Diplomacy & Crisis News

Most solar panels come from China, and using them to fuel a clean energy transition risks reliance on Uyghur slave labor in Xinjiang.

Decentralizing power can be key to long-term peace.

It’s more likely to inflame nationalist sentiments than change anything on the ground.

Despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries in Africa’s Great Lakes region are “on the right track”, with leaders pushing forward on political, security and economic cooperation, UN Special Envoy Huang Xia told the Security Council on Monday.  

Legislation under consideration in the UK regarding armed forces personnel could limit accountability for war crimes if it is passed in its current form, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet said on Monday.

A “paradigm shift” aligning the private sector with the global goals is needed to address the challenges of the future, including those triggered by COVID-19, the UN chief said on Monday, addressing the Financing for Development (FfD) Forum. 

A rich and strong nation can pay for its own military.

Naguère quantité négligeable aux yeux de Washington, l'Afrique devient une priorité géopolitique pour les Etats-Unis. Dans la préparation de sa guerre contre l'Irak, l'administration Bush redessine la carte de ses approvisionnements pétroliers. / Afrique, États-Unis (affaires extérieures), Nigeria, (...) / Afrique, États-Unis (affaires extérieures), Nigeria, Énergie, Pétrole, Guinée-Équatoriale, Géopolitique, Relations internationales - 2003/01

Career diplomat Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley will be tasked with reversing the department’s record of big promises and little results.

Let India buy its weapons from Moscow. The real strategic threat is Beijing.

Just like Roosevelt, Biden must show that government still works.

The United Nations is marking the International Day of Human Space Flight on Monday, celebrating the achievements of astronauts who are “stretching the boundaries” of where civilization can go, beyond the stratosphere. 

What the new president really thinks about the military—and what the military really thinks about him.

A cycle of deadlocked elections has left the country without a functioning administration—and a foreign policy set on autopilot.

The UN Country Team in Myanmar on Monday, reiterated its call for an end to violence against civilians, amid reports of dozens of deaths in the latest crackdown on protests against the military takeover. 

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro de printemps 2021 de Politique étrangère (n° 1/2021). Morgan Paglia propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Marie-Hélène Labbé, La quête nucléaire de l’Iran (Sorbonne Université Presses, 2020, 160 pages).

Auteur d’une série de travaux sur la prolifération nucléaire, Marie-Hélène Labbé, visiting fellow à l’université de Durham au Royaume-Uni, signe ici un nouvel ouvrage consacré au programme nucléaire iranien.

Sa première partie évoque les origines de la quête nucléaire de Téhéran, notamment les ambitions du programme civil développé pendant l’ère du shah et le basculement sur un programme militaire après l’établissement de la République islamique. Arme de prestige et de sécurité, l’atome est l’outil qui répond le mieux au complexe d’encerclement iranien alimenté par les bouleversements géopolitiques de l’histoire récente du Moyen-Orient : la guerre Irak-Iran, les multiples interventions occidentales dans les pays limitrophes, et les rivalités avec les puissances du Moyen-Orient.

Les étapes de l’émergence du programme militaire n’ont pu être reconstituées qu’après 2002 – date de révélation de son existence par un groupe d’opposition iranien. Techniquement, c’est grâce à l’aide pakistanaise et au réseau d’Abdul Qader Khan, à pied d’œuvre à la fin des années 1980, que le pays lança les premières centrifugeuses nécessaires à l’enrichissement de l’uranium. Le soutien d’un autre pays allié, la Corée de Nord, partenaire indéfectible de Téhéran pendant le conflit contre l’Irak, permit dans les années 1990 de développer les premiers missiles balistiques, et notamment une version nationale des No Dong nord-coréens – rebaptisés Shahab – affichant une portée de 1 300 kilomètres. Les premières bases du programme étaient posées.

La seconde partie de l’ouvrage détaille le processus chaotique qui a opposé l’Iran à la communauté internationale, alternant phases d’imposition de sanctions et de reprise des négociations. Les espoirs ont culminé avec la signature de l’accord de Vienne le 14 juillet 2015, auquel l’auteur consacre de longs développements. Avant d’évoquer l’accord en lui-même, elle revient sur la négociation des points de blocage techniques abordés durant les 23 mois de tractation qui ont séparé la signature de l’accord préliminaire de Genève (24 novembre 2013) du Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), concernant le rôle de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA), le régime de vérification de l’accord, ou encore l’agenda de levée des sanctions.

Le contexte entourant la dénonciation de cet accord en mai 2018 permet de comprendre les raisons des tensions qui ont accompagné la séquence politique récente : les différentes étapes de remise en place du programme nucléaire par Téhéran – des premières timides entailles dans l’accord de Vienne à la remise en route des centrifugeuses – jusqu’à la série de frictions irano-américaines observées début 2020 après l’élimination du général Soleimani. Au total, c’est bien la nature systémique du dossier nucléaire iranien et son entrelacement avec des sujets d’intérêts régionaux (rôle de l’Iran en Syrie, en Irak, au Liban et au Yémen) qu’éclaire Marie-Hélène Labbé.

L’intérêt principal de l’ouvrage est d’apporter une vision d’ensemble sur les différentes phases entre tensions et apaisement qui ont caractérisé les relations entre Téhéran et la communauté internationale. Il rappelle l’évolution des positions des différents acteurs impliqués dans les négociations avec Téhéran (Europe, États-Unis, Chine…), tout en apportant des analyses techniques utiles sur le fonctionnement de l’arme nucléaire.

Morgan Paglia

>> S’abonner à Politique étrangère <<

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

A staggering 850,000 German soldiers were waiting for the allies when they landed in France.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The numbers alone don’t tell the full story of the battle that raged in Normandy on June 6th, 1944.

The largest amphibious invasion in history began on the night of June 5-6, with the roar of C-47 engines preparing to take off , and climaxed on the beaches of Normandy.

But just how many paratroopers did it take to support the Normandy landings, how many soldiers braved machine gun fire and artillery to secure those crucial beachheads, and how many German soldiers were they up against?

History on the Net’s article on the D-Day invasion provides the astonishing raw figures.

Operation Overlord Statistics

The Normandy invasion consisted of the following:

• 5,333 Allied ships and landing craft embarking nearly 175,000 men.

• The British and Canadians put 75,215 British and Canadian troops ashore

• Americans: 57,500

• Total:132,715

• 3,400 were killed or missing.

The foregoing figures exclude approximately 20,000 Allied airborne troopers.

D-Day Casualties:

• The First U.S. Army, accounting for the first twenty-four hours in Normandy, tabulated 1,465 killed, 1,928 missing, and 6,603 wounded. The after-action report of U.S. VII Corps (ending 1 July) showed 22,119 casualties including 2,811 killed, 5,665 missing, 79 prisoners, and 13,564 wounded, including paratroopers.

• Canadian forces at Juno Beach sustained 946 casualties, of whom 335 were listed as killed.

• Surprisingly, no British figures were published, but Cornelius Ryan cites estimates of 2,500 to 3,000 killed, wounded, and missing, including 650 from the Sixth Airborne Division.

• German sources vary between four thousand and nine thousand D-Day casualties on 6 June—a range of 125 percent. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s report for all of June cited killed, wounded, and missing of some 250,000 men, including twenty-eight generals.

American Personnel in Britain:

• 1,931,885 land

• 659,554 air

• 285,000 naval

• Total:2,876,439 officers and men housed in 1,108 bases and camps

Divisions of the Allied forces for Operation Overlord (the assault forces on 6 June involved two U.S., two British, and one Canadian division.)

• 23 infantry divisions (thirteen U.S., eight British, two Canadian)

• 12 armored divisions (five U.S., four British, one each Canadian, French, and Polish)

• 4 airborne (two each U.S. and British)

• Total:23 American divisions, 14 British, 3 Canadian, 1 French and 1 Polish.

Air assets:

• 3,958 heavy bombers (3,455 operational)

• 1,234 medium and light bombers (989 operational)

• 4,709 fighters (3,824 operational)

• Total: 9,901 (8,268 operational).

German troops:

• 850,000 German troops awaiting the invasion, many were Eastern European conscripts; there were even some Koreans.

• In Normandy itself the Germans had deployed 80,000 troops, but only one panzer division.

• 60 infantry divisions in France and ten panzer divisions, possessing 1,552 tanks,In Normandy itself the Germans had deployed eighty thousand troops, but only one panzer division.

Approximately fifteen thousand French civilians died in the Normandy campaign, partly from Allied bombing and partly from combat actions of Allied and German ground forces.

The total number of casualties that occurred during Operation Overlord, from June 6 (the date of D-Day) to August 30 (when German forces retreated across the Seine) was over 425,000 Allied and German troops. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties:

• Nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces

• 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces.

• Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces)

• 125,847 from the US ground forces.

But the numbers alone don’t tell the full story of the battle that raged in Normandy on June 6th, 1944. For a complete view of Operation Overlord, check out the full article at History on the Net, D-Day: The Invasion of Normandy, as well as some others like D-Day Quotes: From Eisenhower to Hitler.

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

U.S. Air Force, Americas

These large and quick launches of many planes at once are known as Elephant Walks.

Key point: These exercises are good practice in case an emergeny requires the need for a lot of bombers to take off and attack all at once. This is how the Air Force tries to keep itself ready for anything. 

It surely made for an impressive sight late last year.

Eight United States Air Force B-52H Stratofortress bombers could be seen lined up on the runway at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana in an “elephant walk,” the procession of military aircraft taxiing in close formation prior to takeoff. This most recent show of force of the Cold War-era bombers, which took place last week, was part of a readiness exercise conducted to ensure that the 2nd Bomb Wing remains fully able to provide winning combat power.

The Air Force has been increasingly conducting such elephant walks as a demonstration of the capabilities of its bomber fleet. A similar show of strength was conducted in April involving five B-52H bombers prior to their departure from Guam.

Following this October 2020 lineup of bombers, the eight aircraft flew to Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota before returning back to their home base in Northern Louisiana.

To Europe and Back

Some of the B-52 bomber crews had already had a busy month apparently at the time, as a pair of the aircraft from Barksdale AFB made a round trip flight to Europe, where the aircraft took part in a major NATO training exercise during a Bomber Task Force (BTF) mission over the North Sea. The two-week-long NATO exercise had involved more than fifty aircraft from across the alliance—and it was held to ensure that Allied air forces are able to operate effectively together.

The B-52s conducted the non-stop trans-Atlantic flight to Europe, and then made the return flight to Louisiana with support from Dutch, German, Italian, and U.S. aerial refueling capabilities. The multilateral support to the BTF was the most recent example of the strength gained through interoperability and partnership with the U.S. Air Force’s NATO allies and partners, as well as a continued validation of a shared commitment to global security and stability in Europe.

The refueling missions included KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft from the 100th Air Refueling Wing at RAF Mildenhall in England, which refueled the bombers off the coast of Scotland.

The Air Force’s strategic nuclear force, including the B-52, remains an essential military link between Europe and North America and has been seen as a key contributor to the Alliance security as the bombers offer a global strike capability. This recent trans-Atlantic crossing comes less than two months after six B-52s took part in the “Allied Sky” flyover across thirty NATO countries in a single day at the end of August. It was meant to highlight solidarity with U.S. partners and allies.

Four of the Cold War-era U.S. Air Force bombers were deployed from Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in the UK and flew over Europe, while two bombers from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota flew over the U.S. and Canada.

Over the summer additional B-52H bomber training missions were conducted at RAF Fairford as part of a long-planned exercise involving the 5th Bomb Wing, which was deployed to demonstrate U.S. capability to command, control and conduct bomber missions across the globe.

Despite its age, the upgraded B-52H bombers can still perform a variety of missions at subsonic speeds at high altitudes while the aircraft have a combat range of 8,800 miles and are able to carry precision-guided ordnance with worldwide precision navigation.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Peter Suciu

Indian Army, Asia

The NAG missiles are constructed of lightweight and highly durable composite materials.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The NAD is not the only missile platform that has been undergoing testing. Earlier this month, the Indian Ministry of Defence also announced the flight test of the new generation anti-radiation missile.

India and China have continued to move men and material to the Ladakh Valley near the Line of Actual Control before winter sets in, and this has included a significant number of tanks and other armored vehicles. In some cases, the tanks and troops are just 400 meters apart. India has ferried in equipment via heavy-lift, and that included numerous T-72 and T-80 tanks, along with BMP-2 armored personnel carriers (APC). All of the vehicles have been modified and adapted to run on a special fuel mix designed specifically for the high altitudes and low temperatures of the region.

Last month the Indian military also conducted tests of its latest variant of the NAG anti-tank missiles near the Pokhran Test Range in the western state of Rajasthan. During the tests, the third-generation, all-weather, fire-and-forget anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) reportedly destroyed the target with extremely high accuracy in both desert terrain and rugged frontier hills—terrain that is similar to that of the Ladakh region.

"This is the final test and the NAG program will begin to be deployed to all units in the military," the Indian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Defence Aviation Post reported that the NAG is a product of Defence Research and Development Organisation Agency of India (DRDO).

The missile, which first underwent successful tests in September 1997 and January 2000, is equipped with an advanced passive navigation system, and it was designed to destroy modern tanks and heavy armored targets, and has a night strike capability. It has been launched from a ground-based launch pad or an airbase. During the test in January 2016, a NAG missile successfully destroyed a thermal weapons system (TTS) at a range of 4 km at the Pokhran range. This anti-tank missile also underwent the last of the practical tests in different weather conditions earlier this year—likely in preparation for deployment to the Himalayas.

The ground version, also known as the "Prospina," can also be mounted on a NAMICA (BMP-2 platform), which is among the armored vehicles deployed along the border with China.

The NAG missiles are constructed of lightweight and highly durable composite materials. These can be installed with four rockets, spread and length 1.85, diameter 0.20m, a wingspan of 0.4m and weighs 43kg. The missile is fitted with a targeting guidance system, while the middle body contains many compact sensors and warheads. The platform can fire six missiles in just 20 seconds, and it is designed to destroy or defeat enemy tanks equipped with composite and reactive armor.

Army Technology reported that Defence PSU Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) will produce the missile while Ordnance Factory Medak will manufacture the NAMICA. Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh congratulated the Indian Army and DRDO for the completion of the trial.

In 2018, the Indian Defence Ministry had cleared the acquisition of 300 Nag missiles and 25 NAMICAs for the Indian Army.

The NAD is not the only missile platform that has been undergoing testing. Earlier this month, the Indian Ministry of Defence also announced the flight test of the new generation anti-radiation missile. Dubbed the RUDRAM, it is the first locally developed anti-radiation missile of the country. Additionally, last month, DRDO announced that it tested the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV). 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

Military History, Europe

The British invented the tank but did they actually come up with the term?

Key point: The word tank actually is related to how British tried to conceal their efforts to develop the new weapon. Here is how it went and how other names, such as panzer, were born.

In German it is the "panzer," in French it is the "char d'assaut," but in English, we know it is as the "tank." Yet even after more than 100 years since military "tanks" first entered service, this—at least from a linguistic point of view—is somewhat confusing. Why are tanks called tanks?

This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The German word "panzer" doesn't actually translate to tank, but rather the word means "armor," as it derives from the French word "pancier" for "breastplate" and comes from the Latin "pantx" or "belly."

Today, Panzer is a loanword, notably in the context of the German military. But it is a bit more confusing because the first German "tank" was the Sturmpanzerwagen (Armored assault vehicle) A7V. Later German tanks were known as "Panzerkampfwagen" or roughly "armored combat vehicle." Leave it to the Germans to be direct and to the point.

Meanwhile the French term "char d'assaut" at least suggests an assault vehicle, but then "char" is essentially the word for tank. The British and French were allies during the First World when the "tank" was developed.

In 1915, the British military at the behest of then-First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, established the Landships Committee, which was composed mainly of naval officers, politicians and engineers.

The goal of this small committee first was to oversee the development of large wheeled "landships" that were estimated to weigh as much as 300 tons and could roll over any terrain. The project was ambitious, to say the least, but it soon became apparent that the costs, complexity, and logistics of creating such a vehicle were utterly unrealistic, especially in wartime.

Instead, the decision was to go with a smaller vehicle that could pave the way for the infantry to break through the enemy lines. Throughout the spring and summer the Committee conducted a number of trials with wheeled and tracked vehicles. Then in July 1915, the British War Office became aware of the project and its operations were transferred from the Royal Navy to the British Army, which was actually doing most of the fighting on the Western Front.

Under the Army's direction, the first completed tank prototype was developed and it was dubbed "Little Willie." It is also the oldest surviving individual tank in the world, in part because it was just a prototype and never saw use in combat. Little Willie is now in the collection The Tank Museum in Bovington, England.

Externally Little Willie did serve precursor of the tanks to come, and this included the Mark I, which featured sponsons on the side of the tank instead of the turrets, that would define later tanks. It took more than a year to refine and produce the MkI, but by September 1916 some 150 new armored vehicles had been built at William Foster & Co. of the Lincoln Metropolitan Carriage and Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon & Finance Co. at Wednesbury.

In an effort to hide exactly what the military was building, the vehicles were called "tanks" to suggest a container to transport fresh water to the front. In December 1915, the codeword "tank" was officially adopted, and the Landships Committee officially became the Tank Supply Committee

At the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, during the larger Battle of the Somme, on September 15, 1916, the first tanks rolled into action. Some forty tanks advanced over a mile into enemy lines. However, these lumbering vehicles, which did shock the enemy at first, proved too slow to hold their positions while many bogged down in the mud. It has been argued that military planners simply didn't know how to properly utilize these new machines, and it would take another two years of fighting before the tank had truly proven itself in battle.

But by then the word "tank" was in the modern dictionary. It is "char" in French and "танк" in Russian, all because of the successful effort to fool the German military during the war.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.