Diplomacy & Crisis News

Violent demonstrations have shattered Sheikh Hasina’s aura of invincibility.

Negotiations are expected to occur in a few weeks with a focus on super-pollutants.

The Republican ticket has unified—around a fundamentally unrealistic foreign policy.

Summary and Key Points: Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, has been stuck in drydock undergoing prolonged and problematic modernization efforts. Originally launched in the 1980s, the carrier has faced numerous issues, including design flaws, outdated mazut fuel, and significant operational failures.

-Kuznetsov has been beset by multiple fires, a falling crane, and embezzlement scandals at its repair shipyard.

-Despite plans to return it to service by the end of 2024, its troubled history and the ongoing Ukraine invasion suggest that it may never sail again. Scrapping the carrier could be the most practical option for Moscow.

Is It Time for Russia to Scrap the Embattled Admiral Kuznetsov?

The refit of Russia’s sole aircraft carrier goes on with no end in sight. For years now, Admiral Kuznetsov has been virtually wasting away at various shipyards as it undergoes “modernization” efforts on drydock. The plagued carrier might not ever enter service again. Even if the flagship of the Russian Navy does make it back out to sea, its troubled history, design flaws, and underwhelming capabilities will sideline the vessel. It will be more of a burden than an asset. 

Admiral Kuznetsov was supposed to venture from the port of Murmansk this year after spending nearly a decade tied to the dock. According to Russian state-run media last summer, the country’s only aircraft carrier was nearing the end of its refit saga. 

But this did not happen. The Soviet-era flattop remains dry-docked in Murmansk. As TASS reported: "According to the adjusted plan, factory sea trials of the aircraft carrier should begin in the spring of 2024. If the tests pass without glitches, then the ship can be handed over to the fleet at the end of 2024. If something goes wrong during the tests, then a shift to 2025 is inevitable." 

Clearly, Kuznetsov did not pass these initial tests.

Introducing Admiral Kuznetsov

Russia’s sole carrier was constructed by the Black Sea Shipyard during the Cold War and officially launched in the mid-1980s. Intended as the lead ship of a two-ship Kuznetsov class, the dissolution of the Soviet Union left Kuznetsov an only child. 

Kuznetsov was originally laid down as “Riga,” followed by “Leonid Brezhnev” and later “Tbilisi.” Ultimately, the carrier was renamed to honor Soviet Admiral Flota Sovetskoho Soyuza Kuznetsov. The Soviets intended Kuznetsov to function as a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser during the Cold War, capable of supporting and defending missile-carrying submarines and other aircraft. However, the carrier’s design flaws, infrastructure issues, and perhaps bad luck have prevented her from achieving any of these missions.

Russia’s Sole Aircraft Carrier May Be Cursed 

Unlike modern carriers that are powered by nuclear energy, Kuznetsov runs on a goopy, tar-like substance called mazut. During the Cold War, this fuel source was popular due to its thick viscosity. While older military and commercial vessels relied on mazut in the past, the substance’s numerous shortcomings have led manufacturers to use nuclear or gas turbine propulsion systems instead. 

Kuznetsov was simply not built to withstand its intended service life. Poor piping installed during the carrier’s initial construction prevents its boilers from operating at full capacity simultaneously. This issue has only confounded the mazut’s drawbacks, as proper boiler and piping installations are required to ensure it can be adequately preheated and pressurized.

As previously detailed by Harrison Kass, “Mazut would be considered a Bunker B or Bunker C fuel. Bunker fuels, which is a colloquial term for the fuel oil that marine vessels use, are divided into A, B, or C classifications, based on their boiling points, carbon-chain lengths, and viscosities. A is the highest quality classification. C is the lowest. Lower quality fuel emissions, like mazut’s, typically produce large amounts of sulfur and have negative effects on the environment and human health.”

Kuznetsov’s mazut issue is not the carrier’s only limiting factor. The Russian carrier uses a simple bow ramp to carry out flight operations, while its foreign near-peers have shifted to magnetic-powered catapults and steam-powered catapults that work much better. The first and only time Kuznetsov used this system in combat was in 2016-2017, when she deployed to Syria. Two airframes were lost due to faulty arresting wires during this stint in the Middle East, essentially proving the carrier useless.

Should Moscow Scrap Admiral Kuznetsov Once and for All?

Kuznetsov’s Syria deployment is just one chapter in a desultory history. Between 2016 and 2022, the carrier suffered from multiple fires onboard, a falling crane, and even a crime of embezzlement relating to the shipyard where she once underwent repairs. It appears Kuznetsov will not re-enter service with the Russian Navy as planned by the end of the year.

Considering the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, it is unlikely the carrier will receive enough resources, funding, and labor to enable her to sail the seas any time soon. Perhaps nixing Kuznetsov altogether is the best plan of action for Moscow.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

The former president’s health and mental acuity haven’t received nearly enough scrutiny.

Now that Democrats have installed Kamala Harris as the presumptive 2024 nominee, focus is shifting to who Harris may pick as her running mate. The Vice President pick is typically about pure political calculus – geography, deficiency balance, demography balance – and Harris’s pick will be no different.

Here are a few of the leading candidates, in no particular order.

Senator Mark Kelly

Mark Kelly probably has the most compelling biography in the Democratic Party. Combat pilot. Test pilot. Astronaut. Husband of a gun-violence victim (who happened to be a sitting congresswoman). Senator. The Kelly template is reminiscent of John Glenn’s, who pivoted from fighter pilot to the Mercury program, where he became the first American to orbit the Earth in Friendship VII, before serving as the US Senator from Ohio.

Glenn is an American icon, who enjoys broader name recognition than Kelly, for his early NASA exploits, although Kelly spent significantly more time in space (four Space Shuttle missions versus Glenn’s one Mercury mission).

Unlike Glenn, Kelly is not quite a national figure (politically). Yet Kelly has that moderate appeal (as a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter) that could help Harris attract independents. Oh, and Kelly represents Arizona – a vital swing state that will help decide the entire election.

Governor Josh Shapiro

“Perhaps nobody in the Democratic Party right now is a bigger rising star,” The Washington Post wrote of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. The former attorney general could become the first Jewish person ever elected on a presidential ticket and could help Harris compete for Pennsylvania’s all-important 19 electoral votes.

Shapiro could also help the Harris ticket appeal to independents and moderates. “More than 3 in 10 Pennsylvania Donald Trump supporters also supported Shapiro,” The Washington Post reported.  

Shapiro, like Kelly, is newer to national politics – and may seem green for a national ticket.

Governor Roy Cooper

Californian Kamala Harris could help bolster her credentials in the South with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. The second-term governor is a household name in North Carolina, where he has served in office since the 1980s.

Cooper remains extremely popular in North Carolina, where has won five statewide campaigns – in years that Republicans carried the state for the presidential election. Cooper is the most experienced, and presumably, the most politically savvy name on Harris’s shortlist. Cooper is also older, however, at 67 – which may be more of a turn-off than usual, given the concerns over Biden’s age, and the hype over Harris’s relative youth.  

Governor J.B. Pritzker

Governor J.B. Pritzker is well-established in elite Democratic circles, and, not coincidentally, happens to be a billionaire. Accordingly, Pritzker could help bring some mainstream and financial clout to the ticket (not that the ticket will be lacking in either).

But while Pritzker has been a competent governor, he doesn’t have the geographic appeal; Illinois is a solidly blue state that Harris likely has in the bag. What Harris needs on the ticket is someone who can help her win votes she would not otherwise earn. Pritzker may prove to be an electoral redundancy.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Will the U.S. Navy replace its dedicated electronic warfare fighter jet with a new aircraft? Based on some recent statements by Boeing officials, it looks like that the Navy is thinking of replacing the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare fighter jet with an improved version of the brand new F-15EX Eagle II.

F-15EX Eagle II: A New Electronic Warfare Fighter Jet?

To begin with, electronic warfare aircraft like the EA-18G Growler have a niche but very important mission: find and suppress enemy radar and radio by jamming and kinetic strikes to enable other fighter jets and bombers to complete their missions.

As air defense weapon systems and sensors become more advanced so electronic warfare aircraft become more important on the battlefield.

In a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific, electronic warfare aircraft would play a key role in helping the U.S. military and its allies establish air superiority. Beijing has invested heavily in Anti-Access/Aerial Denial (A2/AD) systems to restrict the capabilities of the Navy and prevent its aircraft carriers from entering the fray in force. Several of these A2/AD systems rely on powerful sensors and radars to perform their mission. This is where electronic warfare aircraft like the EA-18G Growler come into play.

A New Electronic Warfare Fighter Jet?

According to Boeing’s executive director for fighter jet business development, Rob Novotny, the defense and aerospace giant is evaluating the technical feasibility of introducing the electronic warfare capabilities of the EA-18G Growler into the F-15EX Eagle II platform.

The Boeing official highlighted that the project is quite new and is currently undergoing the initial stages of determining viability. In terms of potential clients, Novotny said that both NATO and U.S. allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific would likely be interested.

The F-15EX Eagle II is the newest fighter jet in the U.S. military. A 4.5th generation aircraft, the F-15EX Eagle II is a multirole aircraft that can achieve both air superiority and deliver accurate strikes on the ground. The Air National Guard received its first operational F-15EX Eagle IIs this summer.

The Navy has been using the EA-18G Growler operationally since 2009 and today flies approximately 150 aircraft of this type. Based on the structure of the F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet, the EA-18G Growler is expected to go out of production in the next few years, thus encouraging discussion about the Navy’s future electronic warfare capability.

“Modern aerial combat requires command of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this platform would lead the way into the next decade or two,” Novotny said. 

The brand new F-35C Lightning II stealth fighter jet that is gradually entering service for the Navy is also capable of electronic warfare missions, but the EG-18 Growler remains the only dedicated aircraft for that type of mission in America’s naval air fleet.

There is an argument that giving the electronic warfare mission to the F-35C would be the better option, given the aircraft’s stealth capabilities. However, there is another argument that electronic warfare capability could create stealth conditions if enemy sensors are taken out from afar via electronic warfare means.

“Stealth means, to me, I can go to a place where the enemy doesn’t want me to go, and I can operate in their environment, achieve my objective, and not be targeted,” the Boeing official added. 

About the Author

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Last month’s Russia-North Korea summit was a reminder of the dangers of bilateral military cooperation between the two rogue regimes. 

Pyongyang has provided millions of artillery rounds and dozens of missiles to prolong Moscow’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. In return, Pyongyang receives economic benefits and potentially high-end military technology.

Less noticed were pledges by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to augment bilateral trade. Resulting measures could increase the already extensive numbers of North Korean workers in Russia. These workers, along with those sent to China and other countries, work in violation of UN resolutions. They allow the Kim regime to evade international sanctions by earning foreign currency for its prohibited nuclear and missile programs.

North Korea, for decades, sent its citizens to work abroad for wages that benefit the regime. However, UN Security Council Resolution 2397, adopted in December 2017, required UN member-states to repatriate all North Korean workers within their borders by December 2019.

Despite this edict, more than 100,000 North Korean laborers continue to work in 40 countries, though predominantly in China and Russia. They generate an estimated annual revenue of $500 million for Pyongyang. They labor in factories, agriculture, construction, logging camps, and mining operations. North Korea also operates restaurants in at least five countries, generating $700 million in annual revenue for the regime.

In December 2023, a Russian Construction Ministry official announced that Moscow requested 2,000 workers from North Korea in order to address labor shortages in Siberia. In February 2024, hundreds of North Korean workers were seen disembarking from a train near Vladivostok. In April 2024, North Korea sent workers to the Russian-occupied Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine.

In 2022, Chinese officials indicated there were 80,000 North Koreans just in Dandong, a seafood industry hub. Large groups of North Koreans have been sent to work at clothing and electronics parts factories in China’s Jilin Province.

North Korean overseas workers are exploited. They work in highly abusive conditions and in violation of international labor laws. The workers usually receive only 10% to 30% of their salary, with the rest provided directly to the North Korean government. Workers have to relinquish their passports and often work between 14 and 16 hours a day, with no holidays, except perhaps for one day a month. They can suffer confinement, beatings, and sexual exploitation.

Recently, North Korean workers in China engaged in strikes and riots after not receiving wages for several years. In January 2024, some 2,000 North Korean workers occupied a factory in Jilin Province, beating to death a North Korean official in charge of managing them, to protest unpaid wages.

In addition to laborers, North Korea sends IT workers overseas for activities both illicit and legitimate (though still UN-proscribed). The North Koreans use false foreign identities to fraudulently gain employment as freelance computer engineers with technology and virtual currency companies. Thousands of highly skilled North Korean information technology workers currently operate in Belarus, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Russia, and Singapore.

Some North Korean IT workers can earn more than $300,000 per year, with 90% of the wages going to the regime. Most of the North Korean IT workers are engaged in non-hacking computer activity, but they are often involved in virtual currency companies and are able to launder illicitly obtained funds back to North Korea. Some use their access to foreign companies to carry out malicious cyber activities.

In May 2024, the United States announced charges against an Arizona woman, a Ukrainian man, and three foreign nationals on allegations of illegally helping North Korean IT workers pose as U.S. citizens and gain employment with 300 unwitting U.S. companies. The scam provided money and proprietary information to the North Korean regime.

Identifying and exposing North Korean violations will be harder after Russia vetoed the annual reauthorization mandate for the UN Panel of Experts created in 2009 to identify evidence of violations of UN resolutions. The panel also monitored and publicized UN member-states’ compliance with enforcing required sanctions.

Half-hearted enforcement of U.S. laws and UN sanctions by the Biden administration undermines the effectiveness of international efforts to hold North Korea, and other nations, accountable for violating those laws. The U.S. has also long refrained from going after Chinese and Russian banks and businesses assisting North Korea’s illicit nuclear and missile programs.

The U.S. should target North Korean overseas workers by requesting countries eject North Korean workers lest they face secondary sanctions against their companies, government agencies, or financial institutions.

Similarly, Washington should impose sanctions against any entity supporting North Korean cybercrimes and malicious cyber activity, including by providing technology, equipment, training, and safe haven to North Korean hackers.

Washington should take the lead in working with foreign governments to reduce Pyongyang’s use of illicit means to finance its growing military threat to the region and to the American homeland.

About the Author: Bruce Klingner

Bruce Klingner is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation. He previously served 20 years with the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, including as CIA’s Deputy Division Chief for Korea.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Demonstrations in New Caledonia, which legally belongs to French sovereignty, caused a diplomatic row between France and Azerbaijan. The demonstrations and tensions in New Caledonia began after a public debate in the country about a new voting law, which, according to supporters of independence from France, discriminates against the indigenous population – the Kanaks.

The French claimed that they had noticed another flag flying in the demonstrations alongside the Kanak flag and it was the flag of Azerbaijan. Another claim of the French against Azerbaijan is that suddenly there is a group within Azerbaijan that is connected to the government and publicly supports the people of New Caledonia in their struggle against France. This, although difficult to define as “conclusive evidence”, was enough for the authorities in France to assume that there are people in Azerbaijan who support New Caledonia. The French were not satisfied with suspicions, but they issued statements and publicly blamed Azerbaijan for the instability in New Caledonia.

Another thing that caused France to raise its suspicions towards Azerbaijan as a country that interferes in the internal affairs of France, is the involvement and support of Azerbaijan in the NAM movement, or its full name “The Non-Aligned Movement”. NAM is a movement that began in the 1960s to help developing countries liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism (with an emphasis on the countries of the Soviet Union, because during the founding period, the Cold War took place) to conduct themselves independently, without external intervention of the big powers.

In addition to this, NAM works to help peoples who cry out for independence to get their independence politically, economically, and socially. The principles that guide the NAM movement and the country of Azerbaijan, which is itself a country that has been liberated from colonialism for many years, will make it easy for the movement and the country to cooperate over the years. It was accompanied by a common desire in French colonies.

Although France is no longer a power since the beginning of the last century, it no longer controls half of the world, but it has not given up its influence in the countries and regions it controls.  France actually wants influence economically, politically, and militarily also in the lands it left a long time ago. Allowing this is called “neo-colonialism” these days. Because of France’s foreign policy towards the countries it liberated, it managed to arouse the ire of all kinds of anti-colonial movements around the world, including in New Caledonia. Instead of the people in power having a reckoning with France regarding France’s foreign policy and its attitude towards countries affected by them, they preferred to find a scapegoat to take the blame for the instability in the French colonies.

One would think that because of France’s way of acting with its colonies and the countries that were formerly its colonies, it would ideologically support countries that want to expand their territory, but no. French hypocrisy came out in full force when it came to the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. France supported Armenian separatism in the Karabakh region and Armenia’s military terrorist operations nearby. France tried to circumvent the just demand for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan following territorial claims by Armenia, when both houses of the French Parliament recognized the independence of the “Republic of Artsakh” in 2020, although Armenia itself did not recognize it. The French support for Armenian separatism goes well with the arguments against France, which acts selectively and cynically in everything related to support for international principles and the value of sovereignty. One can understand that what interests France are personal geopolitical interests and nothing more.

The point that the Haitian media keeps accusing Azerbaijan of anti-French potential emphasizes the French’s confidence in the lack of French foreign policy, which is characterized as colonial behavior. For example, an article from the French magazine Le Monde presents Azerbaijan’s anti-colonial actions as anti-French actions and is spreading false information about French foreign policy. It is difficult to know whether the French act this way because the French journalists really do not understand how France’s colonial foreign policy is perceived externally or because of repressed feelings of guilt from the hopes that France makes for the peoples it rules and dominates. To be sure, the sentence about the camel that cannot see its own hump does not fit the country in the same way that in this situation as it fits the description of France.

 In conclusion, it is clear to see that French foreign policy continues in many areas of the country. France’s attempts to mark Azerbaijan as undermining its sovereignty in New Caledonia, apparently stem from a search for a scapegoat in order not to give it the judgment for its actions. If not, probably out of feelings of guilt the French prefer not to see the damage they are doing and have done, to many peoples and many countries.   

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy faces significant challenges in the Indo-Pacific, particularly against China’s advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems, which threaten the traditional role of aircraft carriers.

-The potential for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan has prompted military planners to consider new strategies, including the use of autonomous drones and mobile forces to counter Chinese amphibious landings. Carriers may be repositioned as reserve forces or deceptive tools to draw Chinese resources.

-The evolving technology and strategic importance of carriers necessitate a careful reevaluation of their role in potential conflicts with China.

U.S. Aircraft Carriers in a War with China:

As the world progresses deeper into a decade of concern, military planners continue to contend with the potential of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping has made no secret of his ambitions toward the island nation. Should a military clash begin in the region, U.S. military leadership right now would be faced with several tough choices on how to respond. One of the key decisions would be how to use the U.S. Navy’s carriers. Once invulnerable floating fortresses, rapid Chinese advances in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities leave these vessels facing new and serious risks. As thinking evolves, several theories on potential uses for carriers have begun to emerge.

Carrier Vulnerabilities and Traditional Roles

Naval strategy in the Pacific during the Second World War relied heavily on carriers. Though these vessels remained vulnerable to shore-based threats, across the vast reaches of America’s island-hopping campaign they were able to protect battle fleets and landing forces while projecting power against enemy fleets and positions. 

Until the past decade or so, this is the role they would have filled in a conflict with China: sailing with impunity in the South and East China Seas, as well as the Strait of Taiwan, to rout Chinese landing forces and strike strategic locations on the mainland. 

Major advances in both the quantity and quality of Chinese anti-ship missile systems have made this strategy untenable. Recent wargames projected the U.S. would lose two carriers at the outset of hostilities simply due to their presence within range of these systems. The saturation of the combat area with A2/AD systems means the Navy will be unlikely to employ carriers in their traditional role. It appears that establishment thinking has begun to understand this and to fight against the inertia of traditional plans to explore new strategies for defending Taiwan. 

Outlining Different Strategies

It is widely recognized that allowing China unimpeded access to the Strait of Taiwan to conduct amphibious landings would result in Taiwanese defeat. While the Republic of China Armed Forces possess some capabilities to contest control of the Strait, it is likely these would be reduced to low operation capability shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, thanks to mainland China’s overwhelming quantitative superiority. 

As discussed above, conventional U.S. forces are also at risk should they attempt to project power into the Strait. This is why some leaders are looking to lessons from Ukraine to make the Strait a “hellscape” for Chinese forces. In this scenario, the U.S. floods the region with autonomous aerial, surface, and subsurface drones: cheaply made, difficult to detect, and highly lethal. The idea would be to limit the effectiveness of a Chinese landing and to buy Taiwanese and coalition defenders time to move assets into the region to blunt a Chinese assault. 

A similar plan envisions drawing high-profile U.S. forces – such as carriers – back to or behind the second island chain. In their place would remain a dispersed, mobile force “to blunt Chinese attacks and reassure allied publics.” These units would serve a similar function to the drones of the “hellscape” strategy, attacking valuable People’s Liberation Army Navy ships while incurring relatively few losses in return. While unable to fully stop an invasion, they could buy time for reserve forces to reach the battlefield. 

How Do Aircraft Carriers Fit Into the Equation?

Whatever strategy the U.S. and allies pursue, the role of carriers will need to be re-evaluated. Some thought has already gone into the more granular aspects of strategy, but there is still much room for discussion and debate. From a grand strategy perspective, carriers would be part of an outside force to assist mobile units in the first island chain. In this scenario, carriers would act almost as a reserve force to either plug any gaps on the defensive or exploit gaps on the offensive. 

Simultaneously, holding carriers out of harm's way allows them to act as a “fleet in being” and require the PLA to devote resources to A2/AD instead of offensive capabilities aimed at taking Taiwan. 

Finally, some envision upending the use case for carriers entirely and using them as a deceptive force to draw out Chinese resources without undertaking offensive missions essential to the war effort. 

Much thought must be given to the use of carriers in a conflict with China. Continued advances in technology, such as the recently unveiled AIM-174B, will also change the calculus around carrier strategy, and planners must stay abreast of such developments.

While losses happen in war, carriers represent a massive investment. The loss of a carrier would be a devastating blow, not only strategically but also to the prestige of the U.S. As such, pursuing an appropriate strategy without succumbing to risk aversion is essential.  

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s reliance on aircraft carriers faces significant threats from modern anti-ship ballistic missiles and comprehensive anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, particularly from China. The Houthis in Yemen have demonstrated the vulnerability of carriers with their missile threats, highlighting the risks from non-state actors. China's DF-21D missile, designed to target and destroy U.S. carriers, poses an even greater threat. With a range of 900 miles and advanced guidance systems, the DF-21D can evade defenses and strike with high accuracy.

The growing Chinese missile arsenal and strategic capabilities put U.S. carriers at considerable risk in the Indo-Pacific.

China’s DF-21D “Carrier Killer” Missile is Poised to Massacre American Flat Tops

The U.S. Navy has long relied on its surface fleet, notably its aircraft carriers, to project power abroad. Indeed, since 1945, the dominance of America’s flattops went essentially unchallenged for decades. But those days are over. 

The rise of anti-ship ballistic missiles and comprehensive anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities make the deployment of America’s expensive aircraft carriers dangerous at best, and a fool’s run at worst. 

Despite knowing of the growing irrelevance of America’s carrier force, to say nothing of the fact that little has been done to counter the growing A2/AD threat, Washington continues to blow through tax dollars building increasingly complex and large aircraft carriers. 

The Houthi Anti-Ship Threat

Over the last eight months, the U.S. Navy has been dogged by anti-ship missiles belonging to Iran-backed Houthi rebels fighting in Yemen. Specifically, Dwight D. Eisenhower faced the prospect that an anti-ship missile launched by the Houthis might worm its way through Ike’s shipboard defenses and strike a blow. 

And we’re talking about the Houthis, a non-state actor holed up in the deserts and mountains of Yemen. We are not describing a major power with a technologically potent, growing, modern military, such as the kind the People’s Republic of China can field. 

If you are worried about the safety of your carriers when operating near arsenals controlled by non-state terrorist groups, just imagine the lethality of the systems built and launched by China. 

China’s Threat is Greater

Enter the Dong-Feng 21-D (DF-21D), China’s premier anti-ship ballistic missile. A variant of the DF-21, which is a medium-range, road-mobile, solid-fuel ballistic missile, the DF-21D is specifically designed to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers and other large naval vessels. Married with an expansive, sophisticated, multi-layered sensor network, China’s DF-21D could be lethal against lumbering American carriers that need to arrive within their airwings’ targeting range of Chinese assets if a shooting war erupts between the two great powers.

The DF-21D has a range of approximately 1,450 kilometers (900 miles). It is capable of carrying a high-explosive warhead. DF-21Ds are equipped with a terminal guidance system that allows them to home in on the target, making it a highly accurate weapon. The missile is believed to have a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) that can evade enemy defenses. 

China has never disclosed how many of these missiles they have. One can assume, however, given the premium that Chinese strategists have placed on being able to reliably threaten U.S. carriers and other surface warships, and considering China’s manufacturing capacity, that Beijing has these systems in abundance. 

What’s more, China’s island-building program in the South China Sea, and its extensive road-mobile launch capabilities all along the Chinese coastline, add to the DF-21D’s mobility and versatility.

China Wants to Sink Three US Aircraft Carriers with the DF-21D

The DF-21D gives the U.S. Navy nightmares precisely because it has the potential to sink an aircraft carrier with a single hit. The missile’s long range allows it to be launched from Chinese territory, thus keeping the launch platforms out of harm’s way. (U.S. forces are unlikely to carry out direct strikes against the Chinese homeland.) The MARV capability makes it very difficult for the Navy to intercept this weapon before it lands a killing blow on a U.S. flattop. 

Washington has allowed itself to be outclassed by the Chinese militarily in the Indo-Pacific. If a shooting war starts, America will very much be the underdog. 

In fact, U.S. forces just might lose, unless radical changes are made to the way the U.S. military’s force is structured. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

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

From the Vault

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

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

The Soviet Union’s Yak-38 fighter was the Soviet Union’s attempt to keep up with advances in Vertical Short/Takeoff and Landing (VSTOL) capabilities in Western fighters. The Yak-38 was intended to be an aircraft carrier fighter jet, which is where so much of the Soviet mind was fixated on: challenging the Americans on the High Seas with a carrier force of their own. Hence, the Soviet Navy throwing considerable resources that the USSR did not really  have on a carrier force that would ultimately never see the light of day. 

The Yak-38 was a small but essential part of those plans. Ultimately, the Yak-38 was deemed a failure by its pilots. This bird never quite lived up to the hype surrounding it. The Yak-38 certainly did not become the world sensation, James Bond.

The biggest issue facing the Yak-38 is the fact that it took years to just ensure that the Yak-38 was in top flying form. Various tests needed to be done. The VSTOL system was especially troubling for most Soviet pilots of the Yak-38. According to Peter Suciu, the VSTOL never worked. 

When the Yak-38 was sent to fight in the Soviet-Afghan War, its engines kicked up so much dirt and muck from the ground below that the engines could get clogged, crashing the bird. What’s more, the Yak-38 had limited range and it did not fare well in the extreme heat of Afghanistan. 

The Yak-38 was a Poor Weapons Carrier

The Yak-38 also had a pathetic weapons package. It could carry little more than 4,000 pounds of armaments. And it had only four external hardpoints to carry ordnance. 

Even though the Yak-38 was designed to be used aboard Soviet helicopter carriers, Yakolev did not install a radar system on the plane. This meant that the Yak-38 could not be used very effectively in fleet defense. 

For those unaware, while carrier-based warplanes are used for offensive missions, such as bombing distant targets, another key element of carrier-based warplanes is that they are to be used to protect the fleet they’re operating from. So, if a helicopter carrier that the Yak-38 was operating from suddenly fell under attack, its fighter screen would have been very limited because of the lack of radar onboard the Yak-38.

Some Other Yak-38 Facts

As for the engine, it had a single RD-27 engine and two lift jets that, as the name suggests, allowed for vertical takeoff and landing. The only issue was that there were numerous instances where at least one of the lift jets malfunctioned, leading the other one to overcompensate, sending the bird into a tailspin, resulting in it crashing. 

Evoking Peter Suciu once more, the Soviet engineers who knew about the lift jet issues installed an automatic ejection system to better protect Soviet pilots. If that system detected sudden changes in pitch, the pilot would be ejected.

It was a significant change in Soviet military policy, which often did not value the lives of its troops and created the cheapest equipment possible rather than spend the money on safety systems. The only problem for the Soviet pilots was that the auto ejection system was very sensitive. It was triggered by accident more often than it was triggered to actually save the life of the Red pilot. Rather than saving the life of the pilot, then, it likely ruined his career for having lost an expensive platform when there was nothing wrong.

Yakolev chose the RD-27 engines to power the Yak-38 to help get the bird to near supersonic flight speeds. But this had the unfortunate effect of diminishing the range of the warbird, which is why it did not perform well in combat over Afghanistan in the 1980s. A later variant of this bird, the Yak-38M, had more powerful RD-28 engines and tougher landing gear than the original had. 

Yak-38 Displays Late-Stage Soviet Problems

The Soviet Yak-38 was a disaster. 

It was an example of inefficiency and waste that had become the hallmark of the old Soviet system (which is one primary reason behind the collapse of the USSR). Rather than ask what they really needed to make their forces competent and competitive with Western militaries, the Soviet government simply copied (badly) the Harrier jumpjets that the British and Americans were embracing. 

Not only were the Yak-38s subpar when compared with the Harriers, but they were totally unreliable in combat, either in an offensive or defensive capacity.

More gallingly, Soviet planners knew this about the Yak-38. Yet, they went on to build 241 of these units—as well as an additional 38 units of the Yak-38M (which wasn’t much better than the original Yak-38). 

About the Author 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Top Line Points: The U.S. Navy's Columbia-class submarines are set to replace the aging Ohio-class submarines, with the lead ship, USS Columbia (SSBN-826), expected to be delivered by 2027 and commissioned by 2030.

-The program faces numerous challenges, including cost overruns and delays, attributed to complex designs and America's struggling shipyard capabilities.

-The Columbia-class, with a $132 billion program cost, aims to build 12 submarines to replace 14 Ohio-class subs by the mid-2040s. Critics argue this approach is impractical, costly, and insufficient given current strategic threats, calling for radical changes in the defense industrial base.

Why the Navy's Columbia-Class Submarines Face Uncertain Future

The US Navy is building a new class of ballistic missile submarines that are meant to replace the aging Ohio-class submarines. This new class of boat, the Columbia-class is a top priority for the Navy. That’s because there have been multiple problems getting these new boats going—notably due to complications caused by America’s failing shipyard capabilities. 

The USS Columbia (SSBN-826) is the lead ship of the Columbia-class. It is currently under construction and is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy by 2027. From there, the Navy is expected to commission this new boat by 2030. 

Meanwhile, America’s critical submarine force is strained to its breaking point and needs every system it can get in the field immediately. That’s because the global threat environment is more dynamic and disfavoring of America’s current strategic position than at any time since the Interwar Years.

It is believed that the Columbia-class submarines will fully replace the Ohio-class subs by the mid-2040s, beginning with the first replacements occurring in 2031. That seems wildly impractical and stunningly long-range, considering the immediacy of the threats the military is facing. 

Cost Overruns

This program is expected to cost around $132 billion, with each Columbia-class submarine expected to run in at around $15 billion. 

Speaking of costs, there have been numerous overruns associated with the Columbia program. The Navy has attributed these overruns to various factors, including the complexity of the design, the need for new technologies, and the challenges of building the first boat of a new class. 

That, of course, is a convenient excuse papering over the fact that the US defense industrial base is so sclerotic and broken that it cannot even keep up with regular peacetime demands of maintaining the existing submarine force, let alone creating an entirely new class of submarines in a wartime environment. 

Something must change. 

And the solution won’t be found in building more expensive, more complex, and harder to maintain systems, like the Columbia-class. The solution must come in the form of radical changes to the defense industrial base and how America produces its warships, for example.

The Plan

Right now, the Navy intends to build a total of 12 Columbia-class submarines to replace the 14 Ohio-class submarines currently serving in the fleet. Whatever one may think of the star-spangled awesome new technologies incorporated into the Columbia-class submarine, one cannot help but to notice that, on top of taking an incredibly protracted period of time to replace the Ohio-class, the American taxpayers are paying more for less. 

There will be, after all, two fewer Columbia-class submarines than there are Ohio-class submarines.

Considering how most experts do not think that the Navy has enough of its existing submarines, now the Pentagon wants to retire an entire class of nuclear-powered, ballistic missile submarines and replace them with even fewer, newer warships? I understand that quality can often trump quantity. 

But honestly, Mao was right: quantity has a quality all of its own. This is a concept that China has long understood. It’s why, despite not having as comprehensively as advanced of a military as the Americans possess, it really doesn’t matter. Their forces can trust swarm American systems and destroy the more complex American systems that way.

A Columbia-class submarine is designed to have a crew of approximately 150 sailors, which is similar to the crew size of the Ohio-class submarines.

Her armaments include the Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, which are capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads.

A Columbia-class submarine has a range that will likely be similar to the Ohio-class, so around 7,000 nautical miles (just over 8,000 miles). But the submarine, like all of America’s submarines, will be nuclear-powered. In other words, its range will be virtually unlimited.

It remains to be seen, though, if the Navy will even be able to deliver on the promises of the Columbia-class submarine. And many are asking why the Navy simply isn’t focused on maintaining and expanding their existing arsenal of submarines, rather than wasting time and money (that we don’t have) on reinventing the wheel. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Constellation-class frigate program, designed to replace the aging Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, is facing significant complications due to design changes and bureaucratic miscommunications.

-Built by Fincantieri Marinette Marine, these frigates are based on the European FREMM design, but modifications requested by the Navy have led to cost overruns and delays.

-Set to debut in 2026, the program's future is uncertain amid budgetary concerns and the evolving nature of naval warfare, which raises questions about the necessity and practicality of these large manned warships in the current strategic environment.

The Navy’s Constellation-class is a Mess

The Constellation-class frigate is a new class of warship being built for the United States Navy. The lead ship of this new class of warship, the USS Constellation (FFG-62), is currently under construction at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin. The Constellation-class is based on the European FREMM frigatethat was developed by the Italian shipbuilder, Fincantieri. 

Washington’s decision to utilize a foreign shipbuilder, such as Fincantieri, to construct one of the most important vessels coming online for the surface fleet is telling within itself. It indicates that Washington is attempting to increase its naval interoperability with European navies—notably the navies belonging to NATO, which utilize the Fincantieri-built FREMM frigate. 

Needless Complications

But that has caused a ridiculous amount of complications, too. 

Notably, the US Navy attempted to inject changes to the final design of the Constellation that ultimately ruined what the Italian shipbuilder was creating. In fact, the Navy’s additional requests for the warship, after Financtieri had already started cutting the steel for the warship, jeopardizes the entire program (due to the inevitable cost overruns that will not occur).

The Constellation-class is intended to replace the Navy’s aging Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. The Navy plans to procure a total of 20 Constellation-class frigates, with the first ship expected to be delivered in 2026. 

Though, again, thanks to the unnecessary complications caused by improper communication between Navy planners and the shipbuilders at Fincantieri, that target date for deployment is unrealistic. 

Indeed, the warship has already been delayed once. Given the problems between Washington and Fincantieri, and the looming debt crisis the United States is likely to face soon, the idea that the US leadership (let alone the taxpayers) will be sanguine with this program running overbudget and overtime is low.

But the Navy persists in its plans. 

Do We Even Need a New Frigate?

Nevermind that the dawn of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) and the rise of advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities—notably potent (and cheap) anti-ship ballistic missiles—renders the idea of large manned warships somewhat obsolete. Washington believes that it’s still 1994. All we need do is tweak our procurement processes here, alter our shipbuilding standards there, and the enemies of America will just wait for us to be ready. No adaptation to us by them, let alone by us to them, is needed.

These assumptions, of course, are wrong. Deadly wrong. The French military behaved much the same way in the Interwar Years, leading to complacency and unpreparedness by their armed forces. We know what happened as a result.

Designed as a multi-mission warship capable of conducting anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare, and anti-air warfare operations, the Constellation-class is clearly borrowing from other Navy programs. 

The concept of a plug-and-play warship goes back to the Navy’s (failed) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) model. It’s akin to being a Jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none. Although, it doesn’t sound as though the Navy is as married to that failed notion with the Constellation. One can expect this warship to be a bit more conventional than was the LCS (or the Zumwalt-class destroyer for that matter). 

But how conventional or practical, especially in light of the rise of UUVs and A2/AD? 

Some Specs

The Constellation is supposed to be equipped with a variety of weapons. These weapons include the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, which can launch both anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles. It can also employ Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems. The SAMs will provide short-range air defense capabilities for a warship that will likely be exposed to serious dangers from the growing arsenals of anti-ship missiles around the world.

In terms of defenses, the Constellation-class is planned to possess the AN/SPY-6(V) radar system, which provides advanced air and missile defense capabilities. This boat is designed to house an AN/SLQ-32(V) Electronic Warfare Suite, providing the warship with electronic support and electronic attack capabilities. 

The Constellation-class will be powered by a Combined Diesel-Electric and Gas (CODLAG) propulsion system, which provides increased efficiency and flexibility compared to traditional propulsion systems. The ship’s proposed maximum range is expected to be around 6,000 nautical miles (or 6,904 miles) and her top speed is planned to be 26 knots (or just shy of 30 miles per hour). It’s a fast ship.

On paper.

As noted above (and this author has reported in earlier articles at this site), the Constellation is fraught with bureaucratic SNAFUs that jeopardize the success (and affordability) of this program. It remains to be seen if these woes can be overcome in a realistic and timely way.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force has reactivated another B-1B Lancer, nicknamed "Rage," from the "Boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. This aircraft, initially retired and preserved in Type 2000 storage, was brought back to replace a damaged B-1B.

-The Boneyard maintains a fleet of B-1Bs in a reclaimable condition, allowing for refurbishment and return to service. "Rage" will undergo extensive maintenance and upgrades before joining the frontline.

-With ongoing retirements, the Air Force is mandated to keep 45 B-1Bs operational until the B-21 Raider enters service.

-The potential restoration of other B-1Bs, including "Ruptured Duck," remains uncertain.

The B-1B Rage Bomber is Back in Service

The United States Air Force's fleet of Rockwell B-1 Lancer bombers has slowly been retired from service. There are fewer than 50 of the Cold War long-range strategic bombers in service, down from its original 100. In 2021, the fleet saw 17 bombers retired – but due to a few incidents, there have been occasions where some of the old Bones sent to the infamous "Boneyard" have returned to service.

That included the aircraft nicknamed "Lancelot," which was selected earlier this year to replace a B-1 Lancer that was damaged beyond repair after suffering an engine mishap during otherwise "routine" maintenance at Dyess Air Force Base (AFB), Texas in April 2022. The B-1 was flown to Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, to complete the regeneration process.

It was reported this week that another B-1B Lancer – nicknamed "Rage" – has also been resurrected. That aircraft, serial number 86-0115, was one of the original four out of the 17 retired bombers deemed to be maintained "in a reclaimable condition" so that they could be refurbished and returned to service. It was recently spotted flying at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. The base is home to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG), the unit that manages the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Boneyard of aircraft.

Congress has mandated that the service maintains a fleet of 45 B-1Bs – which will remain in service until the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider enters service in the coming decade.

Preserved Aircraft

Aircraft preserved at the Boneyard in reclaimable condition aren't simply left to soak in the sun. Each of the B-1s was maintained in Type 2000 storage, one level below the flyable Type 1000 storage. This entails the aircraft being covered with a silicone-like sealant, which covers gaps, engines, and all glass.

The aircraft nicknamed Rage was pulled from storage after another B-1B Lancer with the 7th Bomb Wing also experienced a fire engine failure. As the projected repairs were deemed "cost-prohibitive," the decision was made to regenerate one of the four B-1s.

As reported by The Aviationist, the Rage will still need a bit of TLC, and "will undergo depot-level maintenance to incorporate missed upgrades from its retirement years and perform a thorough check of the airframe and avionics before returning to a frontline unit."

Another B-1B to Be Restored

The AMARG should expect to have its hands full, as it is almost certain that the unit will need to pull one of the remaining two B-1Bs in reclaimable condition and prepare it for restoration. Though the Air Force hasn't announced whether B-1B 85-0085 "Ruptured Duck," which crashed at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, on January 4 of this year, will return to service – it now seems highly unlikely.

There are currently no regeneration efforts – at least none that have been announced – but it would be hard to believe that the aptly named "Ruptured Duck" will fly again. Perhaps the Air Force should have the AMARG look at those lucky 13 B-1s that aren't in Type 2000 storage and consider ensuring that there will be enough B-1s that can actually take to the skies while the B-21 Raider program comes online.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

With President Joe Biden officially out of the 2024 race Vice President Kamala Harris is on a glidepath, seemingly guaranteed to secure the Democratic nomination at next month’s convention.

But nominating Harris is no slam dunk victory for Democrats.

Rather, the party should be cautious about nominating a candidate who was essentially anointed, and who has popularity and electability problems of her own.  

Kamala Harris and Democrats Gave No Other Choice

The biggest problem with Harris’s inevitable nomination is that voters had no say whatsoever. The same could be said of Biden; Democrats failed to hold a proper primary, instead putting a heavy thumb on the scale to secure Biden’s repeat nomination.

Bypassing the primary for Biden was bad enough, deeply undemocratic, and completely pernicious. Biden may well have won a primary as an incumbent, and at least Biden can fall back on his genuine 2020 primary win amongst a crowded field as a reflection of some kind of voter endorsement, however outdated.

But when Biden stepped aside, and effectively handed the baton to Harris, all semblance of democracy was discarded.

Who decided that Harris would be the presidential nominee? Not the voters. Instead, a succession of elite elected officials threw their support behind Harris, implicitly blocking any other candidate. The cascade of endorsements started with Biden and the Clintons and proceeded from there to include just about anyone of relevance in the Democratic Party.

The reasoning was logical enough – the Party was urgent to unite and confront the looming Trump threat ASAP, and Harris was most well positioned to inherit Biden’s war chest and campaign infrastructure. Yet as convenient as the Harris tap-in was for Party elites, the simple fact remains is that voters had no say in her nomination, and that is heinously undemocratic – a fact exacerbated by the Democrat’s 2024 mantra: that Trump must be defeated because he represents an existential threat to democracy.

Well, only one of the 2024 major candidates will be democratically nominated, and it won’t be Harris.

Kamala Harris Should Give Democrats Pause

Harris will be anointed as the nominee for practical considerations. But practical considerations suggest Harris is not a great choice. Namely, Harris has an atrocious electoral history, and today, suffers from low popularity.

When Kamala Harris ran for Attorney General of California in 2010, she won. But there was a problem in Harris’s victory, something concerning; she won by a margin of less than one percent. As a Democrat. In California. Indeed, Harris almost lost to Republican candidate Steve Cooley in the rock-solid-blue Golden State. Of course, Harris did win, and went on to serve seven years as California’s Attorney General. But the close call suggested Harris wasn’t much of a campaigner and/or a politician – a suggestion that would be confirmed a decade later.

Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign opened to great fanfare, with an announcement on Good Morning America. The then-Senator was billed as a top candidate to challenge the then-incumbent Trump. But Harris ran an abysmal campaign, never threatening to poll above five percent. Rather than make a serious push for the White House, Harris’s campaign fizzled, leading to a formal (and early) withdrawal in December 2019.

Can Harris turn things around and run a better campaign for 2024? She’ll have high-end assistance and a consolidated Party. But something about Harris’s low-popularity as Vice President lends to a suspicion that her campaign troubles are no fluke; something about Harris’s political instincts just seems off – she’s certainly no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

And Democrats may well come to regret subverting democracy to anoint Harris as the Democratic nominee.   

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

With Vice President Kamala Harris all but guaranteed to be handed the Democratic nomination (without a shred of voter input, mind you), speculation over who Harris will choose as a running mate is ramping up.

One name that comes up – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – can probably be dismissed out of hand.

AOC: No Way for Vice President? 

AOC is one of the most prominent politicians in the Democratic Party. As the marquee member of ‘The Squad,’ AOC enjoys something of a cult-like following and progressive credibility – despite being a pretty token Democrat.

AOC, who conforms rather comfortably with the rest of her Party, was quick to endorse Harris as president (like the rest of the Democrats).

In doing so, AOC signaled that the progressive wing of the Party was united with the mainstream wing and that the Democrats could likely avoid a squabbling, fractious, drawn-out nominating process that would (be democratic) hinder a pivot towards assaulting the Trump candidacy.

In endorsing Harris, AOC may also have been signaling an interest in joining the ticket, as some pundits have suggested, but that seems like a long shot.

Not Qualified

AOC isn’t totally green anymore – she has been a congresswoman for eight years now. But she’s still barely 35, new to politics relative to many of her peers, and a member of the House. In modern politics, the House is not known as a launching point for the White House.

Gerald R. Ford jumped from the House to the White House – but he was pretty much running the House after an impressive tenure. He was selected to join the Nixon team mid-administration thanks to exigent circumstances (Vice President Spiro Agnew’s disgraceful exit).

AOC is not long-tenured, does not run the House, and, despite the urgency of the Harris nominating process, is not dealing with exigent circumstances.

In short, AOC is not qualified to be Vice President. Consider the list of people who have more consequential positions and/or are more established than AOC. Governors. Senators. Another cycle or two, another position, maybe in the Senate, and perhaps AOC will be a worthwhile contender. But at the moment, it’s not close.   

Bad Geography and AOC

AOC’s lack of qualifications and other practical considerations prevent it from being selected for the ticket.

The first is geography. The election will come down to a few suburban voters in a few swing states. Arizona. Georgia. Pennsylvania. Michigan. Soccer moms outside of Pittsburgh, Tempe, and Atlanta will decide in 2024, and AOC isn’t a big draw for soccer moms outside of Pittsburgh, Tempe, or Atlanta. AOC represents New York, a state that Democrats have locked down, so adding AOC to the ticket won’t do much to win new voters in the all-valuable swing states.

The candidates Harris is considering will win new voters in swing-states. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, for example. Or Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. If the popular vote determined presidential elections, then maybe a running mate like AOC, from population-dense urban centers in Democrat-country, would be viable. But as long as the electoral college is used, swing-state logic will reign.

Don’t expect Harris to select, or even seriously consider, AOC for the 2024 ticket.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot. 

Debout, poignard à la main, la louve se tient face à l'ennemi, prête à défendre l'enfant, elle-même et ce qui viendra… C'est ainsi, en la paraphrasant, qu'on imagine l'Argentine Alfonsina Storni (1892-1938). Mère à 20 ans, elle signe son premier recueil de poésie en 1916. « Passée par le tamis de toutes (...) / Argentine, Femmes, Chili, Littérature - 2024/07

Sergueï Shikalov a 38 ans. Il se souvient d'une courte période où la Russie a été différente, d'une décennie où l'on pouvait croire que le pays, sortant du choc de la transition, allait se rapprocher des normes culturelles, politiques et sociales associées à l'Europe occidentale. Pour des gays nés en (...) / Europe de l'Est, Droits des minorités - 2024/07

Countless refugees and migrants flee horrific and oppressive conditions, but there is an element in forced displacement that does not receive enough attention: the weaponization of migration by dictators. This phenomenon undermines U.S. national security interests and hinders humanitarian and development assistance globally.   

For instance, 92 percent of the 6 million Ukraine refugees created by Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war are hosted in Europe. Lithuania, Finland, Latvia, and Estonia have accused Russia and Belarus of using migration as a weapon. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk stated, “We are dealing with a coordinated, very efficient—on many levels—operation to break the Polish border and attempts to destabilize the country.”

Putin has done this before. Putin assisted Bashar al-Assad in using forced migration for his own ends, too. About 6.6 million left Syria for the Middle East and Europe, most notably Germany. In 2016, General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and head of the U.S. European Command, testified before Congress that “together Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

Wars in Ukraine and Syria understandably have large numbers of refugees. Yet surprisingly, a country not engaged in either internal or external conflict is the source of one of the largest refugee crises worldwide. Nearly 8 million refugees and migrants have fled Venezuela due to a man-made protracted crisis led by authoritarian dictator Nicolas Maduro and his criminal enterprise.

Maduro has weaponized migration to ease pressure from the United States and feed a false narrative that sanctions are causing migration. We cannot be fooled by this ruse. Heavy migration began at least five years before sanctions were imposed. Plus, exceptions in U.S. law exist so that food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance are permissible for sanctioned countries. The cause of human suffering, malnutrition, poverty, violence, and human rights violations is Maduro. However, if Maduro is allowed to steal the upcoming election just like in the past, millions more may flee in desperation.

Dictators of a feather flock together, and perhaps nobody better epitomizes the willingness of dictators to turn refugees into weapons than Daniel Ortega, as Nicaragua has become a centralized trafficking epicenter. Ortega is using security and military forces to transport people from its borders of Costa Rica to Honduras and allowing the airport to facilitate international trafficking. Hundreds of charter flights and thousands of people have already traveled through Haiti and Cuba to Nicaragua. After charter flights from as far away as India, France, and Germany were found connected to Nicaragua, the State Department last year warned of visa restrictions against companies suspected of assisting illegal migration.

Last month, the State Department finally put that warning into action and imposed visa restrictions on an executive of a charter flight company who was using Nicaragua to facilitate illegal migration. These rogue regimes also profit from the migration scheme, evidenced by the State Department acknowledging that “the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua continues to financially benefit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.”

While humanitarian assistance is needed to assist refugees, it is also impacting traditional development assistance. President and CEO of the Wilson Center and former Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Ambassador Mark A. Green recently stated: 

Humanitarian assistance is a response, an immediate response—it’s not an answer, at least not a compassionate answer. I think our job is to dust off our development tools, adapt them, reshape them, reenergize them for this generational struggle…Every dollar of humanitarian assistance must be reinforced with threads of development and resilience to help displaced communities withstand future shocks. 

The United States is by far the largest humanitarian assistance donor, providing about $9.5 billion in 2023, but where is everyone else? Even if the donations of the second through tenth largest donor nations were combined, the sum would not surpass U.S. contributions. This model is not sustainable, so what should we do?

First, we must recognize the perils of inaction. Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping these protracted crises go away is inadequate. The United States and our allies must collaborate to resolve crises instead of focusing on mere containment.

Other countries need to contribute more humanitarian assistance. The Global Fund model leverages $1 of U.S. contributions for $2 provided by other donors. The Ukraine supplemental bill stipulated that funds for Ukraine may not exceed 50 percent of the total amount provided by all donors. A new incentive using these models should be applied to accelerate reforms in the humanitarian arena.

In addition, consider the Wilson Center’s Refugee and Forced Displacement Initiative working group report, which reaffirms the importance of U.S. leadership and offers policy recommendations for enhancing and strengthening refugee-related policies.

These challenges are not going away and are growing in size and scope. Most refugees are not returning to their countries of origin and remain in host countries or camps for many years. In addition, an average of 339,000 children are born as refugees every year—most in developing countries.

According to the UN, over 117 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced due to “persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order.” Chasing away their own citizens has benefits to these dictators: billions back in remittances to prop up their collapsed economies and fewer angry citizens to protest their corrupt misrule. State-sponsored weaponization of migration is unacceptable, and as we hold dictators to account, we must also renew our commitment to make every assistance dollar count. There’s no time (or money) to waste.

Eddy Acevedo was deemed a “traitor” to Nicaragua by Daniel Ortega and was sanctioned by the Russian Federation. He is the chief of staff and senior adviser to Ambassador Mark Green, the president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He was formerly the National Security Adviser at the U.S. Agency for International Development and senior foreign policy advisor for former Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL.). This opinion is solely that of the author and does not represent the views of the Wilson Center.

Image: David Peinado Romero / Shutterstock.com.