Diplomacy & Crisis News

Kris Osborn

Security,

In the event of a conflict, there would likely be risks of major power warfare engagement, as opposed to a small exchange of fire. The possibility of rapid escalation would be very high. 

An interesting interactive illustration from a prominent think tank appears to raise the question as to the extent to which China already controls the majority of the South China Sea. 

The map, presented by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), shows China’s fighter jet, bomber, radar and missile reach across the South China Sea, demonstrating that very little to none of the region is outside of China’s threat envelope. 

For example, the map indicates that the range of Chinese fighter jets completely encircles the South China Sea, stretching from mainland China down around the Philippines to the Southern parts of SouthEast Asia. China’s bombers, radar, anti-ship cruise missiles and air-defenses also have extensive reach spanning across wide swaths of dispersed terrain.

For instance, the map shows an area in the South China Sea called Fiery Cross Reef which has shelters equipped for mobile missile platforms and hangars sufficient to house 24 combat aircraft. This kind of placement offers China the ability to reach, cover and potentially attack virtually all areas of the South China Sea quickly.

The map also says that China’s HQ-9 Surface to Air Missile systems and YJ-12B anti-ship cruise missiles were deployed to the island in early 2018 

“A KJ-500 airborne early warning and control aircraft was seen on the island in 2020,” the CSIS map says. 

Does this mean that U.S influence and activity in the area is constrained? At risk? Or merely challenged when it comes to operating in the area to assert freedom of navigation and counter China’s controversial and provocative territorial claims? 

Taken individually and collectively, each of the factors may not seem to fully restrict U.S. missions, patrols, training exercises or interoperability maneuvers with allied platforms. U.S. stealth fighters and bombers are built to operate in high-risk or contested areas by relying upon speed, altitude and stealth to elude detection from enemy air defenses. 

Navy surface ships travel with integrated layered defenses engineered to find and knock out incoming ballistic missiles or anti-ship cruise missiles and the presence of Chinese fighter jets in contested areas by no means ensures Chinese air supremacy in the region. 

For instance, the U.S. consistently operates drone flights, surveillance plane missions and bomber patrols in and near the area, suggesting that China’s reach and influence, while significant and disturbing to U.S. leaders, does not amount to what might be termed “operational control” of the area. 

What it does show, however, is that in the event of a conflict, there would likely be risks of major power warfare engagement, as opposed to a small exchange of fire. The possibility of rapid escalation would be very high. 

Kris Osborn is Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Michael Peck

History, Europe

Without Hitler's halt order, the beaches of Dunkirk would have become a giant POW cage.

Key Point: Why did Hitler issue the halt order? No one knows for sure.

War movies tend to depict the battles a nation wins—not the ones it loses.

So with a blockbuster Hollywood movie on Dunkirk hitting the silver screen this July, one would think that Dunkirk was a British victory.

In fact, Dunkirk was the climactic moment of one of the greatest military disasters in history. From May 26 to June 4, 1940, an army of more than three hundred thousand British soldiers was chased off the mainland of Europe, reduced to an exhausted mob clinging to a flotilla of rescue boats while leaving almost all of their weapons and equipment behind.

The British Army was crippled for months. If the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force had failed, and the Germans had managed to conduct their own D-Day invasion of Britain, the outcome would have been certain.

So why do the British celebrate Dunkirk as a victory? Why is it called the Miracle of Dunkirk when another such miracle would have given Hitler the keys to London?

Consider the situation. In just six weeks during the spring of 1940, Britain and France had been crushed. When Hitler invaded France and the Benelux countries on May 10, 1940, the Allies were totally off balance. The cream of the Franco-British armies, including much of the ten-division-strong British Expeditionary Force (BEF), had been stationed in northern France. The plan was for them to advance into northern Belgium to stop a German advance, because that was the route the Germans took in 1914. Unfortunately, the German panzer spearhead divisions struck in the center of France, through the weakly defended Belgian and Luxembourg Ardennes forest. Quickly penetrating through the wooded hills, their tank columns turned north to cut off the Allied forces in Belgium from behind, while other German forces—backed by paratroopers—seized Holland and squeezed the Allies from the other direction.

Plagued by disorganization and lethargic leadership, the Allies tried to retreat from Belgium back to France. But it was too late. On May 19, the hard-driving panzer divisions had reached Abbeville, on the English Channel. The bulk of the Allied armies were trapped in a pocket along the French and Belgian coasts, with the Germans on three sides and the English Channel behind. Meanwhile, other German column raced for Paris and beyond, rendering any major French counterattack nothing more than a mapboard fantasy.

The British did what they always when their armies overseas get in trouble: start seeking the nearest port for an exit. With a typical (and in this case justified) lack of faith in their allies, they began planning to evacuate the BEF from the Channel ports. Though the French would partly blame their defeat on British treachery, the British were right. With the French armies outmaneuvered and disintegrating, France was doomed.

But so was the BEF—or so it looked. As the exhausted troops trudged to the coast, through roads choked with refugees and strafed by the Luftwaffe, the question was: could they reach the beaches and safety before the panzers did? There were four hundred thousand British and French troops to evacuate, through a moderate-sized port whose docks were being destroyed by bombs and shells. Even under the best of conditions, it would have taken more time than the Allies could rightfully expect for those troops to be lifted off the beaches.

Despite the general Allied collapse, the British and French troops defending the Dunkirk perimeter fought hard under constant air attack. Nonetheless, had Hitler’s tank generals such as Heinz Guderian had their way, the hard-driving panzers would have sliced like scalpels straight to Dunkirk. The beaches would have become a giant POW cage.

Then on May 24, Hitler and his high command hit the stop button. The panzer columns were halted in their tracks; the plan now was for the Luftwaffe to pulverize the defenders until the slower-moving German infantry divisions caught up to finish the job.

Why did Hitler issue the halt order? No one knows for sure. Hitler had fought in that part of France in World War I, and he worried that the terrain was too muddy for tanks.

Luftwaffe commander Hermann Goering assured him that his bombers and fighters could do the job. There were concerns about logistics, or a potential French counterattack. Or maybe it was just that Hitler, that perennial gambler, was so dazzled by his own unexpected success at the dice table of war that he lost his nerve.

Whatever the reason, while the Germans dithered, the British moved with a speed that Britain would rarely display again for the rest of the war. Not just the Royal Navy was mobilized. From British ports sailed yachts, fishing boats, lifeboats and rowboats. Like the “ragtag fleet” in Battlestar Galactica, anything that could sail was pressed into service.

France has been ridiculed so often for its performance in 1940 that we forget how the stubbornness and bravery of the French rearguards around Dunkirk perimeter allowed the evacuation to succeed. Under air and artillery fire, the motley fleet evacuated 338,226 soldiers. As for Britain betraying its allies, 139,997 of those men were French soldiers, along with Belgians and Poles.

As they heaved themselves into the boats under a hail of bombs, the soldiers cursed the RAF for leaving them in the lurch. They couldn’t see above the tumult above the clouds where the RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires hurled themselves against the Luftwaffe. Weakened by losses during the French campaign, the RAF couldn’t stop the German air assault. But they at least could hamper it.

The evacuation was incomplete. Some forty thousand troops were captured by the Germans. The Scotsmen of the Fifty-First Highland Division, trapped deep inside France, were encircled and captured by the Seventh Panzer Division commanded by Erwin Rommel. The BEF did save most of its men, but almost all its equipment—from tanks and trucks to rifles—was left behind.

So why did the British treat Dunkirk as a victory? Partially it was out of necessity. The British public needed some good news now that their world had fallen apart. Yet despite Churchill’s rousing rhetoric about the battle, he knew that pseudo-victories would never defeat Hitler. “Wars are not won by evacuations,” he told the House of Commons.

The best answer is that the successful evacuation of the cream of the British Army gave Britain a lifeline to continue the war. In June 1940, neither America nor the Soviets were at war with the Axis. With France gone, Britain, and its Commonwealth partners such as Australia and Canada, stood alone. Had Britain capitulated to Hitler, or signed a compromise peace that left the Nazis in control of Europe, many Americans would have been dismayed—but not surprised.

A British writer whose father fought at Dunkirk wrote that the British public was under no illusions. “If there was a Dunkirk spirit, it was because people understood perfectly well the full significance of the defeat but, in a rather British way, saw no point in dwelling on it. We were now alone. We’d pull through in the end. But it might be a long, grim wait…”

Their patience and endurance were rewarded on May 8, 1945, when Nazi Germany surrendered.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article first appeared in 2017.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Kris Osborn

Security,

Both countries are racing to gain a foothold in the resource-rich Arctic.

Key point: The terrain in the Arctic is extremely rugged. That means having the right equipment and training will matter more than in other regions.

Combat in the Arctic is a difficult proposition.

Sub-zero temperatures, penguins, polar bears, ice, glaciers and snowstorms all present challenges for possible combat operations. This is a growing concern among U.S. weapons developers now that the military is massively increasing Arctic warfare preparations. 

Increased activity in the Arctic, accelerated by fast-melting ice, continues to generate substantial international competition, particularly between Russia and America. Arctic ice is melting much faster than previously anticipated, leading major powers to see a fast-pressing need to step-up Arctic war preparation more than ten-years earlier than expected. Warmer weather and higher water temperatures are melting ice, opening up new waterways, areas for transit and an ability to gather resources and strategic advantages. Russia’s Northern Sea Route along the country’s Arctic border presents the largest and most prominent waterways approaching the Arctic. In order to protect that area and its resource claims, Russia has more ice breakers than the United States, and Moscow has been massively increasing its Arctic operational-tempo and basing there. 

For all of these reasons, the Office of Naval Research is looking at ways to help advanced weapons systems operate in extreme temperatures. The Pentagon is fast-tracking new icebreakers. The Army’s cold weather units, such as the 10th Mountain Division and Alaska-based forces are increasing the volume and frequency of cold weather warfare preparations. As part of this, the Army is also moving quickly to acquire a new Cold Weather All Terrain Vehicle, a platform especially engineered to operate in the harshest of cold weather combat conditions. 

The CATV Request for Prototypes Proposals was issued by the Army in June through the National Advanced Mobility Consortium, a BAE Systems statement said. Early prototypes will eventually be submitted for “limited performance and endurance testing,” according to the Army’s request for proposal.

BAE Systems is one vendor moving to offer a solution with its “Beowulf” vehicle. BAE reports that Beowulf is based on the BvS10, which is currently in production and already operational in multiple variants with five countries, first going into service with the U.K. Royal Marines in 2005. 

“The Beowulf and its armored sister vehicle, the BvS10, represent the most advanced vehicles in the world when it comes to operating in any terrain, whether it’s snow, ice, rock, sand, mud, swamp, or steep mountainous climbs, and its amphibious capability allows it to swim in flooded areas or in coastal water environments,” Keith Klemmer, director of business development at BAE Systems, said in a written statement. 

Having an Arctic-ruggedized combat vehicle certainly introduces a number of tactical advantages. Not only can it transport forces across dangerous, sub-zero terrain, but could perhaps at some point be configured as an unmanned variant designed to transport supplies, ammunition, fuel and other essential resources at minimal risk to soldiers. Also, should there need to be an Arctic attack or advance of some kind, it goes without saying that an Arctic-ready vehicle could greatly change the equation by advancing attacking infantry or even pulling weapons systems such as artillery. It could incorporate sensors intended to assess the thickness or strength of ice as well. 

Of course, BAE has not discussed any specifics related to its offering, yet the existence of such a platform raises interesting questions about the kinds of systems and technologies likely to inform its construction. BAE’s Beowulf offering looks like a tracked vehicle which most likely incorporates newer kinds of warming and propulsion technologies, as well as cold-weather operational hardening of various kinds. Interestingly, it would also make sense if, as a tracked vehicle, the Beowulf were able to climb glaciers and descend at safe speeds without sliding. 

Also, it would not be surprising if Beowulf’s technical systems incorporate some kinds of hull-warming, ice-melting technologies now being fast-tracked for Navy ships preparing for Arctic operations.

Finally, it would also seem likely that this kind of ice-ready vehicle includes some kinds of systems engineered to prevent an engine or vehicle oils from freezing. 

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler are frequently misunderstood as either Christian or atheist. A look at his own words reveals a complicated truth.

Key Point: Hitler's religious hypocrisy helped him to appeal to a broad constituency.

No matter how little you know about history, you know something about Adolf Hitler. And if you want to shut down an opponent, you can claim that Hitler said/did/believed the same thing. Godwin’s Law exists for a reason.

But Hitler remains a persistent mystery on one front—his religious faith. Atheists tend to insist Hitler was a devout Christian. Christians contend that he was an atheist. And still others suggest that he was a practicing member of the occult.

None of these theories is true, says historian Richard Weikart in his new book Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich. Delving more deeply into the question of Hitler’s religious faith than any researcher to date, Weikart reveals the startling and fascinating truth about the most hated man of the twentieth century: Adolf Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was the only true “God.” (click here to listen to an interview with Weikart on the History Unplugged Podcast)

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In mid-January of 1940, Hitler was discussing with his colleagues a rather frequent topic of his conversations and monologues: the church. After he sarcastically imitated Niemöller, the Confessing Church leader who was incarcerated in a concentration camp, someone in his entourage indicated to him that posterity might not be able to figure out what Hitler’s religion was, because he never openly stated his beliefs. The person who brought this to Hitler’s attention had clearly noticed the discrepancy between his private expressions of intense antipathy to Christianity and his public religious image. Since many in Hitler’s entourage were also intensely anti-Christian, perhaps they were trying to provoke him to state his personal religious views publicly. In any case, this observation about the inscrutability of Hitler’s religious views still has merit today— even though we have far more information about Hitler available to us than most of his contemporaries had.That, of course, does not mean everyone draws the same conclusion. As we have seen, some people today interpret Hitler as an atheist, while others insist he was a Christian. In fact, he has been described as an adherent of just about every major religious position in twentieth-century European society (excepting Judaism, of course), which included agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism, occultism, deism, and non-Christian theism.

Interestingly, when he was confronted in January 1940 with the observation that people might not know Hitler’s religion, he suggested that, on the contrary, it should not be difficult for people to figure it out. After all, he asserted, he had never allowed any clergy to participate in his party meetings or even in funerals for party comrades. He continued, “The Christian-Jewish pestilence is surely approaching its end now. It is simply dreadful, that a religion has even been possible, that literally eats its God in Holy Communion.” Hitler clearly thought that anyone should be able to figure out that he was not a Christian. Nonetheless, Rosenberg reported in his diary later that year that Hitler had determined that he should divulge his negative views about Christianity in his last testament “so that no doubt about his position can surface. As head of state he naturally held back—but nevertheless after the war clear consequences will follow.” Many times, Hitler told his colleagues that he would reckon with Christianity after the successful conclusion of the war.

Interestingly, even in these conversations, Hitler only indicated what he did not believe. He did not explain at that time what he did believe about God, the after-life, or other religious issues. Indeed, it is much easier to figure out what Hitler did not believe than to figure out Hitler’s religion and feelings. Probably, this is partly because Hitler considered God ineffable. Hitler’s God was not one who revealed himself clearly to humanity, but a mysterious being who superseded human knowledge.

HITLER’S RELIGION: WHAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE

So, what did Hitler not believe? He continually rejected Christianity, calling it a Jewish plot to undermine the heroic ideals of the (Aryan-dominated) Roman Empire. He did not accept the deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, or indeed any of the miracles of Jesus. There is no evidence that he believed in a triune God. Though he esteemed Jesus as an Aryan fighter against Jewish materialism who was martyred for his anti-Jewish stance, he did not ascribe to Jesus’s death any significance in human salvation. Indeed, he did not believe in salvation at all in the Christian sense of the term, because he denied a personal afterlife. Despite his public invocations to God, Hitler also did not believe in the efficacy of prayer. His God responded to people and judged them according to their works, not their words. Although he spurned Christianity, this did not lead him to disbelieve in every form of deity, however. He overtly rejected atheism, associating it with “Jewish-Bolshevism.” Further, he explicitly condemned mysticism, occultism, and neo-paganism. Thus, it is evident Hitler was neither a Christian, atheist, occultist, nor neo-paganist.

While this narrows the range of options of Hitler’s religion slightly, it still leaves us with agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, and non-Christian theism. A reasonable case could be made for more than one of these options. In order solve this puzzle, however, one must not only examine the full panoply of his religious statements but also decipher how to weigh those statements on Hitler’s religion. Are his private statements more revealing of his true convictions than his public speeches? Probably, but even his private statements must be used cautiously. Are his books a better indication of his personal beliefs than his speeches? This is likely, because he seemed to be more systematic in explaining his worldview in Mein Kampf and in his Second Book. However, they also served propaganda purposes and must be used carefully as well. There also remains the question of whether Hitler even had a coherent metaphysic; if not, perhaps there is no single answer to what Hitler’s religion was.

One problem is that Hitler often portrayed God as an impersonal force, yet sometimes he implied God did take a personal interest in humanity, or at least in the German people’s destiny. Though he usually insisted that God does not intervene in the natural cause-andeffect relationships in the universe, at times he seemed to ascribe a role to Providence in history. When he survived assassination attempts, for instance, he took it as a sign from Providence that he was specially chosen to fulfill a divine mission. Until the very end of World War II, he thought his God would not fail to bring victory to the German people.

One of the reasons it is unlikely that Hitler was a theist is because he did not seem to think God could contravene the laws of nature. Hitler often called the laws of nature eternal and inviolable, thus embracing determinism. He interpreted history as a course of events determined by the racial composition of people, not by their religion or other cultural factors. The way to understand humanity and history, according to Hitler, was to study the laws of nature. He considered science, not religious revelation, the most reliable path to knowledge. What Hitler thought science revealed was that races are unequal and locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence, which would determine the future destiny of humanity.

Whether Hitler construed the laws of nature as the creation of a deistic or theistic God, or the emanation of a pantheistic God, he clearly grounded his morality on the laws of nature, which he consistently portrayed as the will of God. Since nature brought about biological improvement through struggle, Hitler defined moral goodness as whatever contributed to biological progress. Evil or sin, in Hitler’s opinion, was anything that produced biological degeneration. Thus, Hitler thought he was operating in complete harmony with God’s will by sterilizing people with disabilities and forbidding the intermarriage of Germans and Jews. Killing the weak to make way for the strong was part of the divine plan revealed in nature, in Hitler’s view.

Thus, even murdering disabled Germans, launching expansionist wars to wrest territory from allegedly inferior races, and murdering millions of Jews, Sinti, Roma, Slavs, and others defined as subhumans, was not only morally permissible but also obedience to the voice of God and aspects of Hitler’s religion. After all, that was how nature operated, producing superabundantly and then destroying most of the progeny in the Darwinian struggle for existence. Hitler often reminded his fellow Germans that even if this seemed ruthless, it was actually wise. In any case, he warned that they could not moralize about it, because humans were completely subject to the laws of nature.

HITLER’S RELIGION: PANTHEISM AND BRUTAL POWER POLITICS

In the end, while recognizing that Hitler’s religion was somewhat muddled, it seems evident his religion was closest to pantheism. He often deified nature, calling it eternal and all-powerful at various times throughout his career. He frequently used the word “nature” interchangeably with God, Providence, or the Almighty. While on some occasions he claimed God had created people or organisms, at other times (or sometimes in the same breath) he claimed nature had created them. Further, he wanted to cultivate a certain veneration of nature through a reinvented Christmas festival that turned the focus away from Christianity. He also hoped to build an observatory-planetarium complex in Linz that would serve as a religious pilgrimage site to dazzle Germans with the wonders of the cosmos. Overall, it appears a pantheist worldview was where Hitler felt closest to home.

Since it is so difficult to pinpoint exactly what Hitler’s religion was, it might seem his religion was historically inconsequential.

However, hopefully this study of Hitler’s religion sheds light on a number of important issues. First, his anti-Christianity obviously shaped the persecution of the Christian churches during the Third Reich. Second, his religious hypocrisy helped explain his ability to appeal to a broad constituency. Third, his trust that his God would reward his efforts and willpower, together with his sense of divine mission, imbued him with hope, even in hopeless circumstances. This helps us understand why he was so optimistic until the very end, when it should have been obvious much earlier that the game was up.

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Fred Lucas

Politics, Americas

"By viewing every issue through the lens of race, they want to impose a new segregation, and we must not allow that to happen."

President Donald Trump, in Constitution Day remarks, drew a direct connection between the riots and mayhem in the streets to what schools are teaching about America.

“Our mission is to defend the legacy of America’s founding, the virtue of America’s heroes, and the nobility of the American character,” the president said at the National Archives Museum Thursday for the White House Conference on American History. “We must clear away the twisted web of lies in our schools and classrooms, and teach our children the magnificent truth about our country.”

In his remarks, Trump announced actions to promote “patriotic education,” and unleashed an attack on several sacred cows of the left such as cancel culture, critical race theory, The New York Times’ 1619 Project, and the looting and arson occurring across the country. 

Delivering the speech on the 233rd anniversary of the Constitution, Trump praised the historical document as being “the product of centuries of tradition, wisdom, and experience.”

“No political document has done more to advance the human condition or propel the engine of progress,” Trump said. “Yet, as we gather this afternoon, a radical movement is attempting to demolish this treasured and precious inheritance. We can’t let that happen.”

Here’s four key moments from the speech. 

1. Policy Actions for ‘Patriotic Education’

The president announced two actions to promote more pro-American education in schools. 

“Our youth will be taught to love America with all of their heart and soul,” Trump said. “We will save this cherished inheritance for our children, for their children, and for every generation to come.”

Trump announced the National Endowment for the Humanities is awarding a grant to support a pro-American curriculum in schools. He also announced that he will be signing an executive order establishing the 1776 Commission to promote patriotic education. 

“It will encourage our educators to teach our children about the miracle of American history and make plans to honor the 250th anniversary of our founding,” the president said of the 1776 Commission. 

This is an important point to draw attention to, said Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation. 

“The president is right to shine a spotlight on the negative effects of critical theory, taught throughout colleges, particularly colleges of education, and which makes its way down through K-12 schools,” Burke told The Daily Signal. “And the administration is right to point to the inaccuracies of the 1619 Project, which should continue to be noted. More parents will now be aware of this content—which paints a negative picture of America—making its way into their children’s schools. America is a truly exceptional nation, and that’s a message that children should hear.”

2. Cancel Culture and the ‘Left-Wing Mobs’

The president added that a “radical movement” is attempting to demolish this treasured American history. 

“The left-wing mobs have torn down statues of our Founders, desecrated our memorials, and carried out a campaign of violence and anarchy,” Trump said. “Far-left demonstrators have chanted the words, ‘America was never great.’ The left has launched a vicious and violent assault on law enforcement—the universal symbol of the rule of law in America.”

Trump added that politicians, establishment media, and even large corporations have sided with those causing the mayhem. 

“Whether it is the mob on the street or the cancel culture in the boardroom, the goal is the same: To silence dissent, to scare you out of speaking the truth and to bully Americans into abandoning their values, their heritage and their very way of life,” Trump said. 

“We are here today to declare that we will never submit to tyranny,” the president added. “We will reclaim our history, and our country, for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.” 

3. 1619 Project, Howard Zinn, and ‘Warped, Distorted’ History

During his speech, Trump drew a correlation between the riots and education. 

“The left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools,” Trump said. “It has gone on far too long. Our children are instructed from propaganda tracts, like those of Howard Zinn, that try to make students ashamed of their own history.” 

Howard Zinn is a liberal historian whose work has focused almost entirely on the negative aspects of American history. 

Trump continued: 

The left has warped, distorted the American story with deception, falsehoods, and lies. There is no better example than The New York Times’ totally discredited 1619 Project. …

America’s founding set in motion the unstoppable chain of events that abolished slavery, secured civil rights, defeated communism and fascism, and built the most fair, equal, and prosperous nation in human history.

The Times’ 1619 Project contends the United States was founded on principle of advancing slavery. The claims of the project have been challenged by historians on the right and left. 

The president said the narratives pushed by the left resemble anti-American propaganda pushed by the country’s adversaries.

4. Teaching Critical Race Theory Is ‘Child Abuse’

Trump talked about critical race theory as an example, which he called a Marxist doctrine that says even children are complicit in racism and society must be radically transformed.   

Critical race theory is a theoretical framework that contends individuals are either oppressed or are oppressors based on their skin color. 

“Teaching this horrible doctrine to our children is a form of child abuse in the truest sense of those words,” Trump said. “For many years now, the radicals have mistaken Americans’ silence for weakness. They are wrong.”

“There is no more powerful force than a parent’s love for their children—and patriotic moms and dads are going to demand that their children are no longer fed hateful lies about this country,” Trump added. “American parents are not going to accept indoctrination in our schools, cancel culture at work, or the repression of traditional faith, culture, and values in the public square.”

Trump noted that he banned the promotion of critical race theory in the federal government through employee training programs that focus on “white privilege” or that the United States is an inherently racist country. 

“Critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and the crusade against American history is toxic propaganda—an ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together,” Trump said. “That is why I recently banned training in this prejudiced ideology from the federal government and banned it in the strongest matter possible.” 

The president said such propaganda is a departure from the civil rights movement. 

We embrace the vision of Martin Luther King, where children are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The left is attempting to destroy that beautiful vision and divide Americans by race in the service of political power. 

By viewing every issue through the lens of race, they want to impose a new segregation, and we must not allow that to happen. 

This article first appeared in The Daily Signal.

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Security, Americas

The basic technology is here, but it is not perfected just yet.

Power scaling, increased precision, space operations, tailorable attacks, missile defense and an ability to pinpoint and incinerate targets are all factors characterizing the development and operational deployment of laser weapons. 

Key point: These weapons will make the F-35 better able to defend itself and also shoot down missiles. However, this revolutionary weapon is not yet ready for full deployment.

While laser weapons are already here, the Pentagon and industry are taking new accelerated steps to prepare them for a much wider sphere of applications. For example, they want to fire them from fighter jets, burning up and disabling attacking anti-ship missiles. They even would like to put lasers in space. 

Some of the next steps include “scaling” the power of laser weapons to increase range, strength, durability and transportability. These are now being worked on by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Office of Naval Research.

Lasers are now on U.S. Navy destroyers and can fire from Stryker vehicles at attack drones, yet a new sphere of laser functionality is on the horizon and approaching quickly. Lasers also already arm Navy amphibious assault ships and will, likely in just the next few years, arm F-22s and F-35s. 

Firing from fifth-generation aircraft includes building upon successful ground tests to ultimately arm aircraft with transportable laser weapons able to fire from the sky. This would likely involve combining numerous laser beams into a single application to optimize missile defense and even, in the future, cultivating laser weapons able to travel beyond the earth’s atmosphere and perhaps fire from satellites. 

The advantages of lasers are clear and well known; they fire at the speed of light. Their combat impact is tailorable depending upon desired combat effect, meaning they can be scaled to either disable or completely destroy targets. They are also silent, lightweight and inexpensive. 

Yet, at the same time, there are areas of technical challenge when it comes to taking some of these news steps. Ship, fighter jet or armored vehicle laser weapons require large amounts of mobile, exportable electrical power. They cannot function without the requisite amount of power, creating form-factor, size, heat and transportability challenges. 

Essentially, engineering a laser weapon that is both powerful enough and also small enough to travel on a high-speed fighter jet, is difficult. This phenomenon is also informing current MDA work which, officials say, is primarily focused upon engineering sufficient “power scaling” of lasers to enable missile defense applications. 

Lasers also need to be hardened against beam attenuation, meaning a weakening of the weapon's power caused by adverse weather conditions, insufficient power or an inability to sustain effectiveness at certain ranges. 

Thermal management is also fundamental, as laser weapon temperature needs to be properly managed, creating a need for technical flexibility when it comes to certain engineering specifics. 

At a recent Booz Allen Hamilton-sponsored Directed Energy Series forum, senior Pentagon weapons developers addressed this point, saying laser weapon construction needs to incorporate open, or less-restrictive technical standards in order to optimize flexibility. The often-referred term is Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA). 

“The higher the diode temperature, the less efficient the laser is. However, the thermal management system works most efficiently with higher diode temperatures. So deciding an arbitrary temperature in the MOSA standard would be very risky and result in a suboptimal system,” Dr. Sean Ross, the Deputy High Energy Laser Technical Area Lead and Prototyping Liaison for the Air Force Research Laboratory said in a Pentagon report. 

Ross further elaborated upon this by explaining that, when it comes to thermal management, the “higher the voltage used in the laser, the lower the required weight of the copper conductive wires.”

Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics& Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Health, World

A coronavirus myth has finally been debunked.

Using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) like ibuprofen for pain management have not been found to worsen novel coronavirus symptoms, according to a new study published in the journal PLOS Medicine.

For the study, researchers were able to obtain data on 9,326 Danish residents who tested positive for the coronavirus between February 27 and April 29. Roughly 250 of those individuals, or 2.7 percent, had filled a prescription for NSAIDs within thirty days of their positive test.

Among the users of NSAID pain relievers, the researchers saw that nearly 25 percent needed to be eventually hospitalized, 5 percent required intensive care, and 6.3 percent died.

For comparison, among the non-users, 21 percent were hospitalized, 5 percent needed intensive care, and 6.1 percent died.

“Considering the available evidence, there is no reason to withdraw well-indicated use of NSAIDs during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” the authors wrote.

“However, the well-established adverse effects of NSAIDs, particularly their renal, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular effects, should always be considered, and NSAIDs should be used in the lowest possible dose for the shortest possible duration for all patients.” 

According to Dr. Joseph Poterucha, an ICU physician with the Mayo Clinic Health System in Wisconsin, coronavirus-positive patients still need to be aware of the numerous and sometimes dangerous side effects of NSAIDs.

“I would urge caution to jumping to any conclusions,” he told Healthline. “In certain individuals with chronic medical comorbidities, the burden of this side effect profile in concert with an active coronavirus infection could be detrimental.” 

That is to say, despite the study’s findings, individuals with chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and history of stroke and stomach ulcers should generally avoid taking NSAIDs.

During the early months of the coronavirus pandemic, the World Health Organization, guided by a French study on NSAIDs in March, stated that people who are infected with the virus shouldn’t take ibuprofen.

The agency has since backtracked on that guidance and now says that it doesn’t advise against it.

“At present there is no evidence of severe adverse events, acute health care utilization, long-term survival, or quality of life in patients with COVID-19, as a result of the use of NSAIDs,” the WHO stated in a scientific brief.

Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are considered to be some of the most commonly used drugs in the United States—with an estimated thirty million doses consumed and seventy million prescriptions administered each year, according to the American College of Rheumatology.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Security, Americas

The F-22, F-35, and B-2 are all highly capable and can evade detection until it is too late.

Key point: America's stealth fighters and bombers are not indestructable. However, they are so hard to find and kill that they would make a lopsided difference in any major war.

Despite the loud and fast-growing chorus of analysts, critics and weapons developers who continue to raise the question as to whether stealth technology may slowly be becoming obsolete, some senior weapons developers are citing some ways current and emerging stealth platforms will - for years to come - remain very difficult to destroy.

Russian built S-300 and S-400 air defense weapons, believed by many to be among the best in the world, are able to use digital technology to network “nodes” to one another to pass tracking and targeting data across wide swaths of terrain. New air defenses also use advanced command and control technology to detect aircraft across a much wider spectrum of frequencies than previous systems could. Also, much is being made of Russia’s emerging S-500 system, purported to be even more sophisticated against stealth aircraft.

While there is broad agreement that these newer air defenses do make it harder for stealth platforms to remain fully undetected, there are a variety of reasons why actually destroying a stealth platform - and completing the entire “kill chain” - will remain extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish, according to a former 3-Star Air Force weapons developer.

“Bi-static radar can help detect low observable aircraft. However, to intercept a stealth aircraft requires transfer of detection from a large acquisition radar to a much smaller interceptor radar either on an aircraft or a missile that can track—or maintain continuous “lock-on” of the low observable aircraft. When you transfer track from an acquisition radar to a weapons interceptor necessary to engage at longer ranges than the stealth aircraft can detect and fire at the interceptor, that dramatically reduces the probability of the stealth aircraft being engaged. Detection is not what it is all about, you have an entire kill chain where every element must be successful to intercept and destroy a low-observable aircraft,” Ret. Lt. Gen. David Deptula, Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Warrior Maven in an interview

Deptula explained that moving beyond a ground-based radar with a very large aperture to a much smaller “engagement” radar presents substantial challenges for attackers.

“Even if a radar can detect, it now has to track, and when it transfers that data to engage it will have to shoot a missile using much smaller radar than that used for detection. Also, fusing of the interceptor weapon can be affected by low observability technology,” Deptula said. “At every level, low observability decreases the probability of successful intercept.”

Nonetheless, Air Force developers are pursuing a new generation of stealth technology with a sense of urgency, in light of rapid global modernization of new Russian and Chinese-built attack systems.

B-21

Earlier this year, the Air Force finished a substantial technical “critical design review” of its next-generation B-21 Raider bomber, an effort known to be almost entirely secret.

The review, described by Air Force officials as a key step prior to formal construction of the aircraft, assessed design specs, technology plans, computing power and weapons integration for the new bomber – a platform which service developers say will advance stealth technology itself to new, unprecedented dimensions of technological sophistication.

Critical reviews of the emerging B-21 design are essential to engineering a platform able to accommodate the most advanced current and anticipated future stealth properties – which include stealth coating and configuration, radar cross section reduction and heat signature suppression technologies, among other things.

A Mitchell Institute essay – “The Imperative for Stealth,” offers a window of substantial detail into comments from Air Force senior leaders that the B-21 will advance stealth technology such that, according to developers, it will be able to hold “any target at risk, anywhere in the world, anytime.”

“The US is now developing its fourth generation of stealth aircraft. The computational capabilities that were available to design the F-117 and B-2 are dwarfed by the power now available to design teams,” writes the Mitchell Institute essay, by Maj. Gen. Mark Barrett, USAF (Ret.) and Col. Mace Carpenter, USAF (Ret.)

The Evolution of Stealth

Stealth technology works by engineering an aircraft with external contours and heat signatures designed to elude detection from enemy radar systems. The absence of defined edges, noticeable heat emissions, weapons hanging on pylons or other easily detectable aircraft features, means that radar "pings" can have trouble receiving a return electromagnetic signal allowing them to identify an approaching bomber. Since the speed of light (electricity) is known, and the time of travel of electromagnetic signals can be determined as well, computer algorithms are then able to determine the precise distance of an enemy object.

However, when it comes to stealth aircraft, the return signal may be either non-existent or of an entirely different character than that of an actual aircraft. A stealth aircraft will, for instance, appear in the shape of a bird or insect to enemy radar.

Given the increased threat envelope created by cutting edge air defenses, and the acknowledgement that stealth aircraft are indeed much more vulnerable than when they first emerged, Air Force developers are increasingly viewing stealth capacity as something which includes a variety of key parameters.

This includes not only stealth configuration, IR suppression and radar-evading materials but also other important elements such as electronic warfare “jamming” defenses, operating during adverse weather conditions to lower the acoustic signature and conducting attacks in tandem with other less-stealthy aircraft likely to command attention from enemy air defense systems.

Given these factors, Air Force developers often refer to stealth configuration itself as merely one “arrow” in the quiver of approaches needed to defeat modern air defenses.

“Mixing stealthy aircraft with conventional aircraft, deception, air defense suppression, and electronic jamming will complicate an enemy’s defensive problem set by an order of magnitude,” the paper writes.

The authors of the paper explain that newer stealth technology will attempt to outmatch advanced multi-frequency air defenses must utilize a characteristic known as “broadband stealth.”

Multi-band or “broadband” stealth, which is designed to elude both lower frequency area “surveillance” radar as well as high-frequency “engagement radar,” puts an emphasis upon radar cross section-reducing tailless designs such as that now envisioned for the B-21.

“The B-21 image released by the USAF depicts a design that does not use vertical flight control surfaces like tails. Without vertical surfaces to reflect radar from side aspects, the new bomber will have an RCS (Radar Cross Section) that reduces returns not only from the front and rear but also from the sides, making detection from any angle a challenge,” the Mitchell Institute writes.

Stealth fighter jets, such as the F-22 and F-35, have an entirely different configuration and rely upon some vertical flight control surfaces such as tails and wings. Being more vulnerable to lower frequency surveillance radars due to having a fighter jet configuration, an F-35 or F-22 would depend upon its speed, maneuverability and air-to-air attack systems to fully defend against enemies. Given that fighter jets require tails, wings and other structures necessary to performance, they are naturally inherently less stealthy than a high-altitude bomber.

Newer methods of IR or thermal signature reduction are connected to engine and exhaust placement. Internally configured engines, coupled with exhaust pipes on the top of an aircraft can massively lower the heat emissions from an aircraft, such as the structure of the current B-2 - the authors of the essay say.

“Hot gases from the engine can be further cooled using mixing techniques in the exhaust system,” the paper writes.

Technical progress in the area of advanced computer simulations are providing developers with an unprecedented advantage in designing the new bomber as well.

“Simulations of interactions between designs and various threat radars are now far more accurate and realistic, allowing additional refinement of stealth design solutions before any hardware is actually built or tested,” the essay writes.

The new aircraft will be designed to have global reach, in part by incorporating a large arsenal of long-range weapons. The B-21 is being engineered to carry existing weapons as well as nuclear bombs and emerging and future weapons, Air Force officials explained.

If its arsenal is anything like the B-2, it will like have an ability to drop a range of nuclear weapons, GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions and possibly even the new Air Force nuclear-armed cruise missile now in development called the LRSO - Long Range Stand Off weapon. It is also conceivable, according to Air Force developers, that the new bomber will one day be armed with yet-to-be seen weapons technology.

Kris Osborn of Warrior Maven previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics& Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and an-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Security, Middle East

The U.S. Navy is steaming a massive, highly lethal Carrier Strike Group into strategically vital areas off the coast of Iran, demonstrating solidarity, freedom of navigation, and readiness to launch war should that be necessary.

The U.S. Navy is steaming a massive, highly lethal Carrier Strike Group into strategically vital areas off the coast of Iran, demonstrating solidarity, freedom of navigation, and readiness to launch war should that be necessary.

A Navy announcement said the service has sent the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier along with two guided missile cruisers and one destroyer through the narrow and at times sensitive Strait of Hormuz, a narrower strip of ocean in the Arabian Gulf closely bordering Iran’s Western coastline.

The passageway has, for years, been considered vital for U.S. Navy strategists who seek to not only ensure regional security but also enable the free movement of very large amounts of commercial sea traffic. Very large percentages of the world’s oil supply travels through the area along with a high volume of commercial vessels conducting business throughout the area.

While ensuring safe transit of commercial and civilian ocean traffic is considered essential to the U.S. Navy’s vision, the Strait of Hormuz is also regarded as a highly sensitive military “choke point.” It has often been a location of escalating tensions between the United States and Iran.

The area is known to be home to shallow and deep water mines and has often been an area where Iranian small boats have conducted provocative maneuvers, harassed commercial vessels and even approached U.S. warships.

One way the Navy seeks to address this is simply by increasing presence and sending firepower to the region. The Carrier Strike Group could certainly function as a deterrent against Iranian hostility, given that it brings massive amounts of U.S. power-projection options to the area.

Carrier launched attack planes could easily reach sensitive targets over Iran from the ocean, destroyer and cruiser-fired Tomahawks could threaten most of Iran from great distances, and of course ships could send a sphere of unmanned systems to include supporting aerial drones, undersea robots and surface-operating mine-sweepers.

When it comes to Iran’s sizable arsenal of ballistic missiles, Carrier Strike Groups present deterrents as well in the form of interceptors able to protect U.S. and allied interests in the area. SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors, integrated with ship-based Aegis radar systems and fire control, could track and take out Iranian ballistic missiles.

These kinds of operations can serve a two-fold presence; they can reassure allies and strengthen partnerships through collaborative training exercises, while also sending a clear signal to Iran that, should it wish to engage in any hostile provocations, the United States will be ready.

Finally, while Iran is less likely to launch a major war campaign against U.S. interests, having Carrier Strike Groups appear in the area serves as a powerful reminder to Iran about the massive extent of U.S. firepower available in the event of unanticipated conflict.

Kris Osborn is Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Jeudi 17 septembre, Clément Beaune, secrétaire d’État aux Affaires européennes, était l’invité sur France Inter de Nicolas Demorand et Léa Salamé dans l’émission « Le Grand Entretien », pour discuter de l’Europe et notamment faire suite au discours prononcé par la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen. A l’occasion de cet entretien, son article « L’Europe par-delà le COVID-19 », publié dans le numéro 3/2020 de Politique étrangère, a été cité.

[Extrait de l’entretien – 23’43]

Léa Salamé : « Dans un grand texte dans la revue Politique étrangère, vous proposez de mettre des visages de grands Européens ou de grandes Européennes sur les billets de banque au lieu des représentations abstraites qui s’y trouvent. Quels visages, quels grands noms européens méritent sa place sur un billet ? »

Clément Beaune : « Je pense que ce serait une grande avancée car l’Europe est trop belle pour être représentée par de tristes fenêtres ou ponts qui ne parlent à personne. »

L. S. : « Alors qui ? »

C. B. : « Simone Veil, Erasme, puisque nous parlions de déplacements et qu’Erasmus c’est quand même une réalisation européenne, et je pense que même des contemporains pourraient donner un éclairage concret. Jacques Delors, qui est un grand européen, pourrait être un visage qui réunit. Je pense qu’il ne faut pas seulement que ce soit des politiques, mais des philosophes, des intellectuels, parce que l’Europe on n’y va pas par l’économie ou le marché, on y va par la culture. »

Réécoutez le podcast de l’émission ici.
Relisez l’article de Clément Beaune ici.
Retrouvez le sommaire complet du numéro 3/2020 de Politique étrangère ici.

Le dossier du dernier numéro de Politique étrangère (n° 3/2020), consacré au COVID-19, regroupe notamment 4 textes abordant différentes conséquences économiques liées à la pandémie du coronavirus.

• « Le COVID-19, accélérateur de la post-mondialisation« , par Norbert Gaillard
  La mondialisation a généré des interdépendances, dont les effets néfastes ont pu être constatés à l’occasion de la pandémie de COVID-19. Plusieurs pays européens ont ainsi dû faire face à une pénurie de produits sanitaires essentiels. L’Europe est amenée à tirer les leçons de cette crise et à entrer de plain-pied dans l’ère de la post-globalisation. Elle devra réduire sa dépendance à l’égard de pays qui ne respectent pas les règles du libéralisme, en particulier la Chine.
  
• « La souveraineté industrielle au révélateur du COVID-19« , par Elie Cohen
  Au cours des vingt dernières années, la France s’est désindustrialisée, a délocalisé et étendu ses chaînes de valeur. Cette tendance s’est traduite, pendant la crise du COVID-19, par des pénuries de produits sanitaires et une dépendance à l’égard de la Chine. Pour éviter qu’une telle situation ne se reproduise, plusieurs stratégies peuvent être envisagées. L’Union européenne sera amenée à jouer un rôle important dans le renforcement de la résilience économique de ses États membres.
  
• « Le secteur financier face au choc du COVID-19« , par Arnaud Odier
  Les mesures de confinement prises pour endiguer l’épidémie de COVID-19 ont provoqué une crise économique inédite. Celle-ci n’est pas comparable à la crise financière de 2008, dont la cause était endogène. Pour limiter l’impact de la récession, les gouvernants creusent les déficits publics et comptent sur l’intervention des banques centrales. La reprise économique et la sauvegarde de l’emploi dépendront de la capacité du secteur financier à se mettre au service de l’économie réelle.
  
• « D’une crise l’autre« , par Jean-François Gayraud
  Les crises financière de 2008 et sanitaire de 2020 ne résultent pas de la fatalité mais bien d’actions humaines. Elles illustrent certaines dérives du système international et de la mondialisation. Cupidité corruptrice, criminalisation des économies, propension au mensonge, tendance à oublier les leçons de l’histoire : tels sont quelques-uns des ingrédients de ces crises. La pandémie de COVID-19 risque d’engendrer une accélération des comportements prédateurs, notamment de la Chine.

Retrouvez le sommaire complet du numéro 3/2020 de Politique étrangère ici.

— Qu'on lui coupe la tête ! Qu'on lui… -- Nonsense ! s'exclama Alice d'une voix forte et décidée. Lewis Carroll Qu'il y ait oppression à l'encontre des jeunes, et qu'on ait pu parler de « jeunisme » comme on dit « racisme » — violence policière au coin d'une rue, ou travail sous-payé, brimades et (...) / France, Éducation, Histoire, Idées, Jeunes, Société - 1979/05

Dans le cadre de l’Académie de Berlin réunie à l’ambassade, M. François Villeroy de Galhau, Gouverneur de la Banque de France, a prononcé le 10 septembre 2020 un discours sur la situation actuelle : « La France et l’Allemagne face aux défis de la crise en Europe ». Il a cité à cette occasion l’article de Clément Beaune, secrétaire d’État chargé des Affaires européennes, publié dans le nouveau numéro de Politique étrangère (n° 3/2020) : « L’Europe, par-delà le COVID-19 ».

« J’ai relevé tout à l’heure la différence de vocabulaire franco-allemand : le « couple » français, le « moteur » allemand. Mais je conclus en citant un Français, Clément Beaune, le nouveau ministre des Affaires européennes, qui me paraît bien faire la synthèse « par le haut » : « La célébration est nécessaire, mais elle n’est jamais suffisante et ne dispense pas de ce qui fait depuis six décennies la force irremplaçable de la relation franco-allemande : une relation de travail, organisée à tous les étages de notre vie politique et administrative, dont la puissance vient du fait que nos deux pays ont précisément des positions souvent divergentes mais savent, dans les moments clés, les surmonter, en entraînant les autres [1] ». Entraîner les autres : c’est ce que nous avons fait en juillet 2019 avec les nominations à la Commission et la BCE, et plus encore cette année face à la crise. Ensemble, nous avons bien servi l’Europe et les Européens. Soyons sûrs d’une chose : ils auront encore besoin de notre engagement commun, sur beaucoup d’ambitions et pour longtemps. »

[1] Clément Beaune (2020), « L’Europe, par-delà le COVID-19 », Politique étrangère, automne.

Relisez l’intégralité du discours de François Villeroy de Galhau ici.
Relisez l’article de Clément Beaune ici.
Retrouvez le sommaire complet du numéro 3/2020 de Politique étrangère ici.

Le 14 septembre dernier, le site officiel de la CGTN – la TV nationale chinoise – publiait un article mettant en avant des propos extrait de l’article de Didier Houssin, « La coopération sanitaire internationale à l’épreuve du COVID-19 ».

« Chinese authorities were much quicker to report the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan at the end of 2019 than that of SARS in Guangdong Province in 2003, said a report by Professor Didier Houssin, chair of the Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The report, titled « COVID-19 Puts International Health Cooperation to the Test, » was published by the French Institute of International Relations on September 4.

« It is also clear that the Chinese authorities have quickly shared the virus sequence on international databases, » said Houssin.

A timeline reflects China’s quick response to the unexpected crisis is listed in the report.

The first report of cases of the « pneumonia of unknown cause » in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei Province, was made to the WHO China Country Office on December 31, 2019.

A novel coronavirus was quickly blamed. Its genome was quickly sequenced from several samples taken in China from patients, particularly in Hubei Province.

As of January 12, the Chinese health authorities released the genetic sequence of the new coronavirus, and shared with the WHO about information on the genome sequence.

The epidemic prevention measures taken in Wuhan had « apparent effectiveness, » said the report. […] »

Lisez la suite de cet article ici.
Accédez à l’article de Didier Houssin, en français ici.

Revenant à Chypre vingt-deux ans, presque jour pour jour, après les « événements », le voyageur ne peut qu'être frappé par les changements notables intervenus depuis. Le coup d'Etat avorté du 15 juillet 1974 contre Mgr Makarios, alors président de la République, n'est plus qu'un mauvais souvenir. Le chef (...) / Chypre, Grèce, Turquie, Conflit, Politique, Méditerranée, Mer Égée - 1996/10

/ Proche-Orient, Palestine (Jérusalem), Palestine, Colonisation, Israël - Proche-Orient / Proche-Orient, Palestine (Jérusalem), Palestine, Colonisation, Israël - Proche-Orient

Au cours des années 80, le gouvernement japonais a décidé de faire de l'aide publique au développement (APD) une priorité nationale. 1988 fut à cet égard une année décisive quand le premier ministre de l'époque, M. Takeshita Noboru, prit l'engagement de faire du Japon le premier contributeur mondial en (...) / Japon, Aide au développement - 1991/10

The history and politics of post-Soviet Belarus and Ukraine are very different. The current Belarusian transformation could be leading to results similar to those of the 2018 Velvet Revolution in Armenia, rather than to those of the 2013–2014 Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine. Yet, Moscow’s pathological imperialism towards Russia’s Eastern Slavic “brother nations” may mean that the future of Belarus will be more similar to that of Ukraine than currently appears to be the case. First published on “Utrikesmagasinet.”

Ukraine and Belarus are two of the culturally closest nations of Europe. Their Eastern Slavic languages, major Christian-Orthodox сhurches, and locations between Russia on the one side, and the EU as well as NATO on the other, are comparable and intertwined. Both are, on one level, very close to the also largely Orthodox and Eastern Slavic Russians. Yet, the Ukrainians and Belarusians are, as post-colonial people, on another level, fundamentally different from post- and neo-imperial Russians whose international ambitions are partly more similar to those of today’s Turks and Chinese.

While some Ukrainian fringe groups harbor irredentist dreams towards southern Russia’s Kuban region, hegemonic transborder pretenses can be found neither in Ukrainian nor in Belarusian mainstream political discourses. Ukrainians and Belarusians are – unlike many Russians, Hungarians or Serbs – territorially saturated people. In spite of these and other substantive and structural resemblances between Belarus and Ukraine, most commentators – whether Western, Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian – today emphasize the differences rather than similarities between the two brother nations. “Belarus is NOT Ukraine!” is the core message of many politicians and experts in recent comments on the ongoing electoral uprising in Minsk.

Differences between Belarus and Ukraine

Indeed, the Belarusians have a pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet history that is distinct from that of the Ukrainians. Belarusian nationalism during the Tsarist period was much weaker than Ukrainian liberationism and ethno-centrism – an important dissimilarity still relevant today. The Belarusian diaspora during the Cold War was less organized and active than the far more visible Ukrainian émigré communities of Western Europe and North America. Last but not least, the new Belarusian state has – unlike the Ukrainian one – participated in several of Russia’s various neo-imperial organizational schemes after 1991.

Above all, Belarus was a co-founder of the two principal organizations holding together Moscow’s hegemonic realm on the territory of the former Tsarist and Soviet empires today. Minsk stood at the roots of the so-called Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russia-dominated sort of “Warsaw Pact 2.0.” The CSTO was, hardly by accident, founded on Putin’s 50th birthday, in then Communist Party-ruled Moldova, on 7 October 2002.

Belarus was also a founding member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) whose initial trilateral treaty was signed by Moscow, Minsk and Astana in the midst of the Kremlin’s escalation of its hybrid war against Ukraine, on 29 May 2014. A Moscow-directed pseudo-copy of the EU, the EEU has taken over considerable national prerogatives, in such fields as trade and production regulation, from its member states. The EEU is today the major vehicle for the Kremlin’s promotion of Russia as an independent global “pole” in a supposedly multi-polar world. Belarus is important for the Kremlin’s geopolitical mirage as it is the only country that provides the EEU with an, in terms of geography, exclusively European element (Armenia is culturally European, yet geographically Asian).    

Moreover, Belarus signed on 8 December 1999 – exactly eight years after conclusion of the Belovezh Accords that had dissolved the USSR – a Treaty on the Foundation of a Union State with Russia. Soon this historical document was fully ratified by both countries. Yet, the Union Treaty has paradoxically not led to the emergence of a new political union so far. In spite of the appearance of certain institutional trappings, the Russian-Belarusian Union State exists only on paper.

Nothing even remotely similar has ever been the official policy of Kyiv. Contrary to frequent misperception, Kyiv has been more or less pro-European under almost all of its leaders since 1991 – and not merely under its loudly pro-Western presidents Viktor Yushchenko (2005–2010) and Petro Poroshenko (2014–2019). With a presidential decree, Kyiv declared full EU membership as an official aim already in 1998. The Verkhovna Rada (Supreme Council), Ukraine’s unicameral parliament, wrote the aim of accession to the EU and NATO into Ukraine’s National Security Law in 2003, and into the Ukrainian Constitution in 2019. The conclusion of an Association Agreement with Brussels in 2014 is seen, in Kyiv, as a fundamentally insufficient arrangement. The Association Agreement is understood by many Ukrainians as being merely a step towards full membership in the EU.

These are some of the facets that mark Ukraine and Belarus as different geopolitical entities in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the closest post-Soviet equivalent to the Belarus case appears to be Armenia which looks similar in terms of its links to Russia and recent history. Like Belarus, Armenia is a member of the CSTO and EEU as well economically tied to Russia. While Minsk is Moscow’s closest partner in East-Central Europe, Armenia is the most pro-Russian country in the Southern Caucasus. Moreover, in 2018, Armenia experienced an electoral uprising that is not dissimilar to Belarus’s in 2020. Like the recent protests in Belarus, the Armenian Velvet Revolution had no geopolitical dimensions, and led merely to the replacement of an old-style politician with a new reformist leader. The ousted Armenian leader Serzh Sargsian and Aliaksandr Lukashenka were born only two months apart, in 1954. The new Armenian leadership under Nikol Pashinian has been following an internally reformist and externally conservative course.

Pashinian’s combination of domestic reforms with foreign continuity is similar to the current discourse in and around Belarus. Preserving close ties to Moscow while resetting a petrified political system is what is expected from, and intended by, the Coordination Council of the Belarus opposition. The relatively stable development in Armenia since the change of power in Yerevan in 2018 appears to be Belarus’s future to expect after Lukashenka’s departure. What many observers foresee, prefer and advise today with regard to Belarus is, in a way, a repetition of Armenia’s rather than Ukraine’s post-revolutionary path.

Why Belarus’s transition may become different from Armenia’s

Yet, things may be not as easy it seems, at first glance, for the future of the Belarusian regime change. Not only is the 2020 ouster of Lukashenka turning out to be far more challenging than the relatively quick and peaceful disposal of his age-mate Sargsian in 2018. The stance of Russian imperialism vis-à-vis Belarusian nationalism is more complicated than Moscow’s relatively simple hegemon-client relationship with Yerevan. Armenia could conduct a Velvet Revolution under slogans of national pride, dignity and freedom without stirring up larger emotions in Moscow, as long as Yerevan had no plans to leave the EEU and CSTO.

The 2020 use of ethno-national symbols and rhetoric in Belarus, in contrast, is more irritating for imperial nationalists in Russia than Armenians’ celebrations of their nationhood had been in 2018. Belarusian nationalism has a more pronounced European dimension and is geographically closer to the core of Europe than Armenian nationalism. A citizen of Belarus who identifies her- or himself as an ethnic or political Belarusian rather than in pan-national Eastern Slavic terms will tend to see the people of Belarus as, above all, belonging to Europe. That could, in principle, be unproblematic vis-à-vis Moscow as long as Russians too define themselves as first and foremost as Europeans.

Yet “Eurasia”, rather than merely Eastern Europe, is the name that Moscow chose in 2015 for the transnational realm that it claims to be the center of, and even for the continent it is located in. One wonders how much nationally awakened Belarusians will be willing to follow the Kremlin in this demarcation of a unique civilizational realm distinct from EU and the West. If the Russians insist on being Eurasians rather than Europeans, that could be unproblematic for some Armenians who, given their geographical location, may be willing to embrace such a mixed definition of their identity. Yet, a nationally aware Belarusian may have problems to accept belonging to a larger cultural “Eurasian” collective rather than the familiar European civilization.

Moreover, the geopolitical ambition of the Kremlin with regard to Eastern Slavic nations is different from that concerning Southern Caucasian people – a lesson that Ukrainians have bitterly learnt since 2014. Moscow is today satisfied with Yerevan’s continuance in the EEU and CSTO. Yet, with regard to Russia’s Western border, many in Moscow are still dreaming of a Belarusian-Russian political unification (as well as of various expansionist forays into Ukraine). To be sure, this pan-Slavic vision of Russian imperialists has also been surprisingly popular within Belarus, until recently. Yet, the current celebration of Belarusian nationhood, people’s power and individual freedom that the anti-Lukashenka protests have triggered are changing public perceptions of state-society relations in Belarus, by the day.

The liberationist pathos of the 2020 protests is posing a double conceptual problem for a future realization of the Belarusian-Russian union. One is on the structural level, as it is clear not least to Belarusians themselves that a Russian-Belarusian union will not be a merger of equals. The entire population of Belarus is only slightly larger than that of greater Moscow.

The protesters today insist on the popular sovereignty of the Belarusian political nation. One way they express this is with a national flag which is not the Belarusian state’s official banner. Today’s protesters in Belarus are thus, in some ways, more radical than the Ukrainian 2004 and 2013–2014 revolutionaries who used the official Ukrainian national flag (apart from numerous party banners) as the main non-partisan visual marker symbolizing their fight for popular sovereignty. Will Belarusians, after their exhausting protests, agree to belong to a union state with a different banner than the one they have used, and with its power center in Moscow rather than Minsk?

The second conceptual problem lies in the similarities of Lukashenka’s and Putin’s political regimes and economies. Many Belarusian may be happy, in principal, to enter a union with Russia. But a Russia that is ruled by another long-term president who is even older than the hated Lukashenka and that has a political system rather similar to Lukashenka’s may be unattractive also for Belarusian russophiles. That will be even more so if Russia’s economy remains hampered by deep structural problems and accumulating foreign sanctions.

Armenians may also have second thoughts about their economy’s integration with Russia’s. Yet Yerevan’s alliance with Moscow is more geopolitical than geoeconomic. Rather than economic interest, the prime kit holding the Armenian-Russian alliance together is Yerevan’s engagement in a risky territorial conflict with Baku over Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region. There is – at least, on the surface – no comparable geostrategic imperative making Minsk dependent on Moscow. Instead, the Belarusian economy’s orientation towards Russia’s markets and energy have been the prime movers of integration between the two countries. Yet, what happens if the Russian markets for Belarusian commodities continue to shrink, and if the world price for fossil energy resources remains low?

Conclusions

Certainly, Belarus is not Ukraine. But it is also not Armenia. Such assertions may sound trivial or even ridiculous. However, the practical implications of the latter claim have grave repercussions for the geopolitics of Eastern Europe. If Belarus cannot easily follow Armenia’s post-revolutionary conciliatory path: Which exact way is it going to go? If the modern Belarusian nation emerging from the protests is defining itself as European rather than Eurasian: What implications has this, for instance, for Belarus’s continuance in the Eurasian Economic Union?

If post-revolutionary Belarusian nationalism is unsuitable for submission to a Russian-Belarusian union state: What will the Kremlin’s opinion on, and way to deal with, such a problem be? The presumed real winner of the August 2020 Belarusian presidential elections Svetlana Tykhanovskaia confirmed in an interview that Crimea legally belongs to Ukraine. She thereby manifestly violated Putin’s 2020 Constitution that explicitly forbids any questioning of the integrity of Russia’s territory to which, according to the Russian Constitution, Crimea belongs. How will this and many other ideological differences between the modern outlook of the Belarusian opposition, on the one side, and the neo-imperial worldview of Russia’s current leadership, on the other, be reconciled? And what will Moscow decide to do, if it comes to the conclusion that these contradictions cannot be diplomatically resolved?

In the worst case, Belarus’s fate may become more similar to Ukraine’s than the two nations’ very different modern histories and international embeddedness suggest. As long as irredentism and revanchism remain major determinants of Russian foreign political behavior, the principal distinctions between Ukrainian and Belarusian national self-identification and foreign orientation may be too small to make a notable difference for Moscow. Post-revolutionary Belarus may, from the Kremlin’s viewpoint, have to submit to a Russia-dominated union state and to accept its belonging to Eurasia rather than Europe. If not, the greater moderation of Belarusian protesters in comparison to Ukrainian revolutionaries may be of little consequence for Moscow.

The continuing friendliness of today’s Belarusians towards Russia, during and after the protests, may be insufficient to compensate for their dangerously growing lack of submissiveness. Unless Russia itself and especially her foreign outlook changes soon and deeply, Russian-Belarusian may be heading for a showdown. Perhaps, the best chance for a post-Lukashenka Belarus to avoid a fate similar to that of post-Yanukovych Ukraine is a major political transition in Russia. Not merely would Putin have to be replaced, , but also the Putinist domestic regime and foreign doctrine. A principal international reorientation in Moscow and a Russian retreat from neo-imperialist projects could mean that Belarus will, after all, be similar to Ukraine. If allowed to follow the geopolitical path of Kyiv, Minsk will likely also turn towards the West rather than continue its traditional pro-Russian path.

Dix-septième chambre du tribunal de Bobigny, novembre 2005 : une pluie de condamnations tombe sur les jeunes des cités populaires ; les protagonistes de l'embrasement des banlieues sont pris dans le filet pénal. Durant les quinze premiers jours du mois, pas moins de 115 d'entre eux sont présentés (...) / France, Criminalité, Jeunes, Banlieue - 2006/11 Dégâts et débats

Deux mois d'élections ont fait resurgir un groupe social dont les responsables politiques et les commentateurs ne soupçonnaient plus l'existence : « les ouvriers ». Simultanément, ces scrutins paraissent avoir signé la disparition, dans ce qui tient lieu de débat politique, de la question de la (...) / France, Politique - 2002/07