Diplomacy & Crisis News

Recently, the Third International Conference on Mine Action titled “Mitigating Environmental Impact of Landmines: Resource Mobilization for Safe and Green Future” was held in Azerbaijan.   It was critical to host this conference ahead of the COP29 Conference in Azerbaijan due to the role that landmines play in raising the threat of climate change.

According to the Conflict and Climate Observatory, “Conflict-affected countries are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Climate finance to support fragile and conflict-affected states is grossly inadequate and, in an example of climate injustice, without significant changes in access to climate funds, these communities will become more vulnerable and less able to cope.”

They added: “Climate change can impact areas affected by explosive remnants of war (ERW) contamination in several ways. Extreme weather events such as flooding and heatwaves can increase the risks posed by ERW contamination; remobilizing ERW or triggering landscape fires. ERW clearance and removal operations will need to adapt to meet the challenges of climate change, while local communities may need assistance and support to build climate resilience.”

Even before Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, 60 million people worldwide live in areas affected by the explosive remnants of war.   According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, “Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022, over a thousand cluster munition casualties have been recorded in Ukraine.  In Ukraine alone, more than 50 cluster munition attacks were reported in 2023 where the number of casualties that occurred was not noted.”

They added: “New casualties from cluster munitions were recorded in nine countries—Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Mauritania, Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen—in 2023.    In 2023, 101 casualties from cluster munition remnants were recorded in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Mauritania, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine.”    Regarding the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, the Cluster Munitions Monitor stressed: “a survey by The HALO Trust in the aftermath of the 2020 conflict found that 68% of inhabited settlements had experienced cluster munition use and contamination.”

Since 1991, more than 3,429 of Azerbaijan’s citizens including 358 children and 38 women have been adversely affected by landmines.   In response to this reality, the Azerbaijani National Agency for Mine Action and the United Nations Development Program established the Center for Excellence for mine action training in Azerbaijan.   It is set to become a vital platform for exchanging demining experience and technologies with other countries experiencing similar problems.

At the UNDP/Anama Conference, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev emphasized that one of the main reasons for the high number of mine victims is Armenia’s refusal to hand over landmine maps: “The responsibility for that rests with Armenia.”    He also noted that from 2020 to 2023, new mined areas extending up to 500 km were created in Azerbaijan: “Challenges we face on demining also hamper our development and recovery efforts, creating serious obstacles for the return of 800,000 formerly displaced persons.   Mines that remain buried in the ground for a long time leads to harmful chemical reactions.   Land left unused due to mines undergoes natural erosion and degradation.”   

So far, Azerbaijan has demined 140,000 hectares of its territory, neutralizing 119,946 mines and unexploded ordinances.   Azerbaijan las year declared humanitarian demining the 18th National Sustainable Development Goal and signed a document with UNDP, highlighting the global importance of international cooperation in the field of demining.   Azerbaijan hopes to continue to share its experience with demining with the global community. 

S-300V version Air Defence Vehicles shown after being eliminated by a strike.

 

Recently, Chinese and Philippine naval encounters have resulted in Chinese vessels ramming Philippine vessels in the waters between the two nations. The Philippines has always been one of the United States’ closest allies, and have always had a tight security arrangement with the United States. With wars already ranging in Europe and the Middle East, the last shoe to drop was always whether China would activate their forces regarding Taiwan, or if China would choose to avoid a conflict that had little practical benefit to them and their position in the world.

The events between the two nations is not simply a territorial spat, but involves all of the larger powers in the region and abroad, as it was influenced by actions abroad. Non-lethal assaults on a US ally by China may be a response to the US focusing diplomatically on China’s sale of non-military equipment to Russia that is likely being used in the production of Russian military equipment. While US allies and China could likely eliminate this tension by simply opening up sales of such affordable equipment toward the efforts to help Ukraine, this has not become an option to date. Actions by China likely surround a strategy to test the United States’ will power in helping its allies in foreign conflicts abroad. This ever present reality comes as the US Administration waffles in helping even their own citizens being held hostage while passively punishing the only forces equipped to ensure their freedom. If Americans will not even take direct actions to help their own people in dire straits, the opportunity to permanently damage the United States and their allies encourages the worst responses as a narrative, in political dealings and physically by way of open conflict. When the United States ignores their own citizens being tortured, it in effect dehumanizes them and shows to the world that human rights is no longer a core Western value. If some citizens simply don’t count, than all citizens are a target. While diplomacy always requires an outstretched arm, that arm must be always be connected to a strong hand.

While US allies do possess the strength to alter the political landscape abroad to their benefit and that of the US, the full weight of US power needs to be used in addressing conflicts so they do not escalate further. The deployment of US Naval assets in the Middle East recently likely is tamping down a larger military response in the region, but the lack of application to threats and open harm to the US and their allies has already lead to more losses in the conflict, ones that threaten to push conflicts into a more severe level. Support for Ukrainian forces entering Russia proper has been a bold show of strength, but it must be managed purposefully as a small incident in that operation could become the catalyst for an overwhelming response between nuclear powers. The lack of action against Russia’s external military support when many innocent lives of allies are being put in danger and American lives are being threatened internally is the driving factor behind China’s actions, and should be the most serious issue in the upcoming election as it will affect every since family for generations to come.

Live fire combat against defensive missile systems in Syria, and then in Russia/Ukraine has taught the US and its allies of the true capabilities of S-400 and other Russian air defense systems. Effectiveness of air defense systems against attacking missile systems is a key bit of information used by the US and China in measuring who would sustain the most losses in open conflict on the coast near Taiwan. While China’s Russian made TOR, S-300 and S-400 systems would perform well, it is now known how to defeat them during an assault. China’s large HQ-9 missile defense force along with other types would only be able to sustain a Chinese invasion of Taiwan if they could shield PLA forces from the many advance SM missiles of the US Navy, a task that is likely not possible in a wholly effective manner. The best defense therefore is a good offense, and that offense can only be successful by making their adversary weak from within before any open conflict can have a chance to be conducted. Every single conflict in the modern era begins with that one truth.

 

A coalition of human rights organizations has released an international statement during the 57th
session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, commending the decision by the President of the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) to grant pardon to Bangladeshi nationals who were accused and convicted
of crimes affecting security and public order, and sentenced for committing crimes and offenses
punishable by law. In their statement issued on Monday, September 9, 2024, the organizations
underscored that this pardon reflects the UAE’s long-standing humanitarian approach and reinforces
its adherence to the values of tolerance. The organizations further emphasized that this act of
clemency is a testament to the sound vision and leadership of the UAE’s government. The coalition,
led by the Union Association for Human Rights, is composed of more than 20 international, regional,
and national human rights organizations, including 9 organizations holding consultative status with
the United Nations.

In their international statement, issued alongside the opening of the Human Rights Council’s session
on Monday, the human rights NGOs commended the presidential pardon, which lifted the penalties
imposed on defendants and convicts in general, thereby facilitating their return to their homeland. The
NGOs lauded the UAE’s justice system and its commitment to the principles of fair and independent
legal proceedings. Furthermore, they praised the humane conditions and environment provided during
the period of detention and the execution of sentences, noting that these practices align with
international standards.

Within the same context, the human rights organizations, in their statement endorsed by twenty-one
organizations, expressed their appreciation for the national mechanisms responsible for implementing
the pardon issued by the President of the UAE. They commended the swift action taken by the UAE’s
Attorney General to execute the pardon, which involved suspending penalties and facilitating the
measures to ensure the return of defendants and convicts to their homeland. The organizations
emphasized the significance of this initiative in fostering peace, tolerance, and human coexistence –
values that the UAE is committed to promote across the globe. This approach, which has been central
to the UAE’s ethos since the era of the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and throughout its
civilizational and humanitarian journey, has been reaffirmed by the President of the UAE through the
issuance of this humanitarian amnesty decision for defendants and convicts, underscoring the nation’s dedication to promote tolerance and its adherence to noble human values and principles, as
consistently reflected in many national, regional and international stances, events and occasions.
In their international statement, the organizations commended the UAE for its commitment to
upholding and respecting the right to freedom of expression in accordance with the country’s laws and
regulations, ensuring its protection from any actions or deviations that could jeopardize national
security or harm the state’s interests and international relations. They called upon everyone to respect
states’ national laws, regulations and legislations, emphasizing the importance of adhering to their
legal frameworks and operational policies that align with international human rights law, which
stresses that freedom of expression must not infringe on the rights or reputations of others, nor
compromise national security, public order, public health, or public morals.

Monument to the Largest Tank Battle in History, The Battle of Kursk, showing Heroic Soviet T-34s plowing into German Tiger I tanks at Prokhorovka.

While receiving surprisingly little attention despite its historical significance, Ukraine’s Armed Forces recently took to assaulting over the border with Russia into the Kursk region of the Russian Federation. While the battles in the Kursk region of Russia are currently in play, it looks as if Ukraine has been fairly successful in entering Russia and securing territory over the border.

The historical weight of Kursk in military terms ties into storied invasions in Russian history, the most notable being Napoleon’s invasion of Russia as well as the German invasion of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. During the Second World War, Kursk was stitched into world history as being the largest tank battle to ever take place between two armies, brutal in nature as it was massive. Both invasions would have determined the future existence of Russia and the Soviet Union in their respective eras, but what is notable is that the loss of both invasions would have had severe consequences on the future of the Russian people themselves.

Military actions by Russia to push back into the neighbouring Kharkiv region has put the citizens in Kharkiv back into danger after being liberated by Ukrainian Forces. With losses in Kharkiv and attrition of forces being a detriment to Ukraine, it looks like the risky decision to enter Russian territory was taken as the stalemates in the Kharkiv region could have eventually reversed the fortunes of Ukraine in the medium term.

Since Ukraine has not made their intent public, there is no definitive consensus on the reasons behind Ukraine’s invasion of the Kursk region of Russia. Theories on Ukraine’s motives surround a possible plan to trade land for land, a simple morale boost, or a tactical move to flank hardened Russian lines in Ukraine and limit support structures for Russian Forces. While all of these variables will contribute to Ukraine’s war effort, a cultural explanation might tie all of these factors in together in ending the larger conflict.

A few months ago, Russia’s Wagner Forces took a similar approach and essentially invaded Russia as the rogue armies of old often did in the region. Material losses to Russian Forces and Wagner Brigades were less of a cost as opposed to the attempt to make Russia look unstable and its Government weak. What can be misunderstood in conflicts by Ukraine’s allies is that often the impression of weakness in a Government can be as powerful as the military itself. As stability, power and strength solidify a Government’s support, weakness is a signal of its imminent downfall. The reason why Napoleon’s Invasion and the Battle of Kursk are monumental is because it ties directly into the culture of a strong nation prevailing under difficult circumstances. The idea of strength and the warrior hero is so powerful that leaders who are unable to meet those expectations are as good as finished, and Ukraine or any Russian adversary taking over Kursk will be more than a notable point in the region’s history.

Russia’s big gamble in Ukraine never really considered Russia being invaded itself, even though Russian support for their Government’s actions is born out of the historical reality of every single Soviet citizen being personally affected by the German invasion only a few short generations ago. Generations of Soviet and Russian military doctrine were built around preventing another Nazi genocide of their people, and entire systems of protection (especially the anti-aircraft system networks) were created to repel such an attack. Since the Russia-Ukraine War began, Russia has been losing much of their modern and old Soviet stock, has taken to using drones from a country that designs weapons to commit acts like the Majdal Shams massacre, has been relegated to using dangerous old North Korean artillery stock, and is now having to purchase missile systems from abroad that are a poorer copy of technology invented by Russian scientists. With all of these actions, Russia was unable to prevent a massive terror attack on their own soil and have slowly become the junior partner with China, a country it has a territorial dispute with and have fought a war over previously. What Russia lacks in conventional military capability in 2024, they make up for in nuclear deterrence, but even the TOPOL missile fleet is under the control of a Government that would only look weaker if unhinged.

It should be noted that support for certain regimes is a curious one, as while severe elements in Western countries seemed to ignore the massacre of Majdal Shams on a football field in the middle of the Olympic games, ignore the targeted massacres in Bangladesh, treat the freedom movement in Venezuela like they are the Iranian Women’s movement they gave up on, and generally encourage more strife, people in places like China and Iran are very unlikely to support their young men dying in a war in support of a few old men running their Government. Russia is different as it had popular support for its actions, seen as a projection of strength tied with its historical lessons of protecting Russians at all costs against enemies from abroad. A possible loss of Kursk can change the narrative, and as with many of these current global wars, weakness and anarchy will never be in the public interest. It is so crucial to understand this concept in foreign relations that is should be considered the determining factor for the future existence of a regime, and possibly election victories in the West.

Bangladeshi dissident Aslam Chowdhury, a prominent human rights and minority rights activist who was in prison for the last eight years, was recently released from prison. Meanwhile, upon hearing the news of his release, hundreds of activists have gathered in front of the Chattogram Central Jail amid the rain to welcome him as he emerged from prison. They welcomed him at the jail gate with flowers. Later, they started for Sitakunda with Aslam Chowdhury by processions with trucks.

The Bangladeshi dissident was imprisoned after 76 political cases were filed against him. He was granted bail in 75 cases, said Aslam Chowdhury’s personal lawyer KM Saiful Islam. Bangladeshi dissident Aslam Chowdhury is a leader of the BNP, who was known for his activities defending the rights of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh.

He was also an outspoken opponent of Sheikh Hasina, a former Bangladeshi Prime Minister who recently stepped down following student-led protests against her. Presently, the deposed prime minister faces 33 charges including attacking a procession in Sylhet city which left several people shot and injured. The charges against her include 27 for murder, four for crimes against humanity and genocide, and one for abduction.

A number of years ago, Chowdhury was arrested after meeting with Mendi Safadi, who formerly served as Israeli Communication Minister Ayoob Kara’s chief of staff. The Bangladeshi government alleged that he was part of an Israeli plot to topple the Bangladeshi government but Safadi related that the real reason he was arrested was due to his role in the country’s opposition. Bangladesh has no diplomatic relations with Israel and Bangladeshi citizens are barred from visiting the Jewish state. Safadi claimed that the Sheikh Hasina government has been “using violence and murder against ethnic minorities and opponents of the regime for years.”

Shipan Kumer Basu, who leads the World Hindu Struggle Committee, was one of the Hindus that was oppressed by the Sheikh Hasina government. He was imprisoned and tortured under the Sheikh Hasina government: “The Awami League government murdered, tortured, raped, forcefully converted and looted Hindus.” This led Basu to lead an international campaign against the Sheikh Hasina government.

In 2015, Basu met with Safadi and began to work with him towards improving the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh. In 2016, Chowdhury came to India, and met with both Safadi and Basu. It was from India that this trio worked together towards improving the plight of minorities in Bangladesh. In 2017, I was recruited to write about this issue in the American and Israeli media, and the four of us worked so that Bangladesh would have a brighter future.

In an exclusive interview, Basu related: “The main reason Chowdhury was put in jail was because of his activism for Hindu rights. He was protesting against the murder and rape of Hindu women. In 2016, we delivered a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and started to reach out to Israel, so that they would help us. The Sheikh Hasina government turned Bangladesh into a graveyard. But now with Sheikh Hasina deposed and Chowdhury out of jail, we want to start making our country safe for all. We want to build a new Bangladesh where everyone will have equal rights. The new Bangladesh will be secular and progressive, where Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists can breathe freely.” Basu called on the international community to assist the interim government in establishing freedom in Bangladesh.

Souvent indispensable pour éviter l'incarcération préventive, la caution représente une manne pour plusieurs acteurs dont les « bail bondsmen », qui se portent garants du paiement auprès des tribunaux. Les assureurs spécialisés dans cette niche réalisent aussi de juteux bénéfices alors que les pressions (...) / Prison, États-Unis, Inégalités, Femmes, Justice pénale, Justice - 2023/07

Le 6 juin dernier, alors que Moscou et Kiev se renvoient la responsabilité de la destruction du barrage de Kakhovka, en Ukraine, Bernard-Henri Lévy contre-attaque : « Comme Hitler en 1945, #Putin a une fois de plus utilisé la tactique de la terre brûlée » (Twitter 6 juin). Le Monde se rabat alors sur (...) - 2023/07

Le 24 mars dernier, l'Algérie et la France tournaient officiellement la page de leur dernière querelle diplomatique en date. Lors d'un entretien téléphonique, les présidents algérien et français affirmaient avoir levé les « incompréhensions » provoquées par la fuite en Tunisie — le 3 février — puis par (...) / Russie, Diplomatie, Algérie, Conflit russo-ukrainien 2022- - 2023/07

Technologie de pointe, tubes de variété fredonnés sur tous les continents, séries à succès, cinéma mondialement reconnu : la Corée du Sud jouit d'une image particulièrement positive. Un peu comme si, dans bien des domaines, Séoul montrait la voie au reste du monde. Découvrir la réalité des conditions de (...) / Capitalisme, Travail, Syndicalisme, Corée du Sud, Société, Économie - 2023/07

Après avoir évacué un blessé vers l'arrière, le petit tailleur de la première section revient avec des nouvelles alarmantes : le poste de secours a été retiré, les routes sont encombrées de colonnes en retraite, officiers et ordonnances ont déserté le parc du château, autant de signes que le mince cordon (...) / Littérature, Histoire, Allemagne - 2023/07

« Réfléchir à deux fois avant de ne rien dire. » Cet adage, parmi tant d'autres, à propos des diplomates peut paraître moqueur. Il n'en traduit pas moins les mérites d'un métier indispensable aux relations internationales. En faisant le choix de normaliser cette profession, notamment en banalisant son (...) / Diplomatie, État, Relations internationales, France - 2023/07

Avant de s'interroger sur la nécessité ou non d'annuler la dette des pays africains, il faudrait en prendre l'exacte mesure dans un contexte de faiblesse des appareils statistiques et de manque de transparence de certains prêteurs bilatéraux, dont la Chine. Une harmonisation des chiffres (...) / Banque, Relations Nord-Sud, Afrique, Dette, Économie, Finance - 2023/07

Dans le monde de la rationalité managériale, la barbarie s'orchestre — et fait carrière. Homo Œconomicus calcule et le symbolique n'entre pas dans ses colonnes chiffrées. En réalité Homo Œconomicus ne s'intéresse qu'à certains calculs et néglige tous les autres. / Société, Idéologie, Économie, Capitalisme (...) / Société, Idéologie, Économie, Capitalisme - 2023/07

External observers keenly anticipated the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) third plenary session of the twentieth Central Committee. Third plenums—the third plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the CCP elected at the last Party Congress (in this instance in November 2022)—have, in the post-Mao era, traditionally been where the Central Committee issues “authoritative” decisions on the direction of continued “reform and opening” policies.

The July 18 Third Plenum resolution, however, was notable for the fact that it introduced little that was substantively new in terms of policy. Instead, it served to reiterate the Party’s commitment to the hallmarks of Xi’s policy agenda: state-led efforts to gird the economy for self-sufficiency and resilience against external shocks, firm ideological control, and the linkage of national security and “development” as interdependent conditions necessary for China’s continued rise.

Herein may lie the plenum’s significance: to signal that Xi remains firmly in the driver’s seat. 

Some external observers have suggested that this signals the failure of the “China model” or that Xi has “missed” an opportunity for course correction of the Chinese economy. Yet that misreads the fact that for Xi, it is not an either-or-choice between the economy and politics. Rather, they are inextricably connected as Xi seeks to build a new “China model” that is capable of grappling simultaneously with both China’s economic headwinds and “strategic competition” with the United States. 

The plenum resolution thus “unanimously agreed that in the face of a grave and complex international environment,” advancing “reform and development and ensuring stability at home” would be achieved by “promoting high-quality development” and “strengthening full and rigorous [Party] self-governance.”

The emphasis on “high-quality development” spruiked at the plenum had been prefigured by a “study session” of the Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC) in January, which identified the harnessing of “new qualitative productive forces” as central to the achievement of this goal. “New productive forces” are short-hand for the application of innovation to the cutting-edge “frontier” of technology (e.g., Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing) that will make China self-reliant in the “fourth industrial revolution,” as well as to traditional manufacturing industries. 

This dual emphasis, Evan Feigenbaum suggests, is not only designed to “better insulate China from American strategic pressure” such as the CHIPS Act but also geared to “lock in Chinese dominance of advanced manufacturing and outcompete global rivals in old-fashioned industries like shipbuilding.” Only in this way, the PBSC study session noted, can China succeed in “breaking away from traditional economic growth modes and paths of productive force development.”

That this is not simply tied to “breaking away” from China’s post-1978 growth model but to “strategic competition” was underscored by the communique’s treatment of “national security.” 

Although explicitly identified as “a pivotal foundation for ensuring steady and continued progress in Chinese modernization,” “national security” was framed as interdependent with “high-quality development.” “We must,” the resolution stated, “ensure that high-quality development and greater security reinforce each other, so as to safeguard the country’s long-term stability and security.” 

There are two salient observations to be made here. First, this is consistent with previous statements by Xi that frame the transition to a new economic model as crucial to both continued development and the attainment of “strategic initiative in international competition.” Second, such framing signals the continued securitization of major policy areas in the service of the political security of the CCP under Xi’s leadership. 

Indeed, Xi’s explanatory note on the plenum’s decision demonstrates both dynamics. The section on “national security” underscores the objective of “modernizing” the “national security system” through the establishment of “a unified national population management system” and improvement in “the overall prevention and control system for public security,” as well as noting that the “integration of development and security” will enable the Party-state to improve “Mechanisms for countering foreign sanctions, interference, and long-arm jurisdiction…” (i.e. enable it to overcome U.S.-led economic and diplomatic sanctions). 

The plenum’s commitment to ensure ideological “self-governance” and discipline within the Party is not surprising. However, the tone and substance of that statement, as well as some lengthier associated official explanations of how the plenum’s resolution was arrived at, provide some indication of the nature of contemporary elite politics and decisionmaking. 

The resolution noted that the Party had to “follow the leadership core,” “keep in alignment with the central Party leadership,” “stay confident in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics,” and “uphold Comrade Xi Jinping’s core position on the Party Central Committee…and the Central Committee’s authority and its centralized, unified leadership.” This is consistent with major ideological directives since the 2022 Party Congress that have sought to consolidate Xi’s role as the fountainhead of political and ideological authority. 

Xi’s explanatory note, however, struck a tone that suggests some level of dissatisfaction with the progress of this project when it stipulated that the plenum’s decision was, in fact, an opportunity for the Party to make a “redeclaration of what banner to hold and what road to take in the new era.”

With respect to policy, Xi’s note implies that some of China’s current problems are the result of poor implementation rather than poor policy. It notes, for example, the need to improve “the institutional mechanisms for preventing and controlling formalism and bureaucracy,” “the mechanism for investigating and dealing with unhealthy trends and corruption at the same time,” and “methods for preventing and controlling new types of corruption and hidden corruption.” 

It appears that China’s former Minister of Defense Li Shangfu, head of the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) General Li Yuchao, and chief-of-staff of the PLARF, lieutenant-general Sun Jinming—whose expulsions from the CCP were confirmed in the plenum resolution—likely fell afoul of this ongoing quest to ensure both loyalty and probity amongst top officials.

Finally, as Neil Thomas has highlighted, the official commentary on the “making of the decision of the third plenum” demonstrates that Xi “increasingly discourages internal policy discussions.” Thomas notes that in May, “the plenum drafting team circulated a draft decision to cadres, retired leaders, satellite parties, and policy experts,” from which they subsequently received “1,911 suggestions and made 221 revisions,” while “the drafting team for the 2013 decision received 2,564 suggestions and made 539 revisions, meaning this plenum saw a 25 [percent] fall in suggestions and a near-halving of their acceptance rate from 21 [percent] to 12 [percent].”

The third plenum has thus been significant in demonstrating Xi’s continued hold over the Party and its decisionmaking processes. While that outcome may speak to Xi’s political success in further consolidating his unchallenged position and affirming his preferences across core policy domains, it remains to be seen whether this will help or hinder China’s ability to both solve deep domestic problems and compete with the United States.

Dr. Michael Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in Strategic Studies at the Deakin Centre for Future Defence and National Security at the Australian War College (Canberra) and Adjunct Professor at the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @meclarke114.

Dr. Jade Guan is a Senior Lecturer in Strategic Studies at the Deakin Centre for Future Defence and National Security at the Australian War College (Canberra). Follow her on LinkedIn and X @JiaAu.

Image: Mirko Kuzmanovic / Shutterstock.com.

Whether Trump wins or loses, the continent needs a new strategy toward the United States.

M10 Booker Looks To Be Making Progress: The U.S. Army is expanding its fleet of M10 Booker Combat Vehicles, with General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) continuing low-rate initial production (LRIP) under a $322.7 million contract.

-The M10 Booker, designed for Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), features a 105 mm cannon, advanced sensors, and a modular design for future upgrades.

-Although it resembles a main battle tank, it was developed from the Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle program and named after two heroic soldiers, Private Robert Booker and Staff Sergeant Stevon Booker.

U.S. Army Expands Fleet with Advanced M10 Booker Combat Vehicles

The vehicle is crucial for the Army's transformation to dominate large-scale combat operations.

The U.S. Army Could Increase Its Fleet of M10 Booker Combat Vehicles

In April, the United States Army took the delivery of its first M10 Booker Combat Vehicle in a ceremony at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Developed by General Dynamics Land Systems, the M10 Booker is equipped with a 105 mm cannon and advanced sensors for night and urban combat. The U.S. Army will employ the modular vehicle to enhance Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs).

The platform entered low-rate initial production (LRIP) in July.

Testing of the vehicle has continued at Fort Liberty, North Carolina, while the 82nd Airborne Division has been slated to put the M10 through additional gunnery training and testing at Fort Stewart, Georgia.

LRIP to Continue

This week, GDLS announced that it had been awarded a $322.7 million contract from the U.S. Army for continued LRIP of the vehicle.

"As part of low-rate initial production, multiple Booker vehicles have been delivered to the Army to support government testing and logistics efforts," GDLS stated on Tuesday. "The Booker employs a four-person crew and features an enhanced thermal viewer, a large-caliber cannon, a lightweight hull and turret, and a modern diesel engine, transmission and suspension system. It has been designed from the start for capability upgrades, based on future operational needs."

According to the defense contractor, work will be provided at the company's facilities in Sterling Heights, Michigan, Anniston, Alabama, Lima, Ohio, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. The estimated completion date of the LRIP is scheduled for Oct. 20, 2026.

"The M10 Booker is named after two American heroes who gave their lives in service to their country, and we are honored to design, build and deliver these vehicles to the Army," said Gordon Stein, General Dynamics Land Systems vice president and general manager for U.S. operations in a May 15, 2024 statement. "These latest Bookers incorporate improvements and lessons we learned from the Middle Tier Acquisition phase of the program, and we’re confident that Soldiers will find them highly useful in completing their missions."

Not a Tank

Though it could be mistaken for a main battle tank (MBT) with its tracked chassis and turret, the Booker was born out of the Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle (MPFV), it was officially designated the M10 last year.

It is unique among American military platforms as it actually is named to honor two different soldiers named Booker.

The first was Medal of Honor recipient Private Robert Booker of the 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division, who was killed on April 9, 1943, near Fondouk, Tunisia, during the Second World War; while the latter was tank commander and Distinguished Service Cross recipient Staff Sergeant Stevon Booker, Company A, 1st Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, who was killed in April 5, 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"The Army is undertaking its most significant transformation in several decades to dominate in large-scale combat operations in a multidomain environment, and the M10 Booker is a crucial part of that transformation," said Doug Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, in April.

The GDLS prototype beat out a design from BAE Systems in 2022.

It is the first major combat vehicle developed for the U.S. Army since the late stages of the Cold War in the 1980s. The finalized M10 Booker is operated by a crew of four, including a commander, a driver, a gunner, and a loader. Its armament consists of a 105 mm M35 primary weapon, a 7.62 mm coaxial weapon, and a .50-caliber M2 commander's weapon. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour, and a C-17 can transport two of the vehicles.

"The M10 Booker provides IBCTs with a safe and effective platform to complete their mission – one that may include bunkers, machine guns or armored vehicle," said Gordon Stein, General Dynamics Land Systems vice president and general manager for U.S. operations. "We are honored to continue to manufacture the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle."

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 and What You Need to Know: Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel highlighted the growing use of drones in modern warfare, particularly against armored vehicles like main battle tanks (MBTs).

-However, Israel’s Merkava MBTs, equipped with advanced protection systems like the Trophy Active Protection System, proved resilient against these drone assaults.

-Designed for survivability with features such as thick armor and a unique front-positioned engine, the Merkava has been a critical asset for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for over four decades, helping to protect Israel’s borders even in the face of sophisticated drone threats.

How Israel’s Merkava Tanks Can Survive Hamas’ Deadly Drone Assault

Hamas’ October 7 massacre against Israel showcased the true capacity of the Gaza-based terror group’s drone arsenal. Like other non-state actors, Hamas heavily relies on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in barrages. Since drones are cheaper to develop and far simpler to produce than other explosive devices, their presence in modern warfare—as seen in the Russian-Ukrainian and Israeli-Hamas Wars—has increased. Drones can carry out a range of functions, including surveillance, reconnaissance, and lethal attacks, which can threaten nearly all military systems and equipment. Tiny, explosive-laden UAVs can be particularly threatening to main battle tanks (MBTs) and other armored vehicles.

As part of Hamas’s offensive strategy this October, the terror group launched lethal drones against Israel’s tanks. However, the Israel Defense Force’s (IDF) fleet of Merkava MBTs is better equipped than most of its counterparts to survive these types of drone barrages.

Introducing the Merkava

The Merkava series of main battle tanks has remained in service with the IDF’s armored corps for more than four decades. Equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, the “Chariot” battle tank is often referred to as one of the best-armored vehicles of its kind across the globe. The Merkava tank can be linked back to the early days of the Israeli state. During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel’s armored corps attained victory by deploying its fleet of American-made M48 Patton and British-made Centurion tanks across the Sinai Peninsula and into the Golan Heights. Israel’s pre-emptive attack was not well received by some of the new country’s European allies.

In fact, the United Kingdom decided to reverse the joint-tank initiative it was developing with the Jewish state that would have provided Israel with its Chieftain tanks. At the same time, France further embargoed deliveries of its Mirage fighter jets and missile boats to Israel. At this point, Israeli officials understood that it could not rely on foreign allies for security.

To rectify this situation, the then-commander of the IDF armored corps, Maj. Gen. Israel Tal, spearheaded the Jewish state’s MBT domestic production capability. The primary function of Israel’s new tank would be survivability. In order to keep personnel losses down in combat, the new tank was designed with thick-spaced armor and unique engine/transmission positioning to provide extra protection for crews.

By installing the engine and transmission in the front of the tank, more space was created in the MBT’s rear, increasing storage capacity and access to enemy fire for the crew. Other tanks being developed around this time sported a rear-positioned engine, emphasizing the Merkava’s unique internal structure.

Operational history

The Merkava first proved to be a critical asset for the IDF during the 1982 Lebanon War. Outperforming Syria’s fleet of Soviet-designed T-62 armored vehicles, the Merkava became the mainstay of the IDF’s armored corps.

Over the years, several new Merkava variants have been introduced, all sporting new enhancements for the platform to retain an edge over competitors. Perhaps the most significant improvement added to the Merkava was the Trophy Active Protection System. This countermeasure, designed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, is installed on the newer Merkava 4 and Merkava 5 variants.

The homegrown system protects the Merkava from an array of projectiles, including anti-tank rockets, anti-tank guided missiles, and high-explosive anti-tank rounds. Additionally, the Trophy system improves the tank’s capacity to locate enemy MBTs, therefore increasing the crew’s survivability. With the Trophy system in place, the Merkava can act more offensively on the battlefield.

As explained by the executive office of the IDF’s tank commander school, “The first and foremost difference in the tank commander’s behavior (pre and post Trophy), we used to be a lot more defensive, and we found ourselves sort of hiding on the battlefield and trying to get out of the range of the anti-tank systems. With Trophy, you feel you have the ability to be more offensive and put yourself out there a little more and allow yourself to accept a little more risk than what we did before.”

Israel’s prioritization of survivability when it comes to the Merkava has boded well for the IDF. Since the Merkava tanks are better protected from top-done drone attacks than its counterparts, Hamas terrorists were unable to destroy as many of these MBTs during its October 7 invasion. While the Merkava may not be invulnerable, it is certainly a critical asset that helps protect Israel’s borders.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Summary and What You Need to Know: The Russian Tu-160 "Blackjack" strategic bomber, a symbol of Russia's military might, recently made headlines when President Vladimir Putin took a short flight in the modernized aircraft.

-Despite Russia's challenges in Ukraine, the Tu-160 remains an impressive weapon system, boasting a new low-observable coating, improved engines, and enhanced electronic warfare capabilities.

-Capable of carrying almost 100,000 lbs of ordnance, including nuclear weapons, the Tu-160 has been used in Ukraine for strategic bombing missions. However, its limited stealth capabilities restrict its effectiveness in non-nuclear deep-penetration strikes.

Tu-160 Blackjack: Russia's Strategic Bomber with Massive Firepower

The Russian military might be taking a serious beating in Ukraine, but it still fields some impressive weapon systems. The Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber is one of them. And in February, the aircraft got a rare day in the news after a visit from the top.

In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew in a modernized Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber.

The short flight took place in central Russia, far away from hostilities in Ukraine.

The Russian leader took the event as an opportunity to tout the Russian defense and aerospace industries after 25 months of failure in Ukraine.

“It's a new machine, a lot about it is new. It's easier to control. It's reliable,” Putin said afterward.

Of course, the flight had an aroma of propaganda. The Tu-160 bomber took off and landed from a runway near the factory that produces the aircraft in Kazan.

The aircraft is manufactured by Tupolev and requires a crew of four men. Approximately 20 of these bombers are active with the Russian Aerospace Forces.

The Modernized Tu-160 Blackjack Strategic Bomber 

The modernized version of the Tu-160 features a new low-observable coating to reduce the strategic bomber’s radar signature and make it stealthier. It also uses new engines with increased performance and better operational range. It has an improved cockpit and new electronic warfare capabilities and countermeasures, as well as better communications and control systems. 

Overall, the Tu-160 Blackjack is an impressive aircraft. Operational since 1987, the nuclear-capable strategic bomber is the largest and heaviest supersonic military aircraft in history. An impressive feat of aerodynamics and engineering, the Tu-160 Blackjack has one main mission: strategic bombing. In the event of a conflict with the United States and NATO, the Russian Aerospace Forces would use the Tu-160 Blackjack against high-value targets or as a platform to launch nuclear weapons, depending on the level of escalation.

The Russian bomber can fire twelve Raduga Kh-55SM/101/102/555 cruise missiles in two internal rotary launchers, or twelve AS-16 Kickback short-range nuclear weapons. All told, the Tu-160M Blackjack can carry almost 100,000 lbs of ordnance. The Russian Aerospace Forces have been using the aircraft in Ukraine in strategic bombing missions against Ukrainian urban centers, critical infrastructure, and the country’s power grid.

With a range of approximately 12,000 kilometers (7,500 miles), the Tu-160 Blackjack can deliver its payload at great distances. Mid-air refueling can extend its operational range.

The aircraft uses four Samara NK-321 jet engines, each of which can produce almost 31,000 lbs of thrust at normal speeds, and 55,000 lbs each with afterburner. As a result, the aircraft can reach speeds over Mach 2, exceeding 1,500 miles per hour.

The Tu-160 Blackjack is a powerful, dangerous aircraft that could pose a serious threat in a near-peer conflict. However, the aircraft significantly lacks in stealth capabilities, thus limiting its ability to conduct deep-penetration strikes in a non-nuclear environment.

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense and national security journalist specializing in special operations. A Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ), he holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University, an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is pursuing a J.D. at Boston College Law School. His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Images Credit: Shutterstock and/or Creative Commons. 

Summary and What You Need to Know: The Mikoyan MiG-31 "Foxhound" is a supersonic interceptor that replaced the flawed MiG-25 "Foxbat." Developed in the 1970s, the MiG-31 was designed to address the shortcomings of its predecessor, particularly in radar capability and low-altitude performance.

-The aircraft, built with a strong airframe and advanced radar, can track multiple targets, including low-flying cruise missiles and bombers. Despite its impressive speed and altitude capabilities, the MiG-31 is not designed for close combat.

-Still in service, the MiG-31 has been used by Russia during the invasion of Ukraine, proving effective against Ukrainian aircraft.

How the MiG-31 Foxhound Replaced the Flawed MiG-25

Known to NATO as the “Foxhound,” the Mikoyan MiG-31 is a supersonic interceptor produced from 1975 to 1994 and is still flown today. 

Designed to replace the MiG-25 “Foxbat,” the MiG-31 was one of the fastest operational combat aircraft of its time. The MiG-31 is expected to remain in service with Russian and Kazakh forces until 2030 or later.

MiG-31: Replacing a Flawed Fighter

The MiG-25 was a single-seat fighter with impressive speed, altitude, and rate of climb. However, it was flawed in certain respects. It lacked maneuverability at the high speeds required for interception, and it proved especially difficult to fly at low altitudes. The MiG-25’s top speed was indeed impressive. The jet could reach Mach 3.2, although designers did not recommend exceeding Mach 2.83 for the risk of sustaining engine damage. 

The Soviets began working on a replacement for the flawed MiG-25 in the early 1970s. By 1975, a prototype known as the Ye-155MP made its first flight. 

The prototype that would become the MiG-31 looked much like the MiG-25, but it was an improved aircraft. One of the most important differences between the two jets was radar capability. The MiG-31, featuring a fuselage lengthened to accommodate a radar operator’s cockpit, was capable of both look-up and look-down/shoot-down engagement, and it could track multiple targets simultaneously. 

The result was an interceptor aircraft that could track low-flying cruise missiles and bombers at long range. Although built as a predecessor to the MiG-25, the MiG-31 would also serve as a replacement for the Tu-128 long-range interceptor.

The Specifications of the MiG-31

The MiG-31 is a large two-seater with two engines and side-mounted air intakes. The wings are shoulder-mounted. The design was crafted around a specific set of mission objectives, which included intercepting cruise missiles and the aircraft from which the missiles originated, finding and eliminating low-flying missiles, UAVs, and helicopters, escorting bombers, and providing air defense.

However, the MiG-31 was decidedly not designed for close combat or rapid turning. Accordingly, the jet is only rated for five Gs while traveling at supersonic speeds. The wing load is marginal, and its thrust-to-weight ratio is respectable.

The MiG-31 was built with stronger wings and a stronger airframe than the MiG-25, which allows for supersonic flight in the dense air of low altitude. The aircraft was built from a nickel-steel alloy that permits the MiG-31 to tolerate the kinetic heating created at Mach 3 airspeeds. In all, the MiG-31 airframe is composed of 49 percent arc-welded nickel steel, 33 percent light metal alloy, 16 percent titanium, and 2 percent composites.

The MiG-31 carries two D30-F6 jet engines, which are rated for 152 kilonewtons of thrust. The D30-F6 is capable of propelling the MiG-31 to Mach 3.2 – but speeds above Mach 3 pose substantial risks to the engine and airframe and are not recommended. The MiG-31 is, therefore, redlined at Mach 2.83.

The Russians have relied on the MiG-31 during the invasion of Ukraine. Reportedly, MiG-31s shot down several Ukrainian aircraft, mostly with the long-range R-37 air-to-air missile. The Ukrainians do not have an aircraft that can match the MiG-31’s speed or altitude, meaning the MiG-31s have been able to operate in Ukrainian airspace virtually unopposed.

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.

Images: Shutterstock and/or Creative Commons. 

Parliamentarians hoped to revise two Constitutional Court rulings to extend the Widodo administration’s influence.