Diplomacy & Crisis News

The incident closes a year that has seen an uptick in high-profile cyberattacks on the United States.

Surprised and bloodied, the Israelis found themselves significantly on the backfoot following Hamas’ terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023. The Israel Defense Force (IDF) was tasked with hitting back against the terrorists—hard. Its responses were brutal but effective.

While the Israelis failed to get back most of the hostages that Hamas took on that fateful day, they sapped Hamas’ capacity to wage war.

A key reason why the IDF was so brutally effective in breaking the martial prowess of Hamas was due to the deployment of radical, dare I say even exotic, technologies. One of those rare weapons the IDF used with such effectiveness was the Israeli Maoz (aka, Spike Firefly) kamikaze unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

A Sky Monster

This sky monster is described as a “coaxial rotor loitering munition drone” that was specifically designed for urban warfare. If I saw this thing at night or sundown, it might be easy to believe that little gray men from Zeta Reticuli were attacking rather than the IDF—that’s how bizarre this vertical, twin-bladed sky machine looks.

When the Israelis chose to move in force into the Gaza Strip, the overpopulated southern strip of territory along the Eastern Mediterranean Sea between the Sinai Peninsula and southern Israel, they ran smack dab into the dread of most modern militaries: urban warfare.

Built up and overflowing with people in varying states of poverty (and anger toward Israel), the IDF risked kicking over a veritable hornet’s nest going in there. But the Israelis persevered. And that was in large part due to the innovative tactics and technologies that the IDF employed against Hamas.

There is some dispute as to whether the Israelis did, in fact, deploy the Spike Firefly loitering munitions drone in Gaza. Although, one can assume that the system was used in the horrible fighting against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. What is known is that the drone has been spotted engaging in operations in another terrorist hotspot where Israel is often conducting military operations, the West Bank city of Jenin.

Israel’s Spike Firefly drone is part of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ SPIKE family of precision-guided munitions. With their Spike Firefly, the Israelis are again offering the world a masterclass in what the next round of major wars will look like.

Indeed, the Spike Firefly is a model for the kind of network-centric warfare that will undoubtedly define the next great power conflict. That’s because the Spike Firefly shares real-time intelligence it gathers with other IDF elements, giving greater situational awareness to those advancing IDF elements.

The Specs

Spike Firefly carries a SPIKE NLOS (non-line-of-sight) missile and has a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability. In terms of surveillance capacity, it offers its users “beyond-line-of-sight” (BLOS) attack modes. In other words, this thing can kill you up close or far away. Spike Firefly can get you by seeing you or simply detecting you with sensors. What’s more, it is a semi-autonomous system. Spike Firefly can operate on its own or with a human operator in control.

As for some of its more advanced surveillance systems, it has dual infrared and electro-optical (EO) sensors. Again, its unique shape and relatively small size allow for it to not just loiter above buildings—the drone can pursue an enemy target into a building. This is the stuff of nightmares. Think of the opening scene from the original Terminator film, when the hero fighting the machines in the future is chased by a tiny flying machine that is utterly relentless in its quest to end his life.

Weighing in at 6.6 pounds and built for silent killing, there is a compartment that can carry a .77-pound bomb or an extra battery. In fact, that’s the only likely weakness of this drone: It has a limited battery life of around fifteen minutes. But the extra battery can be used to extend operational life to around thirty minutes (for reconnaissance missions).

Rafael says that the Spike Firefly has a topflight speed of 37 miles per hour and a diving speed of 43 mph, meaning this thing can come up on you fast. Further, its small size and silent running means you would be unlikely to even know it was over you until it was too late.

Israel has been at the forefront of understanding the often-radical changes in warfare over the last thirty years. The Spike Firefly drone is a testament to this. It is one of the most promising systems in the world and should be embraced not only more widely by the IDF but also by the United States and its allies. 

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: Shutterstock. 

As a new administration settles into Washington, the global chessboard is being reset. While Central Asia may not be occupying the top squares of that board, it remains a strategically vital region. For the incoming administration, the key to effectively engaging with this complex region isn’t a sudden spotlight or grand pronouncements but rather a commitment to consistent and well-defined engagement. Central Asia doesn’t need to be a top priority; it needs consistent attention.

No one expects Central Asia to be the administration’s immediate focus. Crises in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the ongoing challenges posed by China, will understandably dominate the headlines and agendas. However, the very fact that Central Asia is not likely to erupt into a major conflict demanding immediate military or diplomatic intervention is precisely why a steady, long-term approach is so crucial. The five nations of the region—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan—have a long history of navigating complex geopolitical landscapes and are unlikely to be swayed by fleeting attention or pronouncements that lack follow-through. They prioritize reliability over rhetoric.

The previous Trump administration deserves credit for recognizing this and formalizing a new United States Strategy for Central Asia 2019–2025. This strategy aimed to bolster the region’s independence, sovereignty, and resilience while emphasizing economic connectivity and reforms. However, the implementation of this strategy was often hampered by inconsistencies and a lack of sustained engagement. While the blueprint existed, the practical execution fell short. For instance, while the strategy highlighted the importance of trade diversification, few concrete initiatives were launched to facilitate U.S. business engagement beyond existing limited partnerships. 

Furthermore, outdated restrictions were sometimes used as political leverage, creating unnecessary complications. A prime example is the persistence of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Kazakhstan, which prevents normal trade relations with the United States. Originally intended to target the USSR for restricting Jewish emigration, this legacy legislation continues to apply to post-Soviet states. Despite bipartisan agreement on its obsolescence, a recent CRS report highlights its continued use as potential leverage for promoting democratic governance. This demonstrates how upholding superficial limitations, ostensibly for values-based reasons, can undermine interest-based policy.

The C5+US summit on September 21, 2023, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York offered a glimmer of hope for renewed engagement. The dialogue was positive, and commitments were made on various fronts, from regional security to economic cooperation. However, the follow-up has been underwhelming. Where are the tangible investment plans spurred by the summit? Where are the concrete joint projects addressing water scarcity or border security that were discussed? The Critical Minerals Dialogue, established in February 2024 to address the critical issue of the region’s rare-earth reserves and the American need for secure supply chains, has yet to yield any publicly announced initiatives or agreements. This is despite the increasing urgency of the situation, with China becoming more willing to impose bans and restrictions on critical mineral exports. This gap between pronouncements and practical action is precisely what breeds skepticism in a region accustomed to navigating the long game.

What Central Asia truly needs from the United States is a competent, clearly articulated strategy that is consistently implemented at the ground level. The leaders of the regional states are pragmatic actors. They prioritize tangible, long-term cooperation that contributes to their economic development, strengthens their security, and respects their sovereignty without imposing undue conditions or forcing them to choose sides. This pragmatic approach aligns directly with crucial U.S. interests. Economically, Central Asia represents a significant, yet largely untapped, treasure trove of resources, including rare earth elements vital for both high-tech industries and the green energy transition. 

A prime example of this untapped potential, and a clear illustration of the current dynamic, is Kazakhstan. While possessing significant reserves, the country has seen a 3.8-fold increase in its rare earth mineral (REM) exports since 2020, in real terms. Kazakhstan is also among the few nations capable of producing gallium and indium, rare earth elements on which China currently holds a near-monopoly. Yet, China was the sole importer of these Kazakhstani REMs in 2023. For Washington to capitalize on this potential, the region requires targeted and strategic investments, technology transfer, personnel education, and comprehensive high-level exploratory work to map deposits effectively. Equally important are long-term commitments to import these products. This represents a mutually beneficial scenario: the United States gains a diversified supply chain, gaining a crucial edge in future geopolitical competition, while regional states benefit from new workplaces, increased budget revenue, and the ability to build their market share. 

Beyond economics, a consistent U.S. policy towards the region is crucial for fostering regional stability. Central Asian states have long played a constructive role as mediators in regional disputes, offering platforms for dialogue. The increasing connectivity facilitated by projects like the Middle Corridor creates economic interdependence, fostering a shared interest in peace and stability. The ongoing, albeit fragile, peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan are indirectly influenced by the growing importance of transit routes that benefit both nations, highlighting the power of economic incentives in promoting peace.

Shifting to another pressing challenge, Afghanistan presents a painful issue where Central Asian engagement can be particularly valuable. While direct engagement with the Taliban poses significant obstacles for the United States, it is evident to the countries of the region that ignoring the reality on the ground will not make the challenges disappear. In 2024, there have been significant efforts to normalize relations and engage in pragmatic dialogue with the Taliban, for example, in delivering humanitarian aid and ensuring border security. Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has taken a leading role, consistently advocating at the UN for the establishment of the UN Regional Sustainable Development Goals Center for Central Asia and Afghanistan in Almaty, an idea that was realized this summer. As a follow-up, Kazakhstan removed the Taliban from its list of terrorist organizations and accredited a Chargé d’affaires from Afghanistan. Discussions are now underway to expand trans-Afghan railways further, opening trade routes for other nations in South and Central Asia, as well as the Middle East. By supporting these regional actors, the United States can contribute to preventing Afghanistan from becoming a breeding ground for instability and terrorism without necessarily endorsing the Taliban regime.

The new administration should understand that a consistent, well-defined, and diligently implemented strategy is the most effective path to engaging with Central Asia. It is crucial not to think about the region arena for winning a zero-sum game against Russia or China but rather as a space to build mutually beneficial partnerships that advance U.S. interests while respecting the sovereignty and agency of the Central Asian nations. By focusing on concrete, ground-level cooperation in areas like trade diversification, infrastructure development, and regional stability, the United States can cultivate lasting relationships that yield far greater dividends than sporadic bursts of high-level attention. A steady hand, guided by a consistent strategy, will secure America’s long-term interests in this region.

Miras Zhiyenbayev is the Head of the Foreign Policy Analysis and International Studies Program at MIND, the Maqsut Narikbayev Institute for Networking and Development, a university-based think tank at Maqsut Narikbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.

Image: Vladimir Tretyakov / Shutterstock.com.

In recent weeks, I have penned multiple articles on U.S. Armed Forces’ elite Special Operations units, from the Army’s Delta Force and Special Forces (SF, AKA “Green Berets”), to the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, to the Marine Raiders, and even the Air Force Pararescue Jumpers (PJs) and Combat Controllers (CCTs).

So now, in the interest of diversifying my special operations coverage, I am expanding my scope to some foreign elite units. Famous units like the British Special Air Service (SAS), French Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale (GIGN; affectionately nicknamed “Gigene”), and German Grenzschutzgruppe Neun (GSG-9) might seem like the obvious choices. However, as my instructors at both USAF Officer Training School (OTS) and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) exhorted my fellow trainees and me to “think outside the box,” I will now write about an elite foreign military unit that most of my fellow American’s have probably never heard of: South Africa’s Parachute Battalion, nicknamed the “Parabats.”

Job/Mission Description and Early History

1 Parachute Battalion was founded on April 1, 1966, under the command of Lt Col (later Lt Gen) Willem Louw SSA SM; other noteworthy commanders of the unit included Brigadier M.J. du Plessis and Colonel Jan Breytenbach. Today, it is the only full-time paratroop unit in the South African National Defence Force (SANDF); during the infamous apartheid era—which officially ended in 1994—it was simply known as the South African Defence Force, and is currently commanded by Lt. Col. D. Mziki. The battalion’s proud motto is “Ex alto vincimus (We conquer from Above).”

Operational History In Brief: Noteworthy Parabat Combat Missions

The Parabats were first “blooded” in combat in 1966 during a counterinsurgency war in South West Africa (known nowadays as Namibia); indeed, these troops carried out the very first combat action of that war, whereupon they participated in a heliborne assault on an insurgent base. From there, the Battalion was embroiled in operations in SWA/Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Mozambique, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and elsewhere on an almost constant basis for over twenty years.

In the post-apartheid era, the Parabats’ best-known combat ops were:

-The Battle for Bangui, Central African Republic (CAR) in March 2012, whereupon the unit—which was attached to a South African military assistance operation in the CAR—suffered thirteen killed in action via an ambush conducted by Seleka rebels; the following year, it was announced that 1 Parachute Battalion would receive Battle Honours for their sacrifice.

-In support of the United Nations Force Intervention Brigade mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2013, a single Parabat company under the command of Major Vic Vrolik fought a series of engagements.

Perspective From My Former Colleagues

I’ve been unable to get ahold of any Parabat veterans to garner their firsthand perspectives on life in that unit. So, I did the next best thing by pinging a couple of friends who were members of other SADF/SANDF units (and served on that same Iraq contract as I did) and, though they didn’t serve with the Parachute Battalion, they spent enough time working with them to provide me some useful information.

First, there’s my friend John Dovey, RD (Reserve Distinction), a South African army veteran with thirty-five years of service:

“To the foreign observer, the Parabats appear to be simple parachute qualified infantry. This is far from the case. The best comparison would be to [U.S. Army] Ranger Battalion or [USMC] Force Recon. Jump qualification is simply the initial barrier to entry and the selection is harsh and fierce. There are Green Berets I know who have said it’s a tougher selection than that to get into the Q course. The ‘Bats pride themselves on being tough for a simple reason; they are!”

From there, Dovey adds:

“The ‘PT Course’ is a grueling, vicious physical and mental event, initially running for two weeks, then changed to run for a full 72 hours without interruption. Those who make it through that initial test know that their comrades are some of the physically and mentally toughest soldiers it’s possible to have. That certainty is the beginning of the brotherhood that all ‘Bats share. The fierce pride of the Parabats is reflected in the reverence they accord to the earning and wearing of their ‘Maroon Beret.’ Touch a Parabat’s beret at your own peril.”

Then there’s my friend “Grunt,” to whom I’m assigning a pseudonym out of respect for his request for anonymity; “Grunt” served as an Olifant tank crewman, rising up the conscript ranks to troop sergeant before ascending to the commissioned officer ranks, ultimately leaving the service with the rank of “Lieutenant qualified to Major.” “Grunt’s” Parabat tidbit isn’t as detailed as John’s, but it is a good bit more comical:

“Armor and Para Bats had a strong rivalry. They used to try to steal our black berets. We used to have many fights in the streets of Bloemfontein where MPs [Military Police] would arrest everyone. I remember a huge fight in one of the night clubs where I came across an armour man lying in the toilet, beaten by Bats. We caught them in the streets and chased them into an alleyway, but just then the police released a K9 and the Bats were locked up.”

Baie dankie (“Thank you very much”), John and “Grunt!” As the title and opening line of South Africa’s national anthem says, “Nkosi Sikelele Afrika (God Bless Africa)!”

About the Author: Christian D. Orr

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). If you’d like to pick his brain further, you can ofttimes find him at the Old Virginia Tobacco Company (OVTC) lounge in Manassas, Virginia, partaking of fine stogies and good quality human camaraderie.

This article was inspired by my friend and former Iraq contracting comrade-in-arms , Craig de Villiers, a former Para Bat. Sadly, a few months ago, Craig lost his battle with lung cancer, and ergo I dedicate this writeup to him.

Image: Johan Nicolaas van Vuren / Shutterstock.com

During the holidays, gamers spend no shortage of time "gaming," but in recent years, some hardcore video game enthusiasts have also been too quick to spill military secrets. Just before the Christmas holiday, military secrets related to the Eurofighter Typhoon were shared on the forums for the popular free-to-play War Thunder simulation.

As in past incidents, the leaked documents came about after multiple gamers disputed key systems and the accuracy of the digital recreation in the War Thunder game. This time the spilled secrets involved the Eurofighter Typhoon, the 4+ generation multirole aircraft currently in service with the air forces of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

Hungary-based Gaijin Entertainment, the game's publisher, has repeatedly asked fans of the game not to leak military secrets on the forums.

"[We] will take this opportunity to again remind everyone here, please do not, under any circumstances, try to post, share any sources unless you are 100% certain they are legally declassified and publicly safe for use. We will never handle or use them, and all it does is actively harm any possible future changes being possible by trying to use them. Do not do it. No good will ever come from it for you or the vehicle you are trying to post for," the company said in a statement, as first reported by PC Gamer.

Secrets Revealed

The National Interest will not publish what content was posted online but will note that the gamer debate—which turned heated—had resulted over the reported scanning capabilities of the CAPTOR radar system. According to Simple Flying, around 600 aircraft are fitted with the CAPTOR-E, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, which operates on the X-band.

"Discussions centred on comparisons between its mechanically scanning (CAPTOR-M) and electronically scanning (CAPTOR-E) variants, particularly the latter’s ability to reduce scanning times significantly. Players disagreed over the exact technical capabilities, prompting the ill-advised sharing of restricted data," the UK Defence Journal explained.

Popular Game—Popular With Leaks

War Thunder was first released in 2013 and is widely considered to be the most "realistic" combat simulation currently available to the general public. It simulates more than 1,900 vehicles, and according to the company, has a base of around 60,000 active players from around the world.

The most serious players are known to spend thousands of dollars on advanced controls that better simulate the flying experience, while some gamers have also gone to great lengths to create an immersive experience for tanks and other vehicles. The hardcore following the game has received has in turn resulted in very heated arguments over "classified" details.

In the past few years, gamers have shared secrets related to the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The leak for the F-15E had come from Operational Flight Program (OFP) software manuals, including those for flight controls, navigation, targeting, and even weapons systems. However, the documents had apparently been published between 1998 and 2000 and pertained to OFP suite 3, which has been upgraded numerous times in the past two decades. The other posted information was from the F-16's flight manual, detailing the use of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

Other classified information has been posted to the War Thunder forums involving the British Army's Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT), and the French military's Leclerc Serie 2 MBT. In June 2022, a gamer from China shared data on the DTC10-125, an anti-tank round fielded by modern Chinese tanks. Though many of the details were already well known, it still marked the first time that any authenticating documentation had been seen outside of China.

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:  VanderWolf Images / Shutterstock.com

From a brewing trade war to opportunities on the global stage, here’s what we’re watching in the new year.

As an island vulnerable to frequent blackouts, Puerto Rico deserves a resilient and reliable power grid. Building such a grid starts with guaranteeing energy security for critical infrastructure, such as hospitals and storm shelters. Natural gas (NG) can help alleviate the island’s power grid challenges by providing backup redundancy, fuel diversification, and the other critical services (so-called ancillary services) that are required to maintain a reliable grid. If implemented successfully, NG distribution by trucks or storm-resilient pipeline networks would serve as a bridge to a stable grid and set the stage for the 100 percent renewable goal described in the Department of Energy’s PR100 report.

Puerto Rico needs additional power generation today to enable critical planned unit maintenance before another major storm devastates the island or grid failures cause irreparable harm to the local economy. Distributed NG generation is well-positioned to provide this rapid and effective support to both critical infrastructure and the grid at large through both backup and ancillary services. While large NG generators require extensive and expensive bidding and design processes, smaller generators are much easier to acquire and faster to install. They can also be combined to perform similar services at scale. NG generators are also better suited than diesel to operate when air quality is a concern.

Additionally, if done strategically, new NG generation is well suited to address Puerto Rico's net-zero energy goals. Onsite renewables and batteries can supplement energy generation. At the same time, a transition plan from NG to hydrogen, biogas, or green methanol would ensure a clear pathway to continue leveraging all generation assets in a net-zero future.

To maximize the utility of NG, the Puerto Rican government should task the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau (PREB) with establishing and overseeing the construction of a natural gas distribution network as a bridge to a resilient and reliable energy future. This strategy should lay out a plan for distributing NG from liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals to critical nodes, starting with critical infrastructure and expanding out to other regions that chronically experience generation shortages. There are examples of critical infrastructure—such as hospitals and other energy-sensitive industries—that are installing NG distribution and generation. PREB should also establish contracts for the NG generators to provide ancillary services when required by the power grid. Also, PREB should assess and plan for the necessary transition from NG to a carbon-neutral gas alternative.

Until such a transition plan is implemented, using the two existing LNG terminals in Puerto Rico will provide immediate benefits, as these terminals already have the capacity to provide cleaner fuel than the current fleet of emergency diesel generators. On the mainland United States, many utilities include rapidly deployable generation resources as an integral part of their 2050 net zero transition plans—for example, Xcel in Minnesota and Florida’s Duke Energy.

While PR100’s net zero by 2050 remains a worthy goal, and renewable power initiatives should continue, Puerto Rico can and must address more immediate needs. With NG, it can do that while also better positioning itself for the future. Natural gas will enable the island to increase its resilience, enable necessary grid repairs, and pave the way for a net zero-emission future.

Ismael Arciniegas Rueda is a senior economist at the RAND Corporation.

Andrew Star is an engineer at RAND. 

Frank Andujar Lugo is a technical analyst at RAND. 

Robert Jolly is a SkillBridge Research Fellow at RAND.

Image: Fahroni / Shutterstock.com. 

The country’s inaction in Syria has dealt a blow to confidence in its regional power.

The rapid collapse of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s Ba’athist government is the culmination of a thirteen-year civil war. Key global trends fed into Syria’s suffering: ethnic and religious hostilities, migration, terrorism, militant Islam, and the return of great power politics, as meddling and interventions by Türkiye, Russia, and Iran only made matters worse. 

The United States, Europe, Türkiye, and moderate Arab nations must ensure that Syria does not revert to being a Russian and Iranian stronghold in the Eastern Mediterranean again. They must also guarantee that Syria will not serve as a base for future jihadist expansion led by ISIS and that reconstruction efforts include measures to secure equality for women and all ethnic groups, particularly the Kurds, who are American allies, allowing them to coexist peacefully. This will not be an easy task.

With the fall of the Assad regime (supported by Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), the geopolitical balance of power in the Levant has shifted. The borders of Syria, initially drawn by the British Empire and France in the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, may no longer exist. Türkiye and, to a lesser extent, Qatar emerged as clear winners.

For everyone else, the impact of recent events is more ambiguous. The Syrian people, the United States, and Israel will find out whether a transitional administration led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is to their benefit. The U.S. State Department still designates this rebel coalition as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). Nevertheless, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced direct contact between Washington and HTS on December 15. A U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East Barbara Leaf met with Ahmad al-Sharaa, the HTS Syrian leader, and the White House is reportedly contemplating lifting the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation from HTS.

To send a message to the new rulers in Damascus, Israel moved to secure a narrow buffer zone on the Golan Heights. In what may be a favor to the rest of the Middle East and the world, it also proceeded to methodically destroy Assad’s surface-to-surface missiles, chemical weapons, and other heavy weapons stored throughout Syria. With ISIS still active in the area, one never knows who could use these arms in the future or to whom HTS might sell them.

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gambled on supporting multiple rebel groups after Assad rebuffed his efforts to restore relations between Türkiye and Syria. Ankara deployed the Syrian National Army (SNA) to destroy the Syrian Kurdish-led, U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Northern Syria, and Turkey controls two large buffer zones there. Reports of executions of the wounded in hospitals and rape and kidnapping of Kurdish women by these Turkish proxies have shocked the world. Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Türkiye has never exerted as much military and diplomatic power in the Middle East as it does now. Qatar also supported anti-Assad forces in Syria, and there is no doubt that officials in Doha are more pleased with current events than officials in other Gulf monarchies that were more conciliatory toward Assad (e.g., UAE, Oman).

The Shift In The Balance of Power

Assad’s defeat weakens the geopolitical standing of both Tehran and Moscow. Russia spent tens of billions of dollars to keep the Syrian regime in power. For years, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah served as Iran’s leading force supporting Assad. Successful Israeli strikes against Hezbollah’s leadership this fall deprived the Syrian government of a vital ally. Russia may lose its naval port in Tartus, a Mediterranean city in northwestern Syria, and an air base in Khmeimim.

If calm ensues, reconstruction will be key. EU and American sanctions against the Assad regime targeted the dictatorship and the businesses and institutions aligned with it. Many Assad opponents now hope that Western countries can fully lift those sanctions. However, much will depend on whether and how much common ground can be found with the post-Assad regime. 

A continuous civil war or the creation of a Sharia-based terrorist state is unlikely to receive aid, much less investment. If there is chronic violence, or if the rights of women and ethnic minorities are not protected, the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to rebuild the country and allow millions of Syrian refugees from the Middle East and Europe to come home may not materialize. 

Assad’s exile is worthy of celebration, but American leaders should not yet lift the FTO designation from HTS. In a diverse, war-torn country like Syria, post-revolutionary hatred runs deep. Ethnic and sectarian hostilities, especially fears among the Kurdish and Alawite minorities, are already mounting. The HTS-led government needs to prove that they will abandon jihad and are ready to fight ISIS. 

The defeat of Russian and Iranian forces in Syria presents an opportunity to re-establish American preeminence in the Middle East, particularly in preparation for confronting the Iranian nuclear threat. To achieve this, the United States and its allies must “get Syria right.” There is a lengthy to-do list. Washington must ensure that Russia withdraws its troops and closes its air and naval bases. HTS, the U.S., and Israel need to make sure that no Iranian resupplies reach Hezbollah via Syria.

The Perilous Path Ahead

The new Syrian leader, al-Sharaa, is projecting a pragmatic image and may be threatened by murderous radicals bent on removing the competition. He announced that it may take up to four years to hold elections in the country. This would be more than enough time to establish a Sharia-based regime. Despite the pro-Sharia regime statements by regime spokespeople, in particular, Ayshe al-Debs, the HTS Women Affairs Minister, in support of Hamas, jihad, and in favor of the limitations on women’s rights, Washington, along with our moderate Arab and European allies, must clearly communicate to HTS that a harsh, Sharia-based political system that discriminates against women, forces “conversion” on the Druze and Alawites to an extremist form of Sunni Islam, or reduces Christians to “Dhimmis” is entirely unacceptable; any attempt to do so will result in a cessation of all aid and isolation. In fact, the U.S. State Department did that, but not decisively. Thus, removing HTS’ FTO status may be premature.

For Syria to build a democratic, pluralistic, and peaceful nation dedicated to the return of its refugees, their safety and prosperity through economic development increasingly seems like a dream. Despite the immense suffering of the Syrian people, without the wisdom, patience, and tolerance of the factional leaders, there is a tragic possibility that a further phase of the war—and possibly more massacres—may still lie ahead.

Dr. Ariel Cohen is the Managing Director of the Energy, Growth, and Security program at the International Tax and Investment Center and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. Follow him on X: @Dr_Ariel_Cohen.

Image: Shutterstock.com.

M. Bachar Al-Assad n'avait pas encore déserté son palais que Tel-Aviv fourbissait déjà ses armes. Pendant que les islamistes font leurs premiers pas à la tête de la Syrie, l'armée israélienne détruit méthodiquement les capacités militaires de son voisin et s'immisce sur son territoire. En violation (...) / Syrie, Israël, Conflit israélo-arabe - 2025/01

The Russian military has a serious issue with advanced munitions.

The demands of the war, coupled with chronic production issues, have left the Russian military without enough advanced munitions to sustain the necessary rate of fire for a large-scale conflict like the one in Ukraine.

Advanced Munitions Issues

Earlier in December, the Russian military launched a large-scale, combined arms offensive. To support its ground forces, the Russian military used advanced long-range munitions. However, in a single instance, Moscow used munitions that took months to produce.

“Overnight 12-13 December Russia conducted a large-scale multi-axis attack into Ukraine. As with the attacks that occurred in November and prior, it involved Russian Long Range Aviation assets and Russian fixed wing Tactical Aviation assets launching multiple types of air launched cruise-missile and air launched ballistic missile systems,” the British Military Intelligence assessed over the weekend.

“The air assets were supported by SAGARIS Land Attack Cruise Missiles launched by Black Sea Fleet assets, and One-Way Attack Uncrewed Aerial Systems (OWA UAS) were used from multiple launch sites,” the British Military Intelligence added.

All in all, the Russian military supported its large-scale offensive with approximately 180 suicide drones and ninety ballistic and cruise missiles.

The important thing to highlight is that the Russian military can afford to launch such attacks only every few months. Under the weight of international sanctions and the general production issues of the Russian defense and aerospace industries, Moscow can only produce a fraction of the advanced weapon systems needed to wage a modern war every month. As such, the Russian military has to time its large-scale offensives to match the arrhythmic Russian military production capacity.

“Since August 2024, it is highly likely Russia has chosen to take time to build stocks between strikes and then launch in larger, less frequent strike waves, rather than the more frequent smaller attack conducted earlier in the year,” the British Military Intelligence assessed.

The Russian military is so short on key components, such as semiconductors, that it has to scavenge consumer products like refrigerators, microwaves, and dishwashing machines for chips to put in missiles. Also, the Russian military has been using specialized munitions for the wrong missions—for example, anti-ship missiles against ground targets. The Kremlin is working with other countries to bolster its stocks of munitions. Iran, for example, has provided thousands of suicide drones and hundreds of missiles to Russia.

“The composition and target set of the 12-13 December attack was similar to previous attacks, focusing on Ukrainian Critical National Infrastructure and industry, whilst also attempting to suppress Ukrainian Air Defense and airfields by saturating them with OWA UAS,” the British Military Intelligence stated.

Importantly, the Russian military remains capable of launching missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian urban centers and critical infrastructure at a moment’s notice, even if such attacks can’t always be large-scale.

“However, Russia retains the ability and the stocks to allow such assets to be employed in smaller numbers, as a punitive measure, with little or no warning,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

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

Image: Shutterstock.

Elections, Olympics, assassinations, and more—test yourself on the whirlwind of international news in the past year.

The Russian Navy continues its buildup as the Western powers dither. Specifically, Russia’s once-mighty Northern Fleet appears to be breaking out of its post-Cold War era stupor and returning to its previous levels of lethality. 

On the morning of December 27, the Russian Navy reportedly received the newest Yasen-M-class nuclear-powered attack submarine. Built by the legendary Russian Sevmash shipyard, the submarine, designated K-564 Arkhangelsk, is now the fourth Yasen-M-class submarine built, and the second to be incorporated into Russia’s growing Northern Fleet.

The Importance of Russia’s Northern Fleet

Russia’s Northern Fleet is based in Severomorsk and its history as a strategic asset for Russia dates back to 1733, when the Northern Fleet was first created. Its area of operation is, as its name suggests, the regions around Russia’s northern frontier. So, you’ll find Russian Northern Fleet warships and submarines operating in the Arctic, as well as the Barents Sea, and Kara Sea. 

The Northern Fleet is also tasked with defending the approaches to Russia from places like the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic Ocean.

Back in 2008, Moscow’s annual National Security Memo, which outlines the main objectives and grand strategy for the Russian military, identified the Arctic as the most important strategic region for Russia. Even before Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow spent its time and money modernizing and expanding the Northern Fleet to meet this desire to dominate the Arctic.

What’s more, now that the Ukraine war is underway, with NATO so heavily invested in supporting the Ukrainian cause against Russia, the Northern Fleet is on the hook for protecting the maritime passes into Russian waters on the side of Russia that borders Northern Europe.

Designed to replace the aging Oscar-class cruise missile and Akula-class nuclear-powered attack submarines from the old Soviet era, the Yasen-class was designed by the legendary Soviet-era Malakhit Marine Engineering Bureau to be deployed decades ago. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the immediate post-Soviet era of Russia in the 1990s created many challenges that led Russian engineers to create an even more updated variant of the Yasen, which is the Yasen-M.

The Specs of the Mighty Yasen-M

Yasen-M-class submarines carry a crew of around sixty-four Russian sailors. This boat is one of the best submarines that Russia has produced. It’s meant to be a submarine killer, so it combines massive firepower, endurance, and stealth. That Russia seems to be frontloading its Northern Fleet with a whopping four of these boats should indicate to readers just how important Moscow views its northern frontier, both defensively and, more importantly, as a region of immense power projection.

A Yasen-M-class submarine displaces around 8,600 tons when surfaced and 13,800 tons when underwater. At the surface, she travels at 16 knots (just 18.41 miles per hour); undersea, however, Yasen-Ms become minnows. The average underwater speed for a Yasen-M is a little bit more than 35 miles per hour (31 knots).

For purposes of comparison, the United States Navy’s fastest boat is likely the advanced Seawolf-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, which travels at 35 knots, or 40 mph. Considering the extreme costs of the American submarine, though, compared to the relatively cheap Yasen-M class, the Russians have a scalable, cost-effective, and highly lethal boat that is more practical than the American systems are, unfortunately (for the West).

While in “quiet mode,” the submarine can operate between 20 to 28 knots (23 to 32 mph). If these claims by the Russian designers of the Yasen-M are true, then it rivals even the powerful (and infinitely more expensive) U.S. Navy Virginia-class subs.

In terms of her power plant, the Yasen-M comes equipped with a fourth-generation KTP-6 monoblock nuclear reactor. It is designed to run for twenty-five to thirty years without needing refueling. Her sonar is the spherical system known as MGK-600 Irtysh-Amfora that, according to Army Recognition, “enhances detection capabilities while maintaining minimal noise levels.” Indeed, the boat itself is constructed from low-magnetic steel, assisting in the sub’s impressive stealth capabilities.

More Powerful Than Its American & NATO Rivals

As for weapons, since it is technically a guided-missile submarine (SSGN), this boat carries a potent mix of long-range cruise missiles for sea-to-surface attack missions. Among the lethal payloads these boats carry are Kalibr and Oniks cruise missiles. Most naval analysts assess that the Yasen-M carries between twenty-four and forty missiles, thanks to its UKSK Vertical Launch System (VLS).

Moreover, the Yasen-M has been designed to incorporate the mighty Zircon hypersonic missile. The Americans lack both their own hypersonic weapon counterweight or a significant defensive capability to stop attacks from the Zircon and similar Russian hypersonic weapons platforms.

In other words, the U.S. Navy (and the navies of its NATO allies) are totally outmatched by the firepower of the Russian Northern Fleet’s Yasen-M-class submarines.

With 10 torpedo tubes (at 533 mm), the Yasen-M is meant for close combat with rival submarines. Utilizing its ultra-quiet rigging, these sea monsters can tailgate American or NATO subs, perhaps completely undetected, and then spring an attack on them with their 533 mm torpedoes.

Dittos for the Yasen-M attack profile against U.S. and NATO surface warships.

Russia’s Northern Fleet is becoming more lethal than what it is facing on the other side. This strategic imbalance, while still manageable for now, will become decisive in Russia’s favor over the next decade as the naval shipyards of the West continue struggling to meet present demand and increase productivity to meet the demands that the unstable global threat environment places upon them.

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: Kuleshov Oleg / Shutterstock.com

The biggest releases in foreign affairs, history, and economics.

The Royal Australian Air Force received its seventy-second—and probably last—F-35A Lightning stealth fighter jet, completing its fifth-generation fighter jet fleet for the time being.

Australian F-35s

In December, the Australian military received its seventy-second F-35A stealth fighter jet, completing the roster of the third operational squadron.

“The delivery of the final F-35A Lightning II aircraft is a practical demonstration of the Air Force’s ability to deliver highly effective air power as part of an integrated and focused force, in line with the National Defence Strategy,” chief of air force, Air Marshal Stephen Chappell, said in a press statement.

With the delivery of the last F-35, the Royal Australian Air Force becomes the strongest in the southeastern Pacific and one of the most powerful in the entire Indo-Pacific area of operations.

“Australians should be proud that our Air Force is flying the most advanced multi-role fighter in the world,” he added.

Now, the Royal Australian Air Force flies three types of fighter jets: the F-35A Lightning II, the F/A-18F Super Hornet, and the EA-18G Growler.

The F-35 is a fifth-generation stealth aircraft and the most advanced fighter jet in the skies today. The “A” version Australia is operating is the conventional take-off iteration—the F-35 has two other versions, B and C, with different landing and take-off capabilities.

The F/A-18 Super Hornet is an agile and capable fourth-generation fighter jet. Australia has twenty-four of those aircraft.

The third type of aircraft in service, the EA-18G Growler, is a variation of the F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet that specializes in electronic warfare—tracking and destroying enemy air defenses. Australia has twelve EA-18G aircraft.

“The F-35A aircraft fleet, in conjunction with the EA-18G Growler and F/A-18F Super Hornets, are the cornerstone of Australia’s air defence and strike capability, as outlined in the 2024 National Defence Strategy,” the Australian Air Force states about its fleet.

How Many F-35s?

Initially, the Royal Australian Air Force had planned for the procurement of 100 F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter jets. Indeed, if you take a look at Lockheed Martin’s publicly released data on F-35 orders, it lists Australia with an order of 100 aircraft. However, earlier in 2024, the Australian military decided not to procure a fourth squadron of F-35A, thus limiting its order to seventy-two stealth aircraft. It is unclear whether Canberra will exercise its right to a fourth F-35 squadron down the line.

The reason for not procuring additional F-35 was dual: first, Canberra decided to upgrade its F/A-18F Super Hornet fleet to allow the fourth-generation aircraft to be competitive in a near-peer environment and fly well into the 2030s; and second, the F-35A proved to be a bigger success than Australian officials expected.

“We’ve decided to keep the Super Hornets in service for two reasons: one, they’re doing great work, and secondly, the Joint Strike Fighter is even more capable than we initially thought,” Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said in April.

“We can delay the replacement of the Super Hornet, which frees up funding to invest in more long-range missiles, for example,” the Australian defense official added.

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

Image: moh_bagusov2 / Shutterstock.com

Why the Chinese military struggles to take advantage of new technology.

Trump must gain more leverage to bring Putin to the negotiating table.

The Russian Navy is ending 2024 with a new Project 885 (also known as the Yasen-M) nuclear-powered submarine in its fleet. The Arkhangelsk officially entered service on Friday as Captain First Rank Alexander Gladkov received the St. Andrew's naval flag.

"An official ceremony took place at the Sevmash Shipyard to deliver the Yasen-M-class fourth-generation nuclear-powered submarine Arkhangelsk to the Russian Navy. The ceremony was held under the direction of Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Alexander Moiseyev," the Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement to Tass.

The latest Project 885 submarine is named for the northern Russian city of Arkhangelsk, also known as "Archangel" in English.

"The Arkhangelsk is the third serial-built sub in the family of Yasen-M-class multi-purpose nuclear-powered submarines," Tass added. "A ceremony of rolling out the submarine from the Shipyard's slipway took place on November 29, 2023. The Arkhangelsk has become the 141st nuclear-powered submarine constructed for the Russian Navy at the Sevmash Shipyard. The project was designed by the St. Petersburg-based Malakhit Design Bureau of Marine Engineering."

Slow But Steady Progress on Russia's Nuclear-Powered Boats

Development of Project 885 boats began at the end of the Cold War, initiated by the Leningrad-based (now St. Petersburg-based) Malakhit Design Bureau. It intended to replace the aging Akula-class nuclear-powered attack submarines in service with the Soviet Navy.

However, the program only progressed slowly following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The baseline Project 885 lead nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Severodvinsk was laid down in 1993, but due to funding issues as a result of the post-Cold War Russian financial crisis, the project languished for more than a decade. Only in the late 2000s was Moscow able to return to the project—Severodvinsk was finally launched in June 2010, and subsequently commissioned in late December 2013. The submarine entered service with the Russian Navy in 2014.

The delay meant that the submarines were on the verge of obsolescence, resulting in the program's modernization.

The second boat, the upgraded Project 885M lead submarine Kazan, also saw delays, yet it was built in eight years—half the time of the Severodvinsk.

Capable Submarines

Despite the turmoil involved in the program's development and construction, the Yasen class should be seen as capable vessels. Each has a submerged displacement of 13,800 tons and can reach a maximum speed of up to thirty-five knots.

The Yasen-M revision further offered revamped onboard electronics, a slightly reduced overall length, and reportedly a new KTP-6 rector that is believed to reduce the submarine's noise levels significantly. The upgraded Project 885 submarines are also noted for utilizing new technological developments that emerged since Severodvinsk started construction in 1993.

Unlike older attack submarines built in the late Soviet period, the Project 885/885M boats were developed as multipurpose vessels that could carry different weapons, including the new, long-range Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missiles. There are ten silos for vertically launched cruise missiles, and according to reports, the submarines can also be equipped with Kalibr-PL and Oniks cruise missiles as their basic strike weapons. The Kazan is also equipped with the UKSK (3P-14B) vertical launch system comprised of 8SM-346 modules.

"This enables Yasen-M-class submarines [to] remain an effective and advanced weapon. Thanks to this, they make their invaluable contribution to maintaining global and regional security in peacetime," Commander-in-Chief Admiral Alexander Moiseyev told Tass.

Four additional Project 885M submarines are now under construction at Russia's Sevmash Shipyard in Severodvinsk on the White Sea. Named for Russian cities, these include the Perm, the Ulyanovsk, the Vladivostok, and the Voronezh. Those submarines will be based either with the Northern Fleet on the coast of the Barents Sea or with the Pacific Fleet in the Far East.

"The construction of a series of submarines of this Project will continue," Moiseyev continued. "You shoulder high responsibility: you make the necessary, complex and serious weapons for our country. The ships built by the Sevmash Shipyard are our pride, strength and mightiness and Russia’s reliable shield."

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 and/or Shutterstock.

Image: Kuleshov Oleg / Shutterstock.com

The lead vessel of the United States Navy's class of fast battleship, USS Iowa (BB-61) underwent much-needed TLC in the spring of 2024—although plans for the ship's relocation at the Port of Los Angeles are on hold due to costs. The historic World War II warship will hopefully be maintained for future generations, even if she will never sail again.

However, the legacy of the warship will live on: The U.S. Navy took delivery of its newest attack submarine just before Christmas. The future USS Iowa (SSN-797) also became the "12th battle force ship delivered to the Navy" in calendar year 2024, the sea service announced.

SSN-797 is now the fifth U.S. Navy vessel named for the Hawkeye state. In addition to BB-61, the prior ships included a Civil War steamboat that was used to ferry troops on the Mississippi; BB-4, a pre-dreadnought battleship that was in service during the Spanish-American War; and BB-53, a South Dakota-class battleship that was laid down after World War I but canceled due to the Washington Naval Treaty, signed in 1922.

USS Iowa: The Newest Virginia-class Submarine

The future USS Iowa is the twenty-fourth Virginia-class submarine (VCS) to be "co-produced by General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) and HII-Newport News Shipbuilding through a long-standing teaming agreement and the 13th attack submarine delivered by GDEB."

"The Virginia-class submarine represents a Navy and industry commitment to deliver warfighting excellence to the fleet," said Capt. Mike Hollenbach, Virginia Class Submarine program manager. "Iowa is the second Virginia-class submarine delivered this year. With each delivery, the Navy continues to strengthen our Nation’s undersea advantage."

SSN-797 was officially christened in June 2023 at a ceremony at GDEB's shipyard in Groton, Connecticut, and the current timeline calls for the submarine's commissioning ceremony to be held on April 5, 2025, also in Groton.

Ready for Tests and Trials

With the delivery to the United States Navy, SSN-797 will be able to begin its tests and trials, which need to be completed before it is commissioned into active service.

The future USS Iowa is the sixth of a planned ten VCS Block IV submarines.

As previously reported, the Block IV boats incorporate design changes that were focused on reducing total ownership costs for the U.S. Navy. Smaller-scale design changes were made to increase the component-level lifecycle of the submarine, while the U.S. Navy was also able to increase the periodicity between depot maintenance availabilities and increase the number of deployments. The main improvement of the Block IV over the preceding Block III is the reduction of major maintenance periods from four to three, increasing each boat's total lifetime deployments by one.

The VCS Block IV submarines displace 7,835 tons, with a hull length of 377 feet and a diameter of 34 feet. Powered by an S9G nuclear reactor, the boats can attain speeds of 25 knots and remain submerged for up to three months at a time. The propulsion further employs a pump-jet system that enables quieter and more efficient movement, making the boats extremely hard to track.

Each of the Block IV subs can dive to more than 800 feet. The submarines feature Mark 48 advanced capability torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. The boats are equipped with the Virginia Payload Module, an 84-foot-long, mid-ship section that has four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes for keeping and launching more Tomahawks and other payloads.

Running Late

Even as SSN-797 is now on track to enter service in the spring of 2025, the entire VCS program is running approximately three years behind schedule.

"Part of the scheduling problem is that only two shipyards can build a U.S. Navy submarine," warned Harrison Kass, writing for The National Interest earlier in December.

Thus, even as the Navy has much to celebrate with the delivery of USS Iowa, its program is running late by several years. That problem isn't likely to be solved anytime soon.

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 and/or Shutterstock.

Image: DVIDS.

What do new sixth-generation warplanes, the world’s largest amphibious landers, and a brand-new early warning and control aircraft all have in common? Well, for starters, they’re all Chinese. And they were all part of Beijing’s newest media blitz meant to scare the already twitchy minds of uncertain Western defense analysts.

More importantly, the capabilities demonstrated by China indicate that Beijing is preparing to drop the mother of all hammers (and sickles) on its U.S.-backed neighbors, such as those who live just 100 miles away in the democratic nation of Taiwan. 

The sixth-generation plane is a distraction, though. The Type 076 amphibious lander is more important to this discussion. What’s more, the KJ-3000 early warning and control aircraft is extremely relevant to any potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. And, just like the other two systems mentioned here, the KJ-3000 seems to be another leveling-up moment for a People’s Republic of China that is increasingly keen on permanently settling the Taiwan question.

Understanding the Bird

An electronic surveillance plane, the KJ-3000 is designed to provide important intelligence-collection, electronic warfare (EW), and situational awareness for any large Chinese force making the perilous journey across the Taiwan Strait on its way to invading Taiwan. Very few details have been shared by China about the KJ-3000. What can be deduced based solely on the (rather blurry) photographs of the plane is that it has a large rotodome and its tail is bulging. 

This bird is meant to dominate the skies over the Taiwan Strait—all while keeping an eye out for American, Japanese, or other allied forces looking to complicate China’s likely run on neighboring Taiwan. Yes, the United States and many other modern militaries have planes like this. However, those birds are not as big as the KJ-3000. 

With the aforementioned rotodome, the KJ-3000 is granted a bird’s eye view of any battlefield. Nothing will sneak beyond its detection systems. Inside that rotating device are a bevy of radar systems, notably an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, all moving together in tandem to render visible any enemy that wishes to remain invisible. 

The radar system itself will be a real problem for the Americans. It’s believed that the radar detection range on the KJ-3000 is between 372 miles and 621 miles. Oh, and it can supposedly pick up U.S. stealth warplanes, such as the F-22 and F-35—and it tracks up to 100 targets at once. In terms of the payload, the KJ-3000 carries a whopping 66 tons and is powered by WS-20 jet engines, a significant upgrade from the older KJ-2000 early warning planes.

Upon further examination, it appears that China’s KJ-3000 is designed to serve as a hub for network-centric warfare.

This Plane is Meant to Defeat Taiwan’s Defenders

That bulge in the back, you see, looks to be the key element for an airborne command center. So, when Chinese forces are operating jointly, this bird will be the lynchpin coordinating everything together electronically—all the while looking out for incoming enemy attacks.

Make no mistake: China is building the capacity to invade Taiwan and threaten the Americans and their allies. The KJ-3000 plays an integral role in that. And the Americans, as always, are poorly prepared for this challenge.

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: VanderWolf Images / Shutterstock.com