Feed aggregator

Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen hat in ihren politischen Leitlinien die Forderung nach umfangreichen Forschungsinvestitionen im Bereich der künstlichen Intelligenz (KI) angesprochen. Sowohl Befürworter als auch Kritiker bemängeln, dass ihrem Plan unter dem Motto „CERN für KI“ entscheidende Details fehlen.

Lors d’un entretien avec Euractiv, le commissaire sortant à l’Agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski, a qualifié d’« inacceptable » le fait de disposer d’un budget européen basé sur des conditions politiques et des échéances, comme c’est le cas pour le fonds de relance post-pandémique de l’UE.

Summary and Key Points: The Israeli Air Force (IAF) carried out a strategic airstrike on oil facilities in Al Hudaydah, Yemen, following a lethal drone attack by Houthi rebels on Tel Aviv. This unprecedented strike involved a dozen aircraft, including the advanced F-35I Adir, showcasing Israel's aerial capabilities.

-The F-35I, a customized version of the American-made Joint Strike Fighter, is central to Israel's air superiority and defensive strategy.

-This operation highlights the evolving threats Israel faces from regional proxies like the Houthi rebels, who have intensified their attacks on Israeli and international targets, and demonstrates the critical role of the F-35I Adir in Israel's military response.

F-35I Attack on Houthis:

Over the weekend, the Israeli Air Force carried out strikes targeting oil facilities in a port on Yemen’s west coast. 

This unprecedented attack followed a lethal drone bombing by Houthi rebels on Tel Aviv last Thursday. The IAF published video footage of its retaliatory barrage, showing fighter jets being refueled as part of the “Outstretched Arm” operation. 

Other videos showing the aftermath of the strikes in the Al Hudaydah port city have circulated showing massive fires and explosions at the oil terminal. The raid marks the first time Israel has carried out an airstrike in Yemen and highlights the significant role the F-35I Adir fighter plays in the Jewish state’s security arsenal.

“A short while ago, IDF fighter jets struck military targets of the Houthi terrorist regime in the area of the Al Hudaydah Port in Yemen in response to the hundreds of attacks carried out against the State of Israel in recent months,” the IDF said on Telegram shortly after the strike. “There are no changes in the Home Front Command defensive guidelines. In the case of a change to the guidelines, we will update the public accordingly. Details to follow.” 

On July 19, a long-range Iran-designed UAV struck the center of heavily populated Tel Aviv in the middle of the night, killing one civilian and injuring four others. Tehran’s willingness and capability to use its regional proxies to strike inside Israeli territory has only increased since Hamas’s October 7 massacre. The Houthi rebels are also responsible for dozens of attacks over the last nine months targeting U.S., Israeli, and international shipping and commercial vessels in the Red Sea. According to Israel, Houthi rebels have fired more than 220 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones at Israel since October.  

An Overview of the F-35I Adir Platform

While details of the strike have yet to be confirmed, the IAF’s long-range strike capabilities should worry Israel’s adversaries. According to an Al Arabiya report, a dozen Israeli aircraft were used in the port city attack, and these included the fifth-generation Adir platform. 

Israel’s air superiority over the Middle East can perhaps be attributed to the Adir, its unique F-35 stealth fighter variant. The IAF is the only military on Earth to possess a custom version of the American-made Joint Strike Fighter. Back in 2010, the Jewish state became the first nation outside the aircraft’s nine-nation co-development group to purchase the jet. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin agreed to allow Israel to incorporate its own domestic technologies into the platform to suit its specific defensive needs.

When the IAF acquired the F-35I Adir “Mighty One” variant, it was granted permission to equip its new fighters with a homegrown Electronic Warfare System. Additionally, homegrown countermeasures, sensors, and helmet-mounted displays were built into the Adir fighters.  The F-35 is widely considered the best fifth-generation fighter in the skies today, and Israel’s specialized variant is arguably the most advanced. 

In 2019, the IAF’s Adir fleet flew in its first combat operation when it carried out strikes in Syria to target Iranian assets on the ground. Prior to this, the Lightning II platform had not been used in combat operations. In 2021, the IAF’s Adir jets also carried out the platform’s first ever aerial engagement, destroying an Iran-launched UAV that was flying close to the Israeli border.

The Adirs’ Role in Post-10/7 Israel

Since October 7, Israel’s Adir fleet has participated in operations against the Gaza-based terror group Hamas. The IAF previously confirmed that one of its Adir jets successfully intercepted a cruise missile and has remained instrumental to the country’s defensive efforts. 

The F-35I is undoubtedly the best aerial weapon in the IAF’s arsenal. However, the Jewish state’s other airframes, including the F-15I and F-16I, should not be discounted. Each of these airframes contributes different capabilities, and together they create the versatile and robust arsenal Israel needs to defend itself.

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. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Soixante-huit parlementaires français, dont vingt-six eurodéputés, ont adressé mercredi 24 juillet une lettre à la Première ministre du Danemark, Mette Frederiksen, appelant à la libération de Paul Watson, le fondateur de l’ONG de protection des espèces marines, Sea Shepherd.

Summary and Key Points: In early July, Ukraine executed a successful drone strike on a Russian ammunition depot in Voronezh Oblast, destroying the facility and highlighting the deficiencies in Russia's air defense capabilities.

-The strike exacerbates Russia's already strained logistical chains and material shortages on the frontlines. British Military Intelligence noted the depot's significant size and its role in supplying munitions, emphasizing the detrimental impact on Russia's attritional warfare strategy.

-This attack underscores the ongoing challenges faced by the Russian military, which has resorted to using outdated equipment and seeking support from foreign partners like Iran and North Korea. The Ukrainian military's access to long-range precision munitions, such as HIMARS and MLRS, has been pivotal in targeting high-value assets within Russia.

Ukraine's Precision Attack Deepens Russian Military Shortages

Ukraine’s forces took out a big ammunition depot inside Russia with a suicide drone, highlighting the shortcomings of the Russian military’s air defense capabilities, while also deepening ongoing materiel shortages in the frontlines.

Ukrainian Drone Strike  

In early July, the Ukrainian military launched a drone strike against a Russian ammunition storage depot near Sergeerka, Voronezh Oblast in Russia. As a result of the strike, the Russian ammunition storage depot was almost completely destroyed, as well as nearby facilities, according to open-source reporting.

“This is a significant loss at a depot that reportedly covered approximately 9 square kilometres. The depot was highly likely storing a mixture of surface-to-surface munitions as well as small arms to be used by personnel on the frontlines,” British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate of the war.

“This will further stretch Russia’s already struggling logistics chains and force yet more dispersals due to the continued threat of Ukrainian strikes,” British Military Intelligence added.

Almost 900 days of intense fighting have stretched Russia’s military resources thin. The Kremlin has had to take out of storage main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and artillery pieces built in the 1950s. Moreover, Russian troops don’t have enough tactical vehicles to support their offensive operations and they are relying on golf carts to go into battle.

The Ukrainian drone strike also highlights the poor state of Russia’s air defenses: they can’t even protect a high-value target that is located very close to the frontlines.

“Such shortcomings will almost certainly see further losses to other well-planned Ukrainian strikes,” British Military Intelligence assessed.

“Russia can ill afford such losses considering the attritional warfare strategy it has adopted, which shows little regard for the lives of its soldiers. This approach requires huge amounts of ammunition,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

To make up for ammunition and weapon shortages, the Kremlin has been dealing with foreign partners, such as Iran and North Korea, to ensure that its troops on the frontlines have the bare minimum they need to fight. Iranian drones, particularly the Shahed unmanned aerial systems, have proven very capable and deadly. However, the overall quality of the foreign munitions and weapons used by the Russian forces on the frontlines isn’t the best.

In previous months, the Ukrainian military has started targeting and taking out high-value targets inside Russia; the attacks have been occurring with the acquiescence of the West, which provides the vast majority of Ukraine’s arsenal.

The introduction of long-range precision munitions to the Ukrainian arsenal has allowed for accurate strikes against Russian high-value targets inside Ukraine as well. The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) have been the bane of Russian ammunition depots, command and control centers, and other logistical hubs close to the frontlines.

The Russian military continues to be under serious strain, with its losses exceeding 560,000 men killed, wounded, or captured.

About the Author 

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.

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Ford-class aircraft carriers, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, are the most advanced and expensive in the world, costing around $13.3 billion each and $726 million annually to maintain. Despite their capabilities, these carriers face significant threats from advanced anti-ship missiles and A2/AD systems, making their survival in combat questionable.

-The high costs and strategic vulnerabilities raise concerns about their viability, especially given America's rising national debt and economic constraints.

-Critics argue that the U.S. cannot afford to continue its reliance on such costly and potentially vulnerable platforms.

America Can’t Afford the Ford-class Carrier

The U.S. Navy loves its aircraft carriers. Ever since they proved themselves as the premier naval power projection platform in the fiery cauldron of the Second World War’s Pacific Theater, the Navy has prized these systems. America led the world in innovating this unique platform and retains the world’s dominant fleet of flattops. 

Of 11 U.S. carriers, 10 belong to the Nimitz class, and the newest carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, belongs to the newly minted Ford class of carriers. (USS Enterprise, USS John F. Kennedy, and USS Doris Miller are all coming online as part of this family.) 

Officially, the Navy website describes USS Gerald R. Ford’s as being “the most capable, adaptable, and lethal combat platform in the world, maintaining the Navy’s capacity to project power on a global scale through sustained operations at sea.” 

The Navy Doesn’t Get It

This flowery description misses the mark, though. In reality, Gerald R. Ford is an unaffordable mess-heap; a hodgepodge of some of the most advanced technologies the Navy had access to, thrown together, and sent forward as the next-generation platform without much thought to price or efficacy. Indeed, the advent of technologies, like advanced anti-ship missiles, as well as the wider threat that anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) poses to the very existence of aircraft carriers, makes the survival of carriers in combat very low. 

Here's a snapshot of what I’m referring to: After the heinous October 7 terrorist attacks conducted by Iran-backed Hamas against neighboring Israel, the U.S. Navy deployed USS Gerald R. Ford to the region. But rumors abounded that the Navy wanted to keep the Ford at a distance from the shores of the region, fearing that Hezbollah’s anti-ship missiles posed a danger to the newly minted carrier. 

It doesn’t really matter whether the Hezbollah anti-ship missile threat posed a significant danger or not. The fact that American naval strategists wanted to stymie the deployment of their newfangled carrier too close to hostile shores shows how vulnerable these systems are. 

So, is the Gerald R. Ford class worth the expenditure of time, finite resources, and money?

Let’s first address the cost of these monstrosities. 

A Cost Like No Other

The first unit of this new class of carrier, the aforementioned USS Gerald R. Ford, cost an astonishing $13.3 billion to build. It also took a decade to build. This, in turn, ensured the costs of the program would increase. 

And as for maintaining this massive, highly complex system, that will cost around $726 million per year (this includes the cost of personnel, fuel, maintenance, and the airwing).

Proponents of this costly and complex system argue that USS Gerald R. Ford, being the first of her class, was always going to be an expensive system. Subsequent units, such as John F. Kennedy or Doris Miller will be substantially lower in cost to produce. In fact, these proponents insist that these boats are “now slated to cost about $5 billion per ship less than its predecessor, the Nimitz class, over the life of the ship,” according to Breaking Defense.

Bear in mind that these are all projections and most defense budgeting projections are rarely accurate. 

At $13 billion to produce, and nearly $1 billion to maintain, what do you think might happen if the US were to lose even one of these boats in combat? 

Well, America’s foes are certainly envisioning such a reality. China’s leadership has already stated they plan to sink at least three aircraft carriers with their complex arsenal of A2/AD systems, if war erupted between themselves and the United States. You’ve seen how U.S. carrier operations were complicated by the Houthi as well as Hamas anti-ship threats. 

These Aircraft Carriers are Useless in the Face of America’s Debt Bomb

This doesn’t even scratch the overarching matter of the pending debt bomb that is set to detonate soon in the United States economy. 

Interest repayments on America’s elephantine national debt today outstrip the overall cost of national defense. America simply cannot afford to go on the way that it has when it comes to defense spending.

And anything that can’t last, won’t. What this means for the Gerald R. Ford-class carrier is that they are an impossible dream concocted by Inside-the-Beltway types who just want to engorge themselves at the trough of the people’s tax dollars. That money is soon to evaporate, though, in a whirlwind of debt repayments and devaluation. 

The United States literally cannot afford its love affair with aircraft carriers anymore.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. Main image is from a fire aboard USS John F. Kennedy in 1968.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Réélue le 18 juillet à la tête de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen va devoir marcher sur un fil pour constituer sa nouvelle équipe, en respectant les équilibres politiques et les désidératas des pays de l’Union, ainsi que l’égalité entre hommes et femmes.

Summary and Key Points: Israel's Merkava main battle tanks demonstrated their capabilities when a Hezbollah strike was intercepted by the Trophy active protection system. The Merkava, a critical component of the Israeli Armored Corps, is highly regarded alongside the U.S. Abrams and Britain's Challenger 2.

-Developed post-1973 Yom Kippur War to protect its crew, the tank features thick armor, a unique engine layout, and powerful armaments, including a 120 mm main gun.

-The latest fifth-generation "Barak" variant enhances intelligence and situational awareness with advanced sensors and a 360-degree Elbit helmet. The Merkava remains a cornerstone of Israel's defense strategy.

Israel’s Merkava Tank Profile

The Israeli military’s Merkava main battle tanks again proved their worth after a recent Hezbollah strike. 

The Iran-backed terror group claimed one of its Almas missiles struck an Israeli Merkava earlier this month. But analysis of a video shared by Hezbollah suggests the tank was able to employ its Trophy active protection system to detect and intercept the incoming projectile. 

The Merkava is the backbone of the Israeli Armored Corps and is widely considered as capable as more well-known Western MBTs including the U.S. Abrams and Britain’s Challenger 2. The Merkava platform is instrumental to Israel’s defensive strategy.

An Overview of the Merkava

During Israel’s early days as an independent nation after World War II, it quickly realized its need for protection against hostile neighbors. Until the 1960s, the Jewish state largely relied on joint projects and weapons deliveries from other nations. The IDF collaborated with the British to develop a Chieftain MBT variant, but the UK nixed this program since Chieftain tanks were already being supplied to Arab countries. Former IDF General Israel Tal then kickstarted plans to develop a completely homegrown MBT. 

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel’s armored corps suffered greatly during coordinated attacks launched by Egypt and Syria in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. Their enemies were equipped with some of the latest Soviet-designed tank variants of the time, and Israel’s own arsenal of less advanced MBTs could not keep up. For this reason, the Merkava tank would be built first and foremost to limit casualties.

Specs & Capabilities

In order to better protect its crew members, the Merkava was built with thick armor. The layout of the engine transmission was reversed in order to provide an extra level of protection for soldiers. This unique positioning also increased storage capacity and access for the tank’s operators. 

In terms of armaments, the Merkava has always packed a punch. The latest variant sports an IMI 120 mm L44 main gun, a 7.62 mm light machine gun, and an M2 Browning .50-caliber heavy machine gun. The tank’s main gun can also fire armor-piercing and high-explosive shells.

The Trophy active protection system might be the tank’s best attribute. This homegrown system protects the MBT from anti-tank rockets, high-explosive anti-tank rounds, anti-tank guided missiles, and other projectiles. It also increases the crew’s survivability by enhancing the MBT’s capacity to detect enemy tanks.

Introducing the “Barak” Merkava Variant

Last year, the IDF and Israel’s Defense Ministry revealed the fifth-generation “Barak” Merkava MBT after years of development. 

The Ministry detailed that the tanks are equipped with a “wide infrastructure of reliable sensors” that enabled better intelligence information: “The Barak tank will strengthen the capabilities of detecting enemies and will enable fighting against an enemy with a reduced signature and in all combat scenarios, on the current and future battlefield, against the entirety of threats that exist for the maneuvering force,” the Ministry added. The Barak variant will also provide a 360-degree Elbit helmet, which will provide the crew commander with a full view of their surroundings.

Considering the Merkava’s popularity, it is unlikely that the Israeli military will give up on its tried and tested tank series in the near future.

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. 

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Ils sont présents dans presque toutes les activités quotidiennes, mais les obtenir est plus difficile qu'il n'y paraît.

AI-Code is a three-year interdisciplinary project established to harness the power of artificial intelligence and future-proof technological solutions in ways that meet immediate real-world needs.

Mardi 23 juillet, Meta a présenté Llama 3.1, le modèle d’intelligence artificielle (IA) en open source le plus performant à ce jour, et peut-être la dernière solution de ce genre disponible par l'entreprise pour les utilisateurs de l’UE.

The Israeli leader defended the war in Gaza, but his visit was overshadowed by U.S. politics.

Summary and Key Points: The conflict in Ukraine is straining both sides, with Ukraine and Russia stretching their resources to continue the fight. Ukrainian Commander Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi noted that Russia has significantly increased its troop numbers, now committing around 520,000 soldiers, with plans to reach 700,000.

-Daily Russian losses exceed 1,000, highlighting issues such as inadequate training. Meanwhile, Ukraine's volunteer force faces manpower shortages, leading to an older average age of infantrymen on the frontlines, estimated between 40 and 45 years.

-Despite the prolonged conflict, Ukraine has avoided a mandatory draft to preserve its younger population for post-war rebuilding.

The Unending Ukraine War 

The fighting in Ukraine is pushing both sides to their limits. Ukraine and Russia are scraping the barrel to find men and weapons to fight the war. 

Balance of Power in the Ukraine War 

In a recent interview, Ukrainian Commander Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi discussed the balance of power between the two sides. He acknowledged the Russian military has significantly increased its count of troops and the resources dedicated to Ukraine over the past 29 months of warfare. 

According to his estimates, the Russian military and pro-Russian separatist forces are currently committing approximately 520,000 troops to the fighting. He also warned that intelligence indicates the Kremlin is seeking to increase that number to almost 700,000 by the end of the year. 

Based on the daily casualty rates, those numbers seem very accurate indeed. Russian forces have been taking more than 1,000 losses daily for several weeks now. In May and June alone, Moscow lost around 70,000 troops. 

“Russia's ability to continue gradually expanding the amount of manpower and materiel it has committed to Ukraine faces significant constraints in the medium to long term,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed in its latest operational update on the war. 

Syrskyi pointed out that Russian commanders continue to use their troops for short-term tactical gains regardless of losses. This assessment highlights the biggest shortcoming in the Russian military: lack of training. Moscow has troops to use as cannon fodder, but it doesn’t have time to train them for something more. As a result, it throws men and resources against Ukrainian defenses, racking up the death bill. 

“The Russian military has extensively relied on refurbishing stocks of Soviet-era weapons and military equipment to sustain the tempo of its offensive operations in Ukraine in order to avoid fully mobilizing the Russian economy and society to a war-time footing, and Ukrainian authorities have noted that Russia is currently not producing enough to cover its current equipment losses in Ukraine,” the Institute for the Study of War added. 

Ukrainian Reservations 

“Syrskyi's statement is not indicative of a sudden increase in the Russian military's presence in Ukraine and is instead representative of the manpower and material disadvantage that Ukrainian forces have faced for over two years,” the Institute for the Study of War stated.

Despite fighting an existential conflict for almost 900 days, the Ukrainian government hasn’t issued a mandatory draft for all males. Its military remains a largely volunteer force. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government have stretched the age limits for military volunteers, but Kyiv has not imposed stricter measures. The reason is simple: They want to have young people alive once the war ends to rebuild the country and mend its wounds. 

However, the lack of troops is forcing the Ukrainian military to fight with older men. A recent intelligence report by the British Military Intelligence estimated that the average age of a Ukrainian infantryman on the frontlines today is between 40 and 45 years old. That is a lot, and the rigors of combat remain the same as in previous conflicts despite technological advances. 

About the Author

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 the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

The European Union (EU) has long aspired to be a global leader in climate change governance, a vision encapsulated by its ambitious European Green Deal and its goal to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. However, the internal complexity of the EU, characterised by its multi-level governance and diverse member states, often poses challenges to presenting a unified stance on global climate strategies. My research investigates the pivotal role of the European Commission in unifying the EU’s voice in global climate policy, particularly under the leadership of the von der Leyen Commission (2019-2024).

 

The European Commission as a Policy Entrepreneur

At the heart of the EU’s climate strategy lies the European Commission, often acting as a policy entrepreneur. This role involves not only drafting and proposing climate policies but also navigating the intricate landscape of inter-institutional relations within the EU. The Commission’s ability to act as a policy entrepreneur is essential in driving forward the EU’s climate agenda, especially in the face of diverse and sometimes conflicting interests among member states.

One of the key theoretical frameworks employed in my study is constructivist role theory, which emphasises the social constructs, norms, and identities that shape the behaviour and interactions of actors within international relations. This approach allows us to understand how the Commission perceives its role and how it strategically navigates its interactions with the European Parliament and the Council to achieve a cohesive climate strategy.

 

Navigating the Joint Decision Trap

A significant challenge in EU policymaking is the ‘Joint Decision Trap’ (JDT), a situation where the need for consensus among member states leads to sub-optimal policy outcomes. The JDT often results in decisions that reflect the lowest common denominator, limiting the ambition and effectiveness of EU policies. My research explores how the Commission can overcome or mitigate the effects of the JDT through strategic coalition-building and informal negotiations.

For instance, the Global Methane Pledge, co-launched by the EU and the United States at COP26, demonstrates the Commission’s ability to align diverse interests within the EU and present a united front on the global stage. This initiative, aiming to reduce global methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030, required the Commission to engage in extensive internal consensus-building and external diplomacy.

 

Inter-Institutional Dynamics

The interplay between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council is crucial in shaping the EU’s climate policies. The Parliament, often regarded as the ‘greenest’ institution due to its strong environmental advocacy, plays a vital role in pushing for ambitious climate measures. However, the level of support from the Parliament can vary, influenced by its internal political dynamics and the broader societal discourse on environmental issues.

My research highlights instances where the Commission successfully leveraged the Parliament’s support to advance its climate agenda, as well as cases where it had to navigate fluctuating levels of support. The dynamic relationship between these institutions underscores the complexity of EU climate policymaking and the Commission’s strategic role in aligning their positions.

 

Provisional Findings

Based on the initial interviews conducted:

1. Commission’s Self-Perception as Policy Entrepreneur
   • European Commission officials consistently view themselves as policy entrepreneurs, expressing optimism about their capacity to lead future climate initiatives. This self-perception reinforces the Commission’s proactive stance in driving EU climate policy.
     • Interview References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2. Equal Weight of Member States
   • Coordination among member states is less varied than anticipated. Despite differences in size, each member state is given equal weight during internal negotiations, which facilitates a more balanced and inclusive decision-making process.
     • Interview References: 3, 5
3. Stability vs. Fluctuation in Parliamentary Support
   • The European Parliament’s support for the Commission’s climate initiatives is not constant, influenced by its electoral nature. In contrast, the stability of the Commission is seen as an advantage that can be leveraged to achieve sustained policy outcomes.
     • Quote: “The Commission should use its stability as a tool to achieve something.”
     • Interview Reference: 5

 

Conclusions

The European Commission’s role in unifying the EU’s stance on global climate strategies is both complex and pivotal. By acting as a policy entrepreneur and strategically navigating inter-institutional relations, the Commission can effectively drive forward the EU’s ambitious climate agenda. Understanding these dynamics is essential for appreciating the EU’s approach to global climate governance and its efforts to maintain its leadership role in this critical area.

As we move forward, the lessons learned from the von der Leyen Commission’s tenure will be invaluable in shaping future climate policies and ensuring that the EU continues to lead by example on the global stage.

The post The EU’s Unified Climate Voice: An Analysis of the European Commission’s Role appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Des Balkans à l'Italie il n'y a qu'un pas (ou presque). Découvrez l'histoire de Linea d'Ombra, de la Piazza della Libertà de Trieste et de Pacha, jeune afghan ayant pris la Route des Balkans pour s'installer en Italie.

- Balkans Rhapsodie • Le blog de Basile Hiegel / Blogs - Diaporama, Grand Bazar - Diaporama

Re-elected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines addressed calls for huge artificial intelligence (AI) research investments under the “CERN for AI” banner, but proponents and critics say the plan is lacking crucial details.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's newest strategic bomber, the Tupolev PAK DA "Poslannik," aims to replace the aging Tu-95 Bear. This long-range, stealth aircraft emphasizes stealth over speed, with a range of 12,000 km and a payload capacity of 30 tons, including nuclear and hypersonic missiles.

-However, the PAK DA faces significant delays, primarily due to engine issues and resource diversion to the Ukraine War. Initially set to be demonstrated in 2023, the plane's readiness has been pushed to 2027.

-This delay creates a strategic gap for Russia, especially as the U.S. and China advance their own stealth bomber technologies.

Russia's PAK DA Bomber: Stealth Over Speed for Future Warfare

Codenamed “Poslannik,” (which means “envoy” or “messenger” in Russian), Russia’s Tupolev PAK DA bomber is the Russian Aerospace Forces’ newest toy. It is a long-range, stealth strategic bomber that is intended to ultimately replace the aging Tu-95 Bear bomber. The Poslannik has a projected range of 12,000 km (7,500 miles) and can stay airborne for 30 hours while carrying a nuclear payload. 

Russia’s new warbird is a bit of a slowpoke. It cannot reach supersonic speeds. But, according to the designers of the Tu PAK DA, their emphasis was less on speed and more on stealth capabilities. 

In fact, the plane’s designers have argued that the plane’s slower speed allows it to carry a larger payload package that not only includes nuclear weapons, but Russia’s innovative hypersonic missiles. The Poslannik bomber is rumored to have a payload capacity of 30 tons, which exceeds the US Air Force’s B-2 stealth bomber maximum payload capacity. In fact, the PAK DA bomber has elements that stealth plane geeks would recognize from America’s B-2 stealth bomber plane. 

Like American stealth bombers, the Russian Tu-PAK DA is commanded by a powerful suite of sophisticated computers that do everything from maintaining flight control to monitoring enemy movements. 

The PAK DA Looks Like a Marvel Comic Book Villain’s Plane

The Tupolev designers believe that the PAK DA’s superior stealth technology coupled with its ability to launch hypersonic payloads negates the need to outrun enemy air defenses. Although, it should be noted that a persistent problem in Russian bomber design has been its engines. When Tupolev designed the Tu-95, for example, they opted to make the long-range nuclear-capable bomber a turbo-prop-driven plane rather than a turbojet-driven plane, as the American B-52 Stratofortress is. 

It is possible that the Russians are again having issues with their engines for this new, fifth-generation stealth bomber and they are simply opting out of acquiring more powerful engines altogether.

Looking like something that a Marvel Comic book villain would fly, the Tupolev PAK DA is probably Russia’s best attempt at employing stealth technology. I say “probably” because the warbird has yet to take flight. Russian sources report that Moscow plans to deploy the Tu-PAK DA Poslannik in service at some pointbetween now and 2027, with most acknowledging that it’ll be closer to 2027. The issue at hand for Russia is the longer the stealth bomber’s deployment is delayed, the greater the capabilities gap exists in Russia’s offensive air capabilities.

In the meantime, the Russians have upgraded their Tu-160 “White Swan” bombers to continue fulfilling mission critical roles. Although, these planes are not of the fifth-generation series and, therefore, Moscow wants to ultimately place the Tu-PAK DA’s as their lead bomber in today’s age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) warfare. This has led to some speculation in the West that the Tu-PAK DA Poslannik will never fly. 

After all, it has been in development since 2007. 

Faced with delays for 17 years (and still counting), whatever progress has been made on the planes, now that the Ukraine War has erupted and is diverting considerable Russian resources away from such projects, like the Tu-PAK DA bomber, one can anticipate more delays.

The PAK DA is Not Ready for Showtime

The Russians have been lying for a few years about how far along they are with the Tu-PAK DA’s development. After all, the Russians were supposed to have a demonstration plane ready for use by 2023. Now, Russia’s defense ministry says it won’t be until next year, two years after it was originally supposed to be ready for use, that a demonstration Tu-PAK DA will be available.

And the longer the delay lasts for the deployment of the Tu-PAK DA, the greater the capabilities gap is for Russia’s air force. Not only have the Americans outpaced the Russians with the recent successful demonstration of the B-21 bomber, but the Chinese have gotten their own long-range stealth bomber, the H-20, which Beijing claims can “out-bomb” US Air Force facilities in the Indo-Pacific.

One thing that is working in Russia’s favor is the fact that the Ukraine War has forced its manufacturing sector to go on a war-footing—where it will likely remain for some time to come. 

Will Russia Be Able to Keep Up with Stealth Planes?

Still, Russian aerospace firms are having difficulty meeting increased demand for their products. This has especially been felt in the Su-35 series, a “fourth-generation ++” warplane. Nevertheless, the Russians have remained in the fight. What’s more, as I have noted previously, the Russians are winning and are likely to defeat Ukraine (and their NATO backers) simply through attrition. 

Inevitably, the Russians will have to prioritize the creation of their Tu-PAK DA bomber. 

Otherwise, they will have left a significant strategic gap for the Americans to fly through with their B-21. 

As an American, I hope this remains the case. Although, after two years of the Ukraine War, the Americans should learn never to underestimate the Russians. Theirs is a society that is compelled by necessity, the kind of necessity that total war brings. At some point, they’ll get the Tu-PAK DA right.

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Donald Trumps Wahlkampfversprechen, hohe Zölle auf chinesische Waren zu erheben, könnte der europäischen Wirtschaft zugutekommen. Nazak Nikakhtar, eine ehemalige hochrangige US-Handelsbeamtin, glaubt, dass dies den EU-Entscheidungsträgern diplomatischen Rückenwind für ähnliche Handelsschutzmaßnahmen geben könnte.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. is lagging behind China and Russia in developing hypersonic weapons, which are advanced systems capable of evading most current defenses due to their high speed and maneuverability. Despite having the lead time and resources, the U.S. did not prioritize these technologies, allowing its rivals to gain a strategic advantage.

-Russia has deployed hypersonic weapons operationally, and China has made significant strides, including building the world's largest hypersonic wind tunnel and conducting successful tests.

-This technological gap poses a serious concern for U.S. defense policymakers, suggesting a need for focused investment similar to a "Manhattan Project" for hypersonic weapons.

America Remains Behind China and Russia in Hypersonic Capabilities 

The U.S. is finding out the hard way what happens when a country fails to innovate their way of war in a dynamic threat environment. 

Hypersonic weapons are not new technologies. They’ve been with us since the Cold War. Over the last 10 years, however, there has been a surge in the development and production of these systems. Traveling at eye-popping speeds, these weapons are capable of maneuvering in unpredictable ways that make tracking and shooting them down very difficult. 

Despite enjoying considerable lead time to develop such systems during America’s so-called unipolar moment, the U.S. military failed to prioritize these systems. America’s rising rivals China and Russia sought to build these systems, and they did. 

We’re Number Three

Today, the United States is behind in the race for viable hypersonic weapons. Not only is China ahead of the U.S., but so is the Russian military, which fields both a cruise missile version of a hypersonic weapon and a longer-range platform that can reach deep within the United States. Unlike conventional ballistic missiles, the hypersonic weapons the U.S. is faced with today can evade most of America’s homeland defenses, giving America’s foes real strategic advantages. 

Some reading this will likely argue that the Americans are making progress on the development of their own system. Indeed, the Americans are making headway. But they find themselves in an unenviable third place. This should be of grave concern to Washington’s policymakers. 

In the case of Russia, Moscow has proven that it is able to both build and deploy their hypersonic weapons in combat. Indeed, recent news indicates that the Russian flotilla that was sent to Cuba had with it a naval platform capable of firing the Russian hypersonic weapons. This was an implied threat to the United States that Russian forces, regardless of the retaliatory capabilities of the Americans, could come within striking range of America’s East Coast, and launch hypersonic cruise missiles against which the U.S. currently lacks adequate defenses.

 

The guardians of conventional thinking insist that the Russian systems are all hype. This is a ridiculous notion not borne out by the facts. 

China’s Capabilities

They say similar things about the Chinese systems. Again, the Chinese have developed far more sophisticated hypersonic capabilities than the Americans. 

Back in 2023, China announced the opening of the world’s largest hypersonic wind tunnel, a key piece for testing hypersonic technology. China again shocked the world when it tested a long-range hypersonic weapon that circumnavigated the world repeatedly before coming down within 20 miles of its intended target deep inside the Gobi Desert. 

What’s more, thanks to their real-world tests, China’s scientists are figuring out how to maintain control over their hypersonic systems even as they re-enter the atmosphere and are encased in superheated plasma, by using a combination of 6G internet and lasers to beam signals that can penetrate the plasma field.

America Behind 

America is behind. Dangerously. For all the money that is spent on defense, it is only recently that any real concentration has been given to developing America’s own hypersonic capabilities. And there are setbacks in the U.S. program. 

Meanwhile, Russia expands its arsenal and China, with their impressive mass production abilities, stand poised to outstrip everyone. An imbalance of forces exists in the hypersonic domain. 

Rather than blowing money on a sixth-generation warplane or another aircraft carrier, perhaps the Pentagon should have a Manhattan Project for hypersonic weapons. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. Main image is from a fire aboard USS John F. Kennedy in 1968.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: During the RIMPAC 2024 exercise, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber successfully sank the ex-USS Dubuque using GPS-guided bombs, demonstrating the bomber's capability to engage maritime targets. This SINKEX event, part of a larger live-fire exercise involving multiple nations, showcased the effectiveness of coordinated attacks and various weapon systems.

-A second SINKEX saw the sinking of the ex-USS Tarawa, highlighting the use of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).

-These exercises provided valuable data on weapon effectiveness against large warships and underscored the importance of joint force flexibility in neutralizing maritime threats.

An American B-2 Spirit Bomber Just Sank a Warship

During the Second World War, the United States Navy's SBD Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers destroyed four Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carriers at the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942. However, since the Second World War long-range strategic bombers have largely been employed against targets on land not at sea.

That is until this month when a United States Air Force B-2 Spirit aided in the sinking of a warship while employing relatively inexpensive GPS-guided bombs. Of course, it wasn't an enemy vessel, but rather the ex-USS Dubuque (LPD-8) – an Austin-class amphibious transport dock – that was sunk as part of a carefully coordinated SINKEX during the ongoing Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024 exercise.

"SINKEX, short for 'sink at-sea live-fire training exercises', is a program run by the United States Navy that arranges for decommissioned Naval warships to be used in live-fire training. This gives Navy personnel the opportunity to use real ammunition on practical targets and apply what they learn to future conflict, practicing gunnery, missile drills, torpedo accuracy, and even special warfare operations," explained the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD).

The United States Navy noted that "SINKEXs are conducted only after the area has been surveyed for the presence of people, marine vessels, aircraft, and marine species. SINKEXs are fully compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and a general permit under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act."

Double SINKEX

This year's RIMPAC actually saw two SINKEX events. In addition to the sinking of LPD-8 on July 11, the U.S. Navy also sunk the decommissioned USS Tarawa (LHA-1) eight days later on July 19. Both of the former U.S. Navy warships were sunk in waters more than 15,000 feet deep, and more than 50 nautical miles off the northern coast of Hawaii's Kauai.

"The sinking of the ex-Tarawa included the employment of a Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet. As a precise, stealthy, and survivable cruise missile, LRASM provides multi-service, multi-platform, and multi-mission capabilities for offensive anti-surface warfare," the U.S. Navy said in a statement announcing the successful SINKEX during RIMPAC 2024. "During the SINKEXs, participating units from Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, and the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy gained proficiency in tactics, targeting and live firing against surface ships at sea."

This recent SINKEX was conducted to offer an opportunity to gather data on the effectiveness of various weapons on a large warship, but it will also provide the U.S. Navy with insight into how its flattops can handle an attack.

"Sinking exercises give us a chance to sharpen our skills, learn from one another, and get real-world experience," said U.S. Navy Vice Adm. John Wade, RIMPAC 2024 Combined Task Force Commander. "Using advanced weapons and seeing the professionalism of our teams during these drills shows our commitment to keeping the Indo-Pacific region safe and open."

According to a recent report from TheWarZone, the U.S. Navy had been preparing to employ the ex-LHA-1 in the SINKEX since at least 2022, while her sister ship, the ex-USS Peleliu (LHA-5) could also be used as a future floating target. The ex-USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) was sunk in 2006, while five of the seven Wasp-class amphibious assault ships – which preceded the Tarawa class – were also sunk in past RIMPAC SINKEXs, per TheWarZone.

B-2 Bomber in a SINKEX

As noted, the use of an Air Force bomber in a SINKEX was unique, but it proved that low-cost, air-delivered ordnance could defeat a surface vessel through a "QUICKSINK" demonstration.

"The QUICKSINK experiment is funded by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and aims to provide options to neutralize surface maritime threats while demonstrating the inherent flexibility of the joint force. This capability is an answer to an urgent need to quickly neutralize maritime threats over massive expanses of ocean around the world at minimal costs," the Navy's statement added.

While it would likely be smaller stealth aircraft like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II that would be employed against a near-peer adversary's aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force showed that in addition to being able to work together, America's bombers can quickly send a warship to the bottom of the ocean!

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.