, depending on oceanic conditions. More importantly, they could outrun and outdive most existing NATO weapons, making them very difficult to catch and kill.

Reaction

As with the MiG-25 and other Soviet “super-weapons,” NATO took the threat of the Alfa very seriously. Extant torpedoes and other antisubmarine weapons would struggle to catch the Alfas, or to dive deep enough to destroy them. Whether out of genuine panic, or out of the desire to use the threat of the Alfas to spur innovation and funding, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy embarked on crash programs to develop sensors that could detect the Alfas, and weapons that could kill them.

This effort resulted in a few weapons, including the Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo, which can reputedly travel at sixty-three knots. The Royal Navy developed a similar torpedo, dubbed “Spearfish.” The United States also pursued the “Sea Lance” supersonic missile system, designed to deliver a torpedo or nuclear depth charge at ranges of up to one hundred miles. The United States cancelled the Sea Lance program at the end of the Cold War, roughly at the same time that the Lyra class left service.

Problems

The USSR paid dearly for this performance. Nicknamed “golden fish,” the Alfas strained even the massive Soviet submarine building budget. Moreover, they generally proved unreliable in service, requiring expensive and complex maintenance. Soviet ports often lacked the training and equipment necessary to keep the Lyras in working condition. In contrast to most of its other Cold War submarine projects, the USSR built only seven Lyras, one of which was more a prototype than a usable weapon. This first boat was scrapped in 1974, after demonstrating proof of concept.

At the end of the Cold War, the Russian Federation struggled to maintain the huge defense establishment of the Soviet Union. Ultra-expensive ships like the Lyras simply didn’t make the cut; they could not perform enough critical missions to justify their maintenance. Accordingly, the Russian Federation retired the Alfas quickly after the end of the Cold War. By the mid-1990s, all of the boats were retired and designated for scrapping.

Legacy of the Alfa-Class

Nevertheless, the Soviets learned a great deal from the Lyra experience, not least that the combination of a series of innovative technologies often results in an unreliable vessel. The Barracuda-class (“Sierra” in NATO) submarines of the early 1980s adopted some of the characteristics of the Alfas, including the titanium hull, while dialing back the performance to levels that allowed a more manageable maintenance profile. The Barracudas operated much more quietly than the Lyras, and could perform a more varied set of missions. The Shchuka class attack submarines (NATO: “Akula”) adopted many of the automation techniques pioneered by the Lyras, allowing them to operate with relatively small crews for their size.

About the Author: Dr. Robert Farley 

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, teaches at the University of Kentucky. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: In the mid-1990s, John Leonard attempted to obtain a Harrier jet through Pepsi's promotional campaign by raising $700,000 to buy seven million points.

-Pepsi, claiming it was a joke, refused to deliver the jet, leading to a legal battle that Leonard lost.

-Recently, Liquid Death launched a contest promising a $400,000 Aero L-39C Albatros jet as a prize for in-store purchases, directly challenging Pepsi's past promotion.

-The winner will also receive a year's supply of Liquid Death and other perks.

Pepsi Points Redux: Liquid Death's Bold Fighter Jet Giveaway

A now infamous story – worthy of a movie that hasn't been made yet (although a four-part documentary is available on Netflix) – tells how in the mid-1990s a 23-year-old student raised $700,000 from investors to buy seven million Pepsi points. The goal was to obtain a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II fighter jet. It was part of a promotion from soft drink maker Pepsi, where for various points consumers could claim a variety of prizes, including t-shirts and sunglasses. But in an ad, the company implied that it would provide the Harrier II for the seven million points!

As CBS News reported in 2015, the ad caught the eye of John Leonard, who read the rules and found that instead of buying a can or bottle of Pepsi to gather the points, each point could be bought for just 10 cents. That resulted in the seven million points costing $700,000, which Leonard raised through investors. Pepsi didn't send the jet (and almost certainly didn't have one available) and responded that it was a joke.

Leonard hired a lawyer and a legal battle ensued, but the case was dismissed. To ensure that others wouldn't try to acquire the jet, Pepsi raised the points needed for the jet from seven million to 700 million – making it far too costly for a student or even a despot to garner enough points!

Now another soft drink maker is running a similar promotion; this time, it actually promises to provide a fighter jet!

The fittingly named Liquid Death began running a contest in May that will give away a $400,000 fighter jet – custom-painted Aero L-39C Albatros has been dubbed "The Dehydrator," reportedly due to the fact the thrust will "relieve you of your bodily fluids and make you empty your stomach."

Instead of gathering points, however, between now and early September, consumers who make an in-store purchase of beverages from the company will be entered into a sweepstake. In addition to the jet, the grand prize winner will receive a year's supply of Liquid Death and a custom flight helmet – while the company has pledged to pick up the sales tax for the plane for the winner.

A few strings are attached, of course.

The jet is real and will come with a valid FAA special certification of airworthiness and the contest winner will receive six free months of hanger space outside of Chicago, but after that, it will need to be moved, and the winner will be responsible for any expenses related to owning and operating the aircraft. Should the winner decide he or she doesn't want a plane (are they crazy), they'll receive a cash prize of $250,000 delivered in a briefcase, CNBC.com reported.

Liquid Death's promotion is also taking direct aim at Pepsi.

"We like to poke the bear," Andy Pearson, Liquid Death's vice president of creative, told ADWEEK. "And I've heard that others have had the idea to give away a jet, but no one's ever pulled it off."

It might not be a Harrier II – even as the aircraft is being retired from service – but the Aero L-39 Albatros is still a cool jet. Developed in the former communist Czechoslovakia during the Cold War as a light attack fighter, it is now used a trainer. It has a top speed of 470 mph and produces nearly 3,8000 pounds of thrust so perhaps that year's supply of Liquid Death will come in handy!

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Summary: The B-21 Raider stealth bomber program reported a significant cost overrun of nearly $1.6 billion in Q4 2023 due to higher-than-expected production costs and economic disruptions.

-This has fueled criticism, especially from those advocating for a shift towards drone warfare.

-Despite the challenges, the B-21's advanced stealth technology and unique capabilities in nuclear deterrence and deep-penetration bombing underscore its strategic importance.

-The debate continues on whether the investment in the B-21 is justified given emerging alternatives like drones.

The B-21 Raider stealth bomber has yet to enter production and has mostly avoided controversy. But it experienced a cost overrun in the fourth quarter of 2023.

“Northrop Grumman reported a nearly $1.6 billion pre-tax charge on the B-21 Raider program in the last quarter of 2023,” Defense News reported. “The charge was mainly caused by higher-than-expected production costs and macroeconomic disruptions, company officials said in an earnings call with investors Thursday.”

Naturally, the cost overrun has opened the door for criticism. It offers citable evidence for those who believe the B-21 program is not worth the expense, especially given the predicted rise of drone warfare.

B-21 Raider Money Challenge

The United States is the only country in the world with an operational stealth bomber, the B-2 Spirit. So why replace an aircraft that is already without peer? Well, the B-2’s stealth technology lags behind advances in detection technology, meaning the aircraft is not quite as stealthy as it once was.

The loss of stealth dampens its ability to perform its primary functions: deep-penetration bombing and nuclear deterrence.

The stealth bomber plays an important role in the nuclear triad and in the U.S. bomber rotation. Even with the advent of missile technology, the bomber has unique capabilities. 

First, the stealth bomber offers a manned option. Whereas missiles are launched and essentially forgotten, the bomber has a human onboard that can make real-time decisions as the mission unfolds. It is more flexible and adaptable than a missile. Second, a bomber offers loitering time. A missile launches directly toward its target, kamikaze-style, but a bomber may sustain its presence around the target, extending the targeting window. Finally, a bomber is reusable. A missile is of course a one-and-done weapon. A bomber can be used for decades.

Stealth enhances a bomber’s effectiveness by providing ambiguity and extending the fog of war. It is hard to defend against. So, stealth bomber capabilities are strategically valuable. The question of whether the B-21 is worth the investment really comes down to policy preferences.

The U.S. military is better off with stealth bombers. But how good do we need the U.S. military to be?

Could Drones Get the Job Done?

As written above, bombers offer a manned option. Drones of course would negate the manned benefit of a nuclear-equipped bomber. Granted, many drones are remotely manned, like the entire fleet of Remote Piloted Aircraft in the U.S. Air Force inventory.

But the use of true drones – autonomous aircraft with an artificial intelligence operating system – to run nuclear deterrence missions is unsettling. James Cameron made a film series about something like that, called Terminator. You should check it out if you haven’t already.

And while Terminator is fiction, there’s a word of caution in the narrative that bears respecting.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Explanations from insiders range from ignorance to ideology.

Du 6 au 9 juin, les citoyens européens éliront les députés qui siégeront au Parlement européen. Mais quel est leur rôle ?

A congressional hearing on port safety normally wouldn’t get much attention, but coming so soon after the fatal ship accident that killed six and caused the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, to collapse, there was more interest than usual in the topic.

Indeed, the House subcommittees on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and Transportation and Maritime Security gathered in Miami to discuss “Port Safety, Security, and Infrastructure Investment” just 10 days after the Dali’s allision (when a ship hits a stationary object) in Baltimore harbor.

The venue for the hearing, the Port of Miami, stands out. It’s a site that hopes to grow its market presence and lead in port technology. It has welcomed the world’s largest cruise ship, the Icon of the Seas. And it can service large Neo Panamax container ships – a too-rare feature of American ports. Sadly, the nation’s maritime sector is not as healthy as it needs be.

Americans are increasingly aware that they can no longer assume their store shelves and gas stations will always be stocked. Since COVID lockdowns ended, shipping backlogs have ensued at times due to decisions made in Beijing – recall that Chinese Communist Party’s COVID Zero policy that shuttered the world’s largest ports for weeks. Then the March 2021 grounding of a container ship shut down the Suez Canal, shocking an already reeling global supply chains. That was followed by global grain supply disruptions caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

And, since October, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have been rattling shipping and markets reliant on trade that crosses the Suez Canal. Add to this the incident in Baltimore, and to most people it’s clear our prosperity, which relies on maritime trade, isn’t as secure as it once was. 

As a maritime nation we have fallen far. Today no U.S. port ranks in the top 25 nations in cargo handling; China holds eight of those spots. Asia also has the most vibrant maritime sector with the most new commercial shipping entrants – again led by China. The point is not that our ports don’t meet today’s need in general, but a lack of competitiveness has not generated the resiliency we need, nor the vibrancy necessary to modernize – which in turn fails to recruit needed new mariners and the shipyard workers.

A consequence of this malaise is on display in Baltimore Harbor. While investigations and recovery operations are ongoing (and it will be some time until all the facts are known), it’s clear that our nation’s maritime industrial sector hasn’t been treated as the strategic asset it is. One need only look at the limited salvage capacity on hand to reopen the nation’s 10th port. It has taken two months to clear the Dali from blocking the harbor. By contrast, reopening the Suez Canal, when the ultra large container ship Ever Given grounded and wedged itself in the canal, was cleared quicker: six days.

To reverse the tide of our national sea blindness requires a national maritime initiative. If done properly, it would rectify our over-reliance on non-friendly nations to sustain our economy, and ensure safe maritime operations, by:

-Providing an adequate American flagged commercial shipping fleet that can sustain the nation in a crisis.

-Expanding shipbuilding, repair and salvage capacities and associated workforces.

-Hardening our maritime infrastructure and shipping to cyber-attack and material damage.

On the first point, existing approaches are inadequate, and there is little time to act as both infrastructure, ships, and mariners age out of service. Change is needed, but because of the century of market distortions created by the Jones Act, a maritime Hippocratic oath of “do no harm” is required to retain the maritime assets protectionist dependent domestic maritime industrial sector. At the same time, the March 12th petition against unfair Chinese trade practices in the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors is an opportunity to strengthen U.S. agencies like the Federal Maritime Commission and press America’s case, while rallying international common cause.

Delivering on the second point requires a stronger and globally competitive maritime sector. This would serve as a deterrent to Chinese economic coercion and military adventures, as the nation would be less reliant on Chinese shipping and its ports. This can be done by fostering a revolution in shipping through a new multi-modalism that would recover American competitiveness in this strategic industrial sector. Achieving this, American trade can proceed with greater confidence and resiliency, and better sustain the military.

Lastly, and perhaps most relevant to recent events, legal and regulatory frameworks of the 9/11 era should be revised. With an eye to adjusting to the New Cold War we find ourselves in with China, the Maritime Security Act of 2002, Container Security Initiative and the Proliferation Security Initiative should be updated. We also need to place into law measures of both the 2020 National Maritime Cybersecurity Plan and the recently enacted executive order EO 14116.

The Biden administration failed to act on the 2020 plan until almost four years later with a similar executive order – though not as thorough as the 2020 one. Still we wait. Over three months later, and two months after the Dali allision, there’s no indication that cyber intrusions are even being considered in the ongoing NTSB investigation, according to a preliminary report recently released.

Countermeasures that bolster our maritime sector’s cyber defenses must be de-politicized by being memorialized in law by an act of Congress.

An easy first step in getting the nation underway on a National Maritime Initiative is to update the 1989 National Security Directive 28 on Sealift, with Congress passing enabling legislation. Regaining American maritime competitiveness will not be easy nor cheap, but failing to address the nation’s sea blindness will further place our nation’s economic and national security in the hands of non-friendly parties. 

About the Author: Brent Sadler 

Brent Sadler joined Heritage Foundation after a 26 year Navy career with numerous operational tours on nuclear powered submarines, personal staffs of senior Defense Department leaders, and as a military diplomat in Asia. As a Senior Research Fellow, Brent’s focus is on maritime security and the technologies shaping our future maritime forces, especially the Navy.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Lundi, le premier ministre devra faire face à deux motions de censure déposées par les Insoumis et le Rassemblement national.

Summary: The U.S. Army's new M10 Booker, designed to support mechanized brigades, resembles a miniaturized M1 Abrams but with a 105mm cannon and lighter armor.

-Unlike the Abrams, the Booker can be quickly deployed via C-17 transport planes without disassembly.

-It aims to enhance mobility and protection for light infantry units, despite not being classified as a light tank.

-Critics argue the Booker may struggle in modern combat scenarios like Ukraine, where light tanks have been ineffective against powerful Russian anti-tank weapons.

M10 Booker: The Future of U.S. Army's Mechanized Brigades

The US Army has a new 'tank'…but don’t you dare call it a tank. And it’s something more than an armored personnel carrier. In fact, like most tanks, the new tank, designated the M10 Booker, does not carry personnel other than the crew at all. What’s more, the Booker appears to be a miniaturized version of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT). 

According to the US Army the Booker will “add firepower and maneuverability to the Army’s mechanized brigades.”

Its smaller size does not mean it will not pack a punch. The size of the Booker simply helps to keep maintenance costs down (in terms of maintenance costs, size really does matter). Possessing a 105mm cannon (compared to the Abrams’ 120 mm cannon), with lighter armor than the Abrams, the Booker is not just like its older, bigger brother. 

However, the Army is quite pleased with the product and hopeful about its effectiveness in future combat missions.

That, by the way, should give most readers pause. The M10 Booker, unlike the Abrams, was designed to easily fit onto a C-17 Globemaster III transport plane without having to be disassembled. The Abrams can certainly fit on a C-17. Unfortunately, the M1 Abrams is so large only one can fit on a massive C-17 and it must be partly disassembled to fit. The Booker, on the other hand, can fit two units to a C-17 and can be easily rolled-on-and-rolled-off the aircraft intact.

Nonetheless, what should we make of the M10 Booker? Does it make sense to acquire this new 'tank' with so many other budgetary demands coming out of the U.S. military these days? 

What Role is the M10 Booker Filling? 

The specific purpose of this non-tank-tank is to support light infantry units that are in the midst of combat operations. Rather than having to wait for an M1 Abrams to be reassembled back at an airbase and then deployed to the frontline to support infantry on the move, the M10 Booker can move quickly to targets on the front. The point with these systems would be to ensure mobility while protecting light infantry forces.  

The Army’s leadership has insisted that the M10 Booker is not a “light tank,” as some in the press have described it. US Army General Glenn Dean explained to the Military Times that the M10 Booker is not a light tank because “the historical use of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. This is not a reconnaissance vehicle. It’s not actually a mission match [for a light tank].”

But, as Davis Winkie of the Military Times opined, “Stop gaslighting us. It’s a damn tank.”

A more interesting query would be to find out what kind of a tank it is. Obviously, it is not an MBT on the order of the M1 Abrams. And the level of armor, plus the fact that it is not designed to do recon missions, indicates that this vehicle is not, in fact, a light tank. It’s more akin to a medium tank. The M551 Sheridan was the Cold War equivalent to the M10 Booker (although the Army classified that vehicle as a light tank). Although, the Sheridans could be parachuted into combat. But as one former Army tanker I chatted with recently claimed, “The Booker is light enough that they’ll probably be able to parachute it into combat eventually.” 

The Army says that the first M10 Booker was scheduled to be deployed by the Army in February of this year. Each unit costs around $12 million, roughly half the cost of the M1 Abrams tank. The Army has spent a total of $257 million on the M10 Booker program. 

The real question is, though, will it be effective in protecting infantry? 

What is a Tank?

The Army says that they incorporated many lessons learned from the battlefields in Ukraine. Well, one of the lessons learned should have been that light tanks are not very effective in the kind of combat that is occurring in Ukraine. While antiquated, the French flooded the Ukrainian Army with their AMX-10RC light tanks. All these platforms did was get a lot of good Ukrainians killed. They were deemed “unsuitable” for combat by the Ukrainians. Basically, Russian anti-tank weapons and more powerful Russian tanks kept blasting through the French light tanks.

The Booker tanks, like all light or light, or in this case, “medium” tanks (to keep the nitpickers in the Army’s leadership happy) appear to be missing the fundamental point about tanks. The entire purpose is to get firepower to the frontlines and punch through enemy formations. An 105mm gun and light armor will not achieve this, no matter how new or fancy the M10 Booker appears to be. Yes, it is a tank. No, it is not the kind of tank that one fighting a modern war against a near-peer rival would need. 

Part of the problem is that the acquisition system in the United States Department of Defense is completely broken. It’s untethered from reality and reflects political preferences rather than battlefield needs. Infantry needs to be mobile, and they need maneuverable vehicles supporting them. But they also need tanks—which is what the M10 Booker is, no matter how hard the Army wants to say otherwise—that can pack a wallop and that won’t be blasted to smithereens because of weak armor and a small gun.

The Booker tank is the wrong vehicle for the wrong kind of war.

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

by Dr Moritz Rehm, Prof. Dr. Martin Schröder, and Prof. Dr. Georg Wenzelburger (Saarland University)

The enduring romanticized notion that border regions serve as the quintessential embodiment of European identity has long captured our collective imagination. However, recent scholarly inquiry challenges this assumption, suggesting that the emotional attachment to Europe among individuals residing in border regions is not significantly different from those living inland.

Led by Professor Georg Wenzelburger, Martin Schröder, and post-doctoral researcher Moritz Rehm, our study recently published in JCMS delves into the prevalent belief that proximity to borders inherently fosters a stronger sense of European belonging. Contrary to popular belief and political claims, our findings, drawn from comprehensive data collected from over 25,000 individuals via Germany’s Socio-Economic Panel, reveal a surprising lack of disparity in attachment to Europe between residents of border and inland regions.

In scrutinizing potential explanations for this unexpected revelation, we explored various factors including education, income, duration of residency in border regions, and actual cross-border experiences such as commuting. While our study confirms the commonly held view that individuals with higher education, income levels, and international experience tend to exhibit greater attachment to Europe, it also shows that neither the educated nor the affluent, nor those with cross-border experiences, display heightened European attachment simply by residing in border regions compared to their counterparts in inland areas.

Rather than perpetuating an overly optimistic portrayal of border regions as natural hubs of European identity, our study urges a reevaluation of prevailing assumptions. While we do not outright dismiss the potential influence of border regions on European attachment, we propose a nuanced understanding. Border regions may indeed serve as focal points for European integration, intensifying the “experience of Europe” compared to inland regions. However, they may also be arenas of heightened conflict where national differences manifest more acutely, potentially leading to detachment from Europe among residents who directly witness the challenges of cross-national connections. Thus, border regions may simultaneously foster cooperation and conflict across borders, resulting in a net neutral effect on European attachment overall.

As policymakers continue to invest substantial resources in promoting cross-border cooperation, our study underscores the importance of adopting evidence-based approaches. Our data unequivocally indicates that border regions are not inherently foster greater European attachment. This insight is crucial for shaping informed policies that accurately reflect the dynamics of European identity formation.

Dr. Moritz Rehm is a postdoc at the Department of European Social Research at Saarland University. His research is focused on the political economy of European integration as well as on financial assistance in the European Union. He studied at the College of Europe in Bruges and holds a doctorate in political science from the University of Luxembourg.

 

Prof. Dr. Martin Schröder is professor of sociology at Saarland University, Germany. He did his doctorate at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne and studied at Sciences Po Paris. He was a postdoc at Harvard University and a Visiting Professor at Sciences Po Paris. He is currently in what explains a European identity.

 

Stt

Georg Wenzelburger is a political scientist and holds the Chair of Comparative European Politics at Saarland University. His research is centred on the comparative study of public policies with a focus on Western Europe. Recent work has focussed on the politics of law and order, welfare state reforms, digital politics and insecurity and has been published in academic journals such as the British Journal of Political Science, the European Journal of Political Research, the Journal of European Public Policy or West European Politics.

The post Debunking the Myth: Exploring the Role of Border Regions in European Identity Formation appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Summary: India is reducing its dependence on Russian arms due to Russia’s diminished export capacity amid the Russo-Ukraine War.

-This shift may benefit the U.S., with which India is strengthening defense ties.

-However, India must balance this with maintaining good relations with Russia to avoid pushing Moscow closer to China.

-India aims to bolster domestic production and has sought arms deals with the U.S. and France, while still relying on Russian oil.

India Reduces Reliance on Russian Arms Amidst Ukraine War Impact

India is cutting its dependence on Russian arms sales. The move away from Moscow comes as Russia’s capacity to export arms is reduced on account of the Russo-Ukraine War. 

But India will be forced to maintain cordial relations with Russia, lest it push the Kremlin’s leader, President Vladimir Putin, toward India’s greatest rival, China. 

India’s pivot away from Russia is a significant blow for Putin’s regime. India is the world’s biggest arms importer, and in an effort to compensate, India will likely turn to the United States, one of Russia’s chief rivals. 

“We are not likely to sign any major military deal with Russia,” Nandan Unnikrishnan of the New Delhi think tank Observer Research Foundation said, Reuters reported. “That would be a red line for Washington.”

The United States will hope to pick up a portion of the business India withholds from Russia. India purchased more than $60 billion of weapons from Russia over the last two decades alone.

Russia recognizes the importance of the Indian partnership and has maintained pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Russia has recently solicited India to buy Kamov helicopters, Sukhoi jets, and MiG jets. Modi has resisted, however, focusing instead on increasing domestic production with the aid of Western technology.

“Such efforts would better fit Modi’s ‘Make in India’ programme to encourage domestic manufacturing, as he makes a rare bid for a third term in general elections,” according to Reuters. “India expects to spend nearly $100 billion on defence orders over the next decade.”

In addition to purchases from the United States, India has courted France for fighter jet purchases. India also has designs on co-building submarines with a European nation.

Pivoting Toward the United States

The United States has been working to strengthen ties in the Indo-Pacific in an effort to counter China’s rise. As such, India is of outsized strategic importance to the United States. And India, bitter rivals of China, is similarly interested in protecting against Chinese President Xi Jinping’s increasingly assertive and increasingly capable military.

Collaboration between the U.S. and India on weapons sales and development has already begun. In 2023, the two nations signed a deal for General Electric to produce jet engines in India for use with Indian-made fighter jets. The deal represents the first time the U.S. will allow its jet engines to be made abroad with a non-ally.

Further collaboration is expected in “areas ranging from air combat to intelligence,” Reuters reported. 

Walking a Fine Line with Russia

Although India intends to strengthen ties with the United States, it must simultaneously avoid alienating Russia – easier said than done, given the rivalry between Washington and Moscow.

While India seeks arms imports from another source, the country still counts on Russia for oil.  

India needs to maintain oil purchases from Russia to “keep [Russia] as far away as possible from China,” Unnikrishnan told Reuters.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.