Diplomacy & Crisis News

The chief of the World Health Organization condemned Israel’s Friday attack on a hospital.

The People’s Republic of China is making all the rounds on international media recently. That’s because China has made a series of, frankly, shocking announcements about its growing military technological capabilities. Most recently, the Chinese unveiled their Type 076 “Sichuan” amphibious assault ship. And, boy, does it have Western military analysts sweating bullets. 

That’s because amphibious landers (they basically look like mini aircraft carriers) are a telltale sign of China’s growing capacity to seriously threaten its U.S.-backed, democratic neighbors in Taiwan.

Until recently, most Western military analysts simply shrugged at the prospects of a Chinese invasion of the tiny island democracy because, as they so often—mockingly—said of China: The Chinese military lacks a requisite number of amphibious landing craft.

While the Chinese still technically lack a sufficient number of these mission-critical warships, the launching of the Type 076 Sichuan has just given China an added capability. From there, one can anticipate that the superior manufacturing infrastructure in China will churn these warships out at a breakneck pace, meaning that the Chinese invasion threat will multiply significantly.

Although, it must be stressed that China today already possesses this ability since it has spent the last decade building its civilian Roll-On-Roll-Off (RoRo) ferries to be military grade (and China currently has the largest RoRo ferry fleet in the world).

Capabilities

The Type 076 boasts an impressive array of capabilities, too. The Sichuan is comparable in size to American amphibious assault carriers (specifically, the Wasp-class or America-classes). Of course, the Americans have a finite number of these warships and, with the defense industrial base in the United States basically broken, there is no real hope that the number of amphibious assault ships the Americans possess will grow anytime soon. 

But, that is another matter for another article. 

Anyway, it has been speculated that the Type 076 actually has a flight deck that is larger than any other amphibious assault ship in the world while the ship is equipped with an electromagnetic catapult.

This is a next-generation catapult system used to launch aircraft from the flight deck that the Americans first innovated for their new Ford-class aircraft carriers (and that Washington accuses Beijing’s spies of having stolen). The Sichuan has a unique twin-island design that improves visibility, maximizes the deck space onboard, and allows for greater air traffic control. Which, during an invasion of Taiwan, would be a key feature for an amphibious lander.

It is believed that the Type 076 can launch and recover a medley of aircraft—including large numbers of drones, prompting many analysts to dub the Type 076 as a “drone mothership.” Technically, that is true.

The Type 076 has a 21-megawatt gas turbine and diesel-fuel powerplants along with a medium-voltage direct-current integrated power system.

What’s China Up To? 

As for weapons, the Sichuan has an arsenal that Naval News describes as “robust.” For instance, it carries “three 24 round-HQ-10 missile launchers and three 11 barrel H/PJ-11 30mm [Close-In Weapon System] of similar configuration found on [China’s aircraft carrier, the Fujian].” There are also four Type 726 series 24-round decoy launchers onboard. A dual-band rotating AESA radar provides greater situational awareness for the crew. 

China is building the capabilities to effectively invade Taiwan. At the rate at which the People’s Republic of China is producing increasingly sophisticated systems (of the kind needed to take Taiwan), should Beijing decide to invade, China will be able to do so sooner than anyone in the West thinks. Heck, China could probably pull off an invasion well before the Pentagon’s 2027 timeframe. In fact, it could hit Taiwan as early as this upcoming spring. 

The Americans—and the Taiwanese, for that matter—are not ready for the hammer (and sickle) that is about to fall upon them. The Type 076 is a symbol of just how unprepared we all are. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a contributor at Popular Mechanics, consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image: quiggyt4 / Shutterstock.com

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has left a variety of factions fighting for power in Syria. Although none yet presents a clear threat of terrorism to the United States, the lack of stability leaves the country vulnerable to terror groups in the future. Western leaders should establish a foreign policy that balances non-intervention with support for anti-terror infrastructure in the region.

Three main players are currently jockeying for power in the leadership vacuum left by the Assad regime. First is the rebel group known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a collection of Sunni Islamist groups that were the primary drivers of the recent offensive that ousted Bashar al-Assad from power. HTS was formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda. HTS claims to have renounced its extremist views, although time will tell if that’s true. 

Second is the Syrian National Army (SNA), which, despite its name, is a rebel group fully backed by Turkey. They occupy territory in the northwest part of Syria and are fighting to take more territory, including territory held by the Kurds. 

The last contenders are the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a primarily Kurdish group that occupies territory in northeastern Syria.

HTS currently controls most of the territory between the three. However, there are several critical reasons why Israel and the United States should think twice before recognizing HTS as the new official government of Syria. The first is that insurgent groups have a long history of becoming terrorist groups. The most notable example is how the Mujahideen went from opposing the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan to morphing into the Taliban and Al Qaeda. HTS itself already has a prior affiliation with Al Qaeda, a connection that potentially makes it even more dangerous. While it has renounced ties to Al Qaeda, the fact that HTS originated as part of one of the deadliest terror groups in the world should give policymakers a healthy dose of skepticism in dealing with them.

The SNA, meanwhile, is backed by Turkey, which is a member of NATO. This is not a point in the SNA’s favor, however, since Turkey has proven to be an unreliable NATO partner, recently sliding toward dictatorship and opposing Israel in its war against Hamas. Furthermore, unlike HTS, which has a formalized structure and leadership, SNA is a decentralized collection of groups. In the event of a breach between member factions, there is no guiding establishment to prevent terror groups from taking over and opposing Israel and threatening regional security.

That leaves the Kurds. While they have been reliable partners with the United States against ISIS, they control a small amount of territory in Syria. Any attempts to establish the Kurds as a primary power in Syria would be impractical. The majority Arab population would not accept a Kurdish-led government as legitimate. Yet, Israel and the United States should still offer financial and air support to Kurdish-led groups to maintain critical anti-terror infrastructure in Syria. 

It is in the West’s best interests for the SDF to maintain its power in the region. Civil war is likely to continue in Syria, as the formal integration of HTS, SNA, and SDF forces has not occurred. Meanwhile, the SNA is actively attacking SDF territory. As in Afghanistan and Iraq after the U.S. invasions, instability leaves the region vulnerable to the rise of Islamist terror groups. Both Israel and the United States need partners in the Middle East who can help counter these developments, and the Kurds have proven themselves dependable allies. The SDF is currently standing guard over thousands of former ISIS fighters who are in prisoner-of-war (POW) camps all over SDF-held territory. This is yet another reason why it is in the West’s best interest for the SDF to maintain its power: If the SDF is destroyed or weakened, these former fighters could revitalize the Islamic State.

The United States has had troops on the ground operating in support of Kurdish forces since 2014. It is well past time for them to come home, but the United States should continue its support of Kurdish forces in other ways. Israel should also recognize the importance of Kurdish forces in their own battle against terrorist forces and send the SDF military aid. With financial support from the United States and air support from the IDF, the Kurdish forces would be well-equipped to fight extremist groups on their own. Diplomatically, the United States must use its weight in NATO to keep Turkey from wiping the SDF off the map via its proxies. While Turkey vehemently opposes the nationalist aspirations of Syria’s Kurds due to its own sizable Kurdish population, it must also recognize the Kurds’ value in the fight against extremist militias. Political pressure, sanctions, and withholding military tech are just some of the tools President-elect Trump can use to pressure Turkey to end its war against the Kurds.

Some make the case that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO, but perhaps this move can be held as a trump card to keep Ankara in line when it comes to Syria. If the United States can get the SDF to agree not to encourage revolts by Kurds living in Turkey, then maybe Turkey will agree not to attack the Kurds in Syria.

The fall of Assad has created much uncertainty in Syria. For Israel, it has yet another unstable state for a neighbor. For the United States, it is another potential haven for terrorist groups. Both have the potential to make security gains through supporting the Kurdish-led SDF.

Matt Cookson is a contributor and a Middle East History and Policy Fellow with Young Voices. He also works in the supply chain for a U.S. Defense Contractor. His commentary has appeared in Real Clear Politics, the American Thinker, Providence Magazine, China Source, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation. You can follow him on X @MattCookson95. 

Image: Olmo Couto / Shutterstock.com.

Numerous U.S. military programs are running years behind schedule, but one is running almost like clockwork, at least by procurement standards. In 2019, United States Air Force officials had suggested the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider would make its maiden flight by the end of. Yet, it wasn’t until December 2022 that the flying wing aircraft—designed to replace the aging Rockwell B-1B Lancer and Northrop B-2 Spirit—received its official unveiling.

However, since that public reveal two years ago, the program has made notable progress, including making its maiden flight just eleven months after it was officially introduced to the world.

Aerospace giant Northrop Grumman recently announced that flight tests have continued throughout 2024. The Raider is now on track to enter service in 2026 or 2027.

“The B-21 Raider made significant progress in our flight test campaign this year, continuing to demonstrate the value of our digital technology and the power of the world’s first sixth-generation aircraft,” Northrop Grumman said in a statement. The aviation firm noted its close collaboration with the U.S. Air Force, “We extend our gratitude to the United States Air Force for their partnership in bringing the B-21 to life.”

Test Flights Going Well

There have also been reports that the flight tests are progressing as expected, and according to the defense contractor, the B-21 has performed well.

“Overall, I am pleased to see the performance of our test jet. The handling qualities are better than expected coming out of the simulated environment—validating the accuracy of the digital models the team has developed and analyzed over many years,” said Chris “Hoss” Moss, Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider test pilot, in a September interview.

“Flight test is an exciting time, and we’re making great progress on B-21,” added Tom Jones, corporate vice president and Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems’ president, in the same report. “The CTF team has demonstrated we can execute multiple flight test events within the span of a week. Northrop Grumman’s digital ecosystem is enabling that progress, allowing us to analyze test data, make updates and return to flight test with speed and efficiency.”

From Prototype To Production

As of the beginning of 2024, six B-21 Raider prototype aircraft were already in distinct phases of production. That approach has enabled engineers and technicians to troubleshoot and apply lessons learned directly to follow-on aircraft.

In addition to constructing a state-of-the-art bomber, Air Force officials have underscored their focus on containing costs while allowing for maximum flexibility.

Honoring The Doolittle Raiders

The B-21 Raider is now nearly a decade in the making. Northrop Grumman first attained the contract for the next-generation bomber in 2015, and the company then quickly assembled a nationwide team to build it. The Raider—named for the eighty men who participated in the 1942 “Doolittle Raid” on Tokyo in 1942—was developed using the aerospace firm’s pioneering digital engineering practices and advanced manufacturing techniques.

In late 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense approved the B-21’s move into low-rate initial production (LRIP), and Northrop Grumman was provided a Pentagon LRIP contract in January 2024. The LRIP phase is currently on track for five lots and will run through the end of this decade.

The Air Force has set a goal of acquiring a fleet of at least 100 B-21s, but some analysts have called for that number to be doubled.

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 and 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: Anatoliy Lukich / Shutterstock.com. 

The Trump administration will find it hard to disengage from a region still being reshaped by the effects of Oct. 7.

Just as in 1980, Democrats are seeing how much party-building matters.

Lors de la fondation de la République populaire de Chine, en 1949, moins de 10 % de la population vivait en ville. Plus de soixante-dix ans plus tard, le taux dépasse 60 % ; il devrait atteindre 80 % d'ici 2035. Colossal, un tel bouleversement modifie la société ainsi que ses croyances les plus (...) / Chine, Démographie, Spiritualité - 2025/01

Loudly making threats doesn’t amount to a foreign policy.

Readers followed the U.S. presidential election as well as coverage of the war in Ukraine, China’s military, and India’s role on the world stage.

What does Trump’s victory show about how Americans view their place in the world?

Russia’s invasion has spurred long-term social transformations.

The bomb is the best way to contain the threat from the North.

Over the past few months, the Levant sub-region in the Middle East has experienced geopolitical changes of historic proportions. The shockwaves from these changes, which are still very much in play as various powers and factions holding pieces of territory in Syria try to tilt the gameboard and pull the area’s future in their direction, will be felt throughout the entire Middle East and, through it, the world. 

The situation is fraught with both danger—and opportunity. President-elect Donald Trump clearly indicated in his recent interview with Time Magazine that when it comes to the Middle East, “…I support whatever, whatever is necessary to get not just peace, a lasting peace. It can’t go on where every five years you end up in tragedy. There are other alternatives.” In seeking to make these aspirations a reality, the incoming president has his work cut out for him. Unfortunately, one place where he is unlikely to get any practical help is France. 

One could argue that the recent upheaval in Lebanon, which, along with Syria, used to be a French protectorate, began when Hezbollah began firing into northern Israel a day after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. By September 2024, Israel began hitting back hard—first blowing up the pagers, cell phones, and laptops used by Hezbollah field commanders and then eliminating its leadership, including its central leader, Hassan Nasrallah. During most of this period, Lebanon’s and Syria’s former colonial ruler, France, was largely missing in action, except for occasional, often contradictory, and occasionally grandiose comments from French President Emmanuel Macron. 

Although Macron recently held discussions with Trump about the seismic developments in the Middle East, the French leader’s beleaguered domestic position will likely complicate matters for the incoming American administration. Macron’s unstable and debt-ridden National Assembly already has gone through a record-breaking three prime ministers only this year. 

On December 13, Macron appointed centrist political ally Francois Bayrou as prime minister, a week after Bayrou’s predecessor, Michel Barnier, was forced to resign after losing to a vote of no confidence in parliament, where Macron faces major opposition from far-right and left-wing forces. Hours later, credit ratings agency Moody’s downgraded France’s rating because “the country’s public finances will be substantially weakened over the coming years” as “political fragmentation is more likely to impede meaningful fiscal consolidation.” With France’s debt already set to rise over 6 percent of GDP, this only increases pressure on the new premier to gain support from legislators for his plans to manage the country’s strained financial situation—as was evident from the ousted prime minister’s failure to get approval for the 2025 budget. 

Facing a dreary domestic situation, France Macron is in search of a diplomatic triumph. Hence, his efforts to insert himself in the international efforts to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. Paris used the November 21 International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants against Netanyahu and then-defense minister Yoav Gallant, who the ICC claims were engaged in war crimes in Gaza, to its advantage.

Initially, France was vociferous in insisting that it would arrest Netanyahu if he set foot on French soil. Within a week, however, the rhetoric from Paris shifted once Israel agreed during a Netanyahu-Macron phone conversation to have France play a mediator role in the ceasefire talks. 

The French position dramatically changed from one of unwavering commitment to international law to equivocation, saying that while France respects the ICC, Netanyahu may enjoy immunity as a serving cabinet minister in a country that is not party to the ICC agreement. That Paris had to go to such lengths to try and regain a say in the future security of Lebanon underscores the extent to which the French have lost ground in their former colony. Indeed, until the unprecedented weakening of Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel over the past few months, Iran had more influence in the country and the broader Levant than France. 

With the dramatic toppling of the Assad regime at the hands of Turkish-backed rebels in the wake of the weakened Iranian position in both Lebanon and Syria, it is important to note that France heavily shaped the modern Levant following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of its defeat in World War I. While France’s involvement in Lebanon’s sectarian conflicts actually dates back to the nineteenth century, both Syria and Lebanon fell under French control as per the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement with the British. 

This arrangement was solemnified under the mandate system of the League of Nations after the end of the First World War. In the early period of French rule, the area was divided into a half dozen smaller entities largely along confessional lines, such as Damascus, Aleppo, a Maronite-dominated Greater Lebanon, and Alawite and Druze states. By the 1930s, the French had consolidated these various states into the modern republics of Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon was granted independence during World War II in 1943, while Syria became a sovereign nation-state in 1946. 

Devastated by World War II, France’s ability to influence events in the Levant declined greatly. The rise of left-leaning Arab nationalism, especially in Syria in the form of the Baath Party, led to the Soviet Union becoming an influential external power. France continued to retain its influence in Lebanon. However, in 1975, the Lebanese Civil War broke out, and Syria (under the regime of Hafez al-Assad, who came to power in 1971) intervened militarily. The Syrians, along with their new ally in Tehran, the Islamic Republic, together developed Hezbollah in the aftermath of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, altering the balance of power in the country. By this time, the French had aligned with Saudi Arabia, which had gained considerable influence in Lebanon (especially among its Sunni population) after emerging as the world’s leading oil producer. 

The civil war came to an end in 1990, but it left Hezbollah as the most powerful faction in the country. By this time, Iran and Syria had begun to weaken French and Saudi influence in the country. The French and the Saudis hoped to stage a comeback in 2005 when Syria was forced to withdraw its 14,000 troops strong task force from Lebanon following the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri. But Hezbollah had become too powerful for Paris and Riyadh to counteract. The Arab Spring uprising only further strengthened Iran and Hezbollah by rendering the Syrian regime dependent on the patron and proxy along with Russia for its survival. 

The French likely see the events of the past several months as an opportunity to revive their influence, at least in Lebanon. However, the geopolitical chessboard is too complicated for France. Lebanon is at risk of internal strife because of the weakening of Hezbollah and, more importantly, the collapse of the Assad regime and the empowerment of Sunni Arab forces under the leadership of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Turkey, through its backing of HTS and other Sunni Arab rebel forces, is in a position to replace Iran as the dominant power in Syria. Meanwhile, the latest news out of Paris indicates that Macron may face the loss of his most recently appointed prime minister in the very near term. 

Despite its long legacy as a liege of the Levant, France lacks the wherewithal to help the Trump administration manage the Middle East effectively.

Kamran Bokhari, PhD is Senior Director of the Eurasian Security & Prosperity at the Newlines Institute for Strategy & Policy in Washington. He is also a national security and foreign policy specialist at the University of Ottawa’s Professional Development Institute. Bokhari has served as the coordinator for Central Asia studies at the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service Institute.

Image: Antonin Albert / Shutterstock.com. 

There’s a reason the 39th president is still revered by former Soviet dissidents.

The 39th U.S. president is often remembered for a failed rescue mission in the Iranian desert, but his legacy is much larger than that.

The foreign policy legacy of an underappreciated president.

The world is falling behind on its climate targets—but that’s not reason to give up hope.

The year’s best episodes of FP’s economics podcast.

Weeks before President Trump retakes the White House, an American ambassador is tanking a strategic gas pipeline that would increase U.S. natural gas exports to Europe. In the process, he has damaged a country’s national sovereignty and worsened Balkan instability, all in the name of the State Department’s identity politics.

The Southern Gas Interconnection pipeline would feed U.S. natural gas to Bosnia-Herzegovina and end that country’s reliance on Russian energy imports. In 2019, neighboring Croatia’s government bucked its climate lobby by building a floating liquified natural gas terminal to wean Eastern Europe off Russian energy dependency. Its strategic value has helped make the U.S. the largest LNG supplier to Europe. Croatia wants to expand the pipeline further.

Yet, the State Department has hamstrung the plan with an aggressive nation-building project that seeks to force the country’s Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs to dispense with their national identity and adopt an overarching Bosnian identity embraced only by the country’s Muslim leadership. In fact, many Bosniak Muslims have taken Croatian citizenship, betraying little actual belief in a Bosnian construct.

Bosnia-Herzegovina has not moved on from the 1995 Dayton Accords, which ended the war in the Balkans. Instead, it has been saddled with an unworkable constitutional framework in which international diplomats have pushed an “anti-nationalist” ideological agenda while enjoying ultimate legal authority over the country. Serbs govern half the country, and Croats and a larger number of Bosniak Muslims rule the other half jointly. Neither entity enjoys sovereignty. Indeed, it is a failed state.

A new law to authorize the pipeline extension presented outgoing U.S. Ambassador Michael Murphy a last-ditch chance to impose the State Department’s identity politics on the country by forcing Croat parliamentarians to hand control of the pipeline to Sarajevo’s corrupt and indebted state gas operator in a country whose level of corruption is rated worse than that of Ukraine. BH Gas’s management team is entirely Bosniak, reflecting the systemic employment discrimination that has led to the halving of the Croat population. Croatian leaders seek a new entity to manage the project. Nevertheless, the law passed with no Croat votes, which has exacerbated inter-communal tensions. 

Parliamentary deputy speaker Mladen Boskovic, a Croat, blasted the outcome: “This law was written in such a way that Croats were deleted as participants in the process of designing and routing the gas pipeline. All decisions will be left to one company under the complete control of the Bosniak parties.”

Murphy earned a sharp rebuke from Croatian president Zoran Milanovic, a backer of the pipeline, accusing “foreign governors of humiliating and systematically disintegrating Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state.”

Murphy’s overt intervention to get the gas law passed was unprecedented. He publicly accused Croat officials of Russian collusion for opposing it and their elected leader of seeking “personal political and economic benefit.” Yet, the previous director of BH Gas had previously resigned to avoid becoming “an accomplice to [the company’s] criminal actions.” 

About a dozen U.S. Embassy staff hounded Croat parliamentarians in their offices during the vote proceedings, prompting some to walk out in protest. According to local media, Murphy threatened them with sanctions. Bosniak parliamentarians, uneasy about breaking the tradition of consensus decision-making on key legislation, were threatened with dismissal by our officials.

This region is familiar to millions of American Catholics. The pipeline route passes by Medjugorje, a village visited by 40 million Christian pilgrims who believed it hosted apparitions of the Virgin Mary. The combination of Christian fervor and the economic boon it has generated there is anathema to the Biden administration’s global crusade for abortion and an LGBTQ agenda that Secretary Blinken declared “profoundly in our national interest.” 

In nearby Hungary, the U.S. ambassador has led a culture war against its conservative government. Nathalie Rayes, U.S. ambassador to Croatia, one of the most pro-life countries in Europe, was vice-chair of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Who are the winners that emerged from this fiasco? First, Russia, as Croatia is unlikely to proceed with its section of the pipeline while its ethnic kin in Bosnia-Herzegovina are locked out of the project. Communist China gains from growing tensions within Europe. Turkey wins, given its familial relations with Sarajevo’s Muslim leadership and its global ambition to promote political Islam. The losers? The Catholic Croats see little stake in a state that treats them as second-class citizens. For America, Murphy’s law undercuts the prospect of securing American energy dominance in Europe.

The gas law now goes to the upper chamber, the House of Peoples, where it needs to muster a majority of Muslim, Serb, and Croat deputies, each wielding veto power. Croats are expected to lose that constitutional protection as well, as the country’s High Representative, a European diplomat empowered by Dayton with the final say over all of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s laws, is expected to side with the Bosniaks. 

Max Primorac is a Senior Research Fellow at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation. He was the Acting Chief Operating Officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Image: BalkansCat / Shutterstock.com. 

Shortly after the surprise mockup of China’s new sixth-generation “White Emperor” warplane appeared at this year’s Zhuhai Air Show in Guangdong, China, Beijing stunned the world by putting on a dazzling display of two different, working variations of their sixth-generation plane. 

In fact, the science-fiction-like planes have sent many Western observers into a tailspin, at once denying that they are real planes and simultaneously calling it a “Sputnik” moment. Now, just as the U.S. Air Force was coming to grips with the fact that their own sixth-generation warplane dreams were dying under the weight of America’s harsh economic reality, the clamoring for the Air Force’s ghastly program has restarted.

Funny how that works.

Panic At The Pentagon

After all, many of the people publicly calling for the creation of what the Air Force has dubbed its “Next-Generation Air Dominance” (NGAD) fighters are the same people who routinely downplay China’s impressive technological capabilities. Now that it serves its own purposes, though, the storyline is shifting. We must have a plane that will take years to produce, cost up to $300 million per plane, and only marginally enhance American air superiority because China is readying to build its own.

Shortly after the Christmas festivities were finishing up in the United States, pictures from China emerged of what appeared to be not one, but two, distinct potential sixth-generation warplanes. One plane was larger than the other. The larger possible sixth-generation plane belonged to China’s Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC), and the smaller one is believed to belong to China’s other major warplane developer, the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC).

Demonstrators Galore

Both planes are believed to be “demonstrator models.” This means that they may be test aircraft that the Chinese military will not ultimately use. The U.S. military has made countless demonstrator birds over the past several decades.

They are critical for learning about aerodynamics involved with next-generation planes and can be used as testbeds for an assortment of technologies undergirding advanced warplanes. While these are important steps toward developing next-level technologies that would outpace anything the Americans and their allies have, they are not necessarily the birds that China will ultimately mass produce and deploy over the next decade.

Further, it is believed that in 2020, the Americans did test their own demonstrator of a sixth-generation plane. This is to say nothing of the demonstrators of things like the SR-72 “Son of Blackbird” hypersonic unmanned aerial vehicle that Skunkworks has been playing with in the California desert for the last few years. That’s not to say that people should not be concerned about China leapfrogging the Americans in key technologies. Indeed, this author has spent the better part of a decade publicly warning about the probability that China is set to outpace the Americans and their allies in key technologies.

On the matter of a sixth-generation warplane, though, there are still many steps that China must go through to ensure that their demonstrators work properly and that mass-producing these birds as they are currently designed is worth the cost.

To be clear, if China decides to mass-produce these planes, it can and it will. Unlike the United States, China dominates global manufacturing and supply chains. It has the resources, domestic human capital, actual capital, and excess capacity to churn such systems out like sausages.

But will they want to?

A Giant Psyop

After all, the Chinese military is only now getting its fifth-generation warplanes humming along in terms of production quotas and domestically produced capabilities. For years, for example, the Chinese had difficulty making their indigenously produced engines work for the Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon,” which was first unveiled in 2011. After years of trial and error, the J-20s are only now operating with the powerful Chinese-made WS-10 after-burning turbofan engines.

And China is only just now revealing the extent of its investment in its other fifth-generation warplane, the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation’s J-35. The J-20 is much more advanced than the J-35. But the J-35 is already advancing along. Despite these successes, why would China still be investing in their fifth-generation planes the way they are if they were already all-in on their proposed sixth-generation warplane?

The fact is, they’re not as invested as Western pundits assume.

But Beijing has no qualms about making the eggheads at the Pentagon believe that they’re already working on an arsenal of sixth-generation war machines. China’s rulers know the U.S. government has a massive spending problem. And the United States has a national debt to prove that view. Both Beijing and its allies, in places like Russia, dream of collapsing the U.S. economy. America’s onerous, self-inflicted debt load is the surest point of attack by these great powers.

What better way for China to hasten the American economic and financial collapse than by convincing us that they’re readying to field an arsenal of fantastical “air-space” fighter planes?

It is likely that China has no real intention (yet) of scaling its sixth-generation warplane demonstrators. Instead, it wants the Americans to overreact and bankrupt themselves trying to counter the mythical Chinese “air-space” fighter. Washington cannot fall for this obvious ruse. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest and a contributor at Popular Mechanics, consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, The American Spectator, MSN, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image: Hamara / Shutterstock.com.