Diplomacy & Crisis News

L'annonce de la dissolution de l'Assemblée nationale le 9 juin conforte l'impression d'un chef de l'État aux décisions impulsives, erratiques et souvent désastreuses. / Géopolitique, France, Élections - 2024/07 / Géopolitique, France, Élections - 2024/07

En France, les aires métropolitaines ne cessent de s'étendre et, avec elles, les frontières invisibles entre ville-centre et périphérie. Pour relier l'une à l'autre, les trains express ont démontré leur efficacité partout en Europe mais ils tardent à se développer dans l'Hexagone, Paris excepté. Entre (...) / Transports, Ville, Inégalités - 2024/07

Le scrutin européen du 9 juin dernier n'a pas modifié les équilibres politiques au Parlement. Les droites nationalistes progressent mais restent désunies, libéraux et écologistes reculent, sociaux-démocrates et Parti populaire conservent leur position dominante. Mais derrière cette apparente (...) / Défense, Sécurité européenne, Élections - 2024/07

Avant le premier tour de l'élection présidentielle de 2002 : « Du groupe le plus défavorisé, on ne peut malheureusement pas toujours attendre une participation sereine à une démocratie parlementaire. Non pas qu'il se désintéresse de l'histoire, mais ses irruptions s'y manifestent parfois dans la (...) / Politique, Presse, France, Élections - 2024/07

En décidant d'imposer une modification du corps électoral en Nouvelle-Calédonie, M. Emmanuel Macron a embrasé l'archipel. La colère qu'elle a suscitée ne faiblit pas. La récente incarcération en métropole de sept militants indépendantistes l'a même attisée. Ayant pris fait et cause pour l'un des acteurs, (...) / Colonialisme, Violence, Décolonisation, France, Nouvelle-Calédonie - 2024/07

Smoke rises from the Israeli side after Palestinian Hamas gunmen infiltrated areas of southern Israel, as seen from Gaza, October 7, 2023. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem

Speaking at a conference titled “The World After October 7th,” which was organized by the European Association for the Defense of Democracies and the World Council for Public Diplomacy and Community Dialogue, Imam Hassen Chalgoumi stated: “October 7 was a turning point, comparable to the September 11 terror attacks.   The attacks by Hamas and their allies shocked not only Israel but the entire world.  It was a horrific crime, a massive massacre that changed the world.”

Following the October 7 Massacre, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis in Yemen united under the Iranian umbrella in order to attack Israel.  Chalgoumi pointed out the growing alliance between various Islamist groups, including Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other extremist organizations. He stressed that these groups reveal the true nature of terrorism and pose a threat to global security. “These groups do not represent Islam,” he emphasized, “but are dangerous extremists undermining the stability of different regions.”

In Europe, Chalgoumi sees a troubling trend of increasing support for Islamist ideologies, often accompanied by support from far-left and far-right groups. He warned that this development is leading to more division and fear in Europe. “The rise of extremist parties on both sides is a threat to Europe’s unity and security,” he warned.

Chalgoumi called for concrete actions to combat extremism. He advocated for improved education, stronger legislation, and more support for moderate voices within the Muslim community. “We must invest in education and awareness,” he said. “Parents, teachers, and religious leaders play a crucial role in preventing radicalization.”

He also emphasized the importance of responsible media use and addressing online radicalization. “The propaganda on social media is powerful and dangerous,” Chalgoumi said. “We must protect young people from these influences by teaching them critical thinking and making them aware of the dangers.”

Chalgoumi concluded with a call for unity and cooperation. “It is time for us to come together and work towards a peaceful and stable future,” he said. “We can only overcome these challenges by working together and supporting each other.” 

Manel Msalmi, president of EADM and a women’s rights activist, noted the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli women and children on October 7, including the mass rapes of the living and the dead, and the sexual torture endured by the hostages.  She also noted the rise of antisemitic attacks in Europe, such as the recent rape of a 12-year-old Jewish girl by anti-Semites in France.   She stressed the need to fight against hate and extremism in the wake of the rise of far right and the far left during the elections. 

Across Europe, mainstream and left-leaning parties that have traditionally been strong supporters of democracy and minority rights have grown more critical of Israel and more sympathetic to the Continent’s growing antisemitism. Meanwhile, right-leaning parties, including some on the far right that have historically espoused antisemitism, are now more supportive of Israel and are taking a strong stand against Islamic extremism — albeit one often infused with racism and xenophobia.  This makes the plight of Jews in Europe more precarious than ever following the October 7 massacre.     

Azerbaijan recently hosted “French Polynesia’s Right to Decolonization: Challenges and Perspectives” inside of the Azerbaijani Parliament together with BIG, otherwise known as the Baku Initiative Group, whose stated aim is to support “French liberation and anti-colonialist movements.”  The group’s executive director Abbas Abbasov, who met the Polynesian delegation at the sidelines of the conference, vowed “continued support of the fair struggle of peoples seeking liberation from colonialism.”  

“We are isolated today due to the colonial policy of France,” the party’s secretary general, Victor Maamaatuaiahutapu, told the conference.  “Politically, we are a young nation, and we need Azerbaijan’s support,” he added. “France seeks to isolate us because it wants to continue nuclear tests on our territory.”  Huseynly said the “imperfection of international legal mechanisms hampers the liberation of French colonies”.

MP Zahid Oruj, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Azerbaijani Milli Majlis (Parliament), highlighted that BIG, established on July 6, 2023, in Baku, marks the beginning of a new wave against exploitation that has affected regions including the Caribbean, South America, and the Indian and Pacific Oceans for over 150 years.

“We believe that this movement will be successful and will finally give the oppressed peoples the freedom they deserve. By ending the 44-day war with victory, we have become a shining, unparalleled example for oppressed peoples around the world. The brilliant victory of Azerbaijan plays an important role in the revival of the Polynesian movement for independence. Neo-colonialism is doomed,” he declared.

Azerbaijani MP Nizami Safarov highlighted that the decolonization discourse is far from over for many regions of the world: “French Polynesia remains a stark example, with the French government only establishing a compensation commission for nuclear testing in 2010. Despite the devastating impact of these tests, including increased radiation-related illnesses, French President Emmanuel Macron has yet to issue an official apology.”    

The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) concurs with Azerbaijan that French Polynesia should be liberated from French colonialism.  A public statement adopted by the Central Committee calls on French authorities “to fulfil their obligations and provide all necessary means for the economic, social and cultural development of the Maohi people” and “urges France to compensate all those affected by nuclear testing and radioactivity” in the vicinity.  It also invites Christians everywhere to pray “for the people and the churches of Maohi Nui as they embark on their peaceful and just struggle for self-determination.”

In 2013, the UN General Assembly voted to add French Polynesia to its list of territories that should be decolonized, affirming the right of the islands’ inhabitants to “self-determination and independence”. French Polynesia joined 16 other territories on the decolonization list, including the British-ruled Falkland Islands and the US Virgin Islands. The UN resolution called on the French government to “facilitate rapid progress” towards self-determination. It was passed by consensus in the 193-member UN assembly.

 

 

 

 

A chart of current missile types threatening mostly civilian vessels passing through the Red Sea.

Policies towards addressing anti-ship attacks in the Red Sea did not prevent some aggressive acts against civilian vessels recently that resulted in the loss of lives and entire ships. The pin prick deterrence via responding to threats after they occur is not sufficiently effective in addressing the issue, and further passive policies toward the eternal threats against international shipping need to be met with the same proactive vigour that had met such threats in the past. The focus on component exports for weapons seems to target more on the source of electronic production, where there is little that can be done militarily, as opposed to targeting the evident assembly plants for such weapons that would be a more accessible and easier mission to accomplish.

Anti-ship missiles that are being used in the current attacks mirror Soviet anti-ship missile technology from the 1970s and their future variants that work in a networked setting with radars and other electronic equipment. While targeting land radars is needed and has been part of the deterrence, the focus on ship based guidance weapons and radars should have been of top priority once the first missiles targeted international shipping. While military vessels have little issue downing those weapons, to fire Anti-Ship missiles at civilians from all over the world (weapons designed to sink a Frigate in one or two strikes) is like opening fire on an innocent crowd of people, and is clearly a crime against civilian vessels with intent to murder their international crew. Such an Act of War should be met with at least a proportional response, even if it means attacking the radar ships home port, as a lacking response has already encouraged more conflict.

The added threats of sea and air drones designed to Kamikaze civilian vessels is a new threat that is rapidly being addressed as new threats create new responses. A possible evolution of against assault drones could mirror the response to the first combat airplanes. As the first planes were used to bomb trenches in the First World War, the fighter plane was developed as a necessity to challenge and intercept the unchallenged bomber threat. A type of Interceptor Drone might be a solution our great grandfathers would have come up with, a practical solution to their past threats and new threats we are facing today. What was true back then as it is true now, that an assault on international shipping must be met with a swift, overwhelming, and effective response, as has been done in the past and will always be required.

Every society that has faced conflict has learned a similar lesson, that if you do not intend to counter threats, there will be more conflict. In the end, an absence of deterrence will lead to many more young citizens going to war in the near future. If there is an absence of strategy to challenge the source of arms and decision makers pick and choose grievances over components, as opposed to eliminating the actual missile production facilities, they are just slightly delaying the inevitable larger conflict.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has declared 2024 to be a “green world solidarity year” ahead of the COP29 Conference that will be held this year in his country.   The declaration aims to showcase how Azerbaijan is a global partner in the struggle against global climate change.   Azerbaijan has set ambitious targets, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2030 and 40 percent by 2050, relative to the 1990 baseline year.

Recently, Azerbaijan showcased to a delegation brought over by UNDP and Anama the newly created “smart village” in East Zangezur, which seeks to assist ecosystem restoration.  Similar models are being employed throughout Karabakh and Nachshivan, which have been declared “green energy zones.”   Focusing on energy policy, Azerbaijan prioritizes the creation of green energy sources and the global distribution of green energy. The goal is for renewable energy to constitute 30% of electricity generating capacity by 2030. 

The office of the president of Azerbaijan declared: “The unanimous decision to host the 29th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) in Azerbaijan reflects the international community’s profound respect and trust in Azerbaijan, recognizing the nation’s endeavors in environmental protection and addressing climate change on national, regional, and global scales.”

According to USAID, “Azerbaijan is an emerging middle-income country. The agriculture sector contributes only 7 percent of GDP but is a critical component of the non-oil economy. As a key source of jobs and a priority in the context of food security, Azerbaijan’s agriculture sector will be increasingly at risk from higher temperatures, unpredictable rainfall and natural disasters.”

They added: “The country’s rapid economic development created a number of environmental challenges that will be exacerbated by climate change, such as severe air pollution from industrial plants, water pollution, soil degradation and important biodiversity and forest reserve degradation and losses. Another major risk to economic development and the population is the increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Azerbaijan is considered to be one of the most flood-prone areas in the world and extreme events, mainly floods, landslides and mudslides cost Azerbaijan an estimated $70–80 million annually. 

The Azerbaijani Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources told the UN: “Upon ratification of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1995 and the Kyoto Protocol of the Convention in 2000, the Republic of Azerbaijan has actively joined international efforts to mitigate the negative impacts of global climate change. As a non-Annex I country, Azerbaijan has undertaken the obligations such as preparation of inventory of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and emission removals, its regular updating, and the preparation of national communications and submission of this information to the Secretariat of the Convention, as well execution of public awareness activities.”

They continued: “All these commitments are fulfilled in a systematic manner. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is not included to Annex I group under the convention and has not taken any quantitative obligations in accordance with Kyoto protocol, the country has already contributed and is continuing to contribute to the global emission reduction efforts. So far, a number of mitigation activities have been implemented in Azerbaijan such as suspension of using black oil for power stations by using gas instead, application of smart cards in electricity and gas consumption measuring devices, enhancing application of renewable energy sources and energy efficient technologies, expansion of forest territories, etc.”

According to them, “Azerbaijan has recently submitted its intended nationally determined contributions and, as developing country, taking into account national circumstances, future development perspectives and national interests, has taken target of the 35% reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990/base year as its contribution to the global climate change efforts.”

I recently had a discussion with a friend who now lives in one of the countries that is a supposed adversary to my own about how far along we might be into a global conflict in the era past the War in Ukraine. While the focal point has been shifting between Eastern Europe and the Middle East, the response and coordination between those regions and security issues in Asia vary greatly, and reflect either and intentional unexplainable strategy, or simply an uncoordinated security policy by Western Allies.

European strategy currently has three issues that should be focused on in any discussion. The move to have NATO troop operate in an increased capacity via French efforts to internally re-enforce Ukraine comes at a time when Russia is making small gains in the area around Kharkiv. Such a move may escalate the war outside of Ukraine, but could also deplete Russian arms and personnel that have to now be sourced from Asia and Iran. Poland and France look to be the strongest and most well equipped allies in this measure, as strength in such a circumstance may encourage detente in the conflict, as opposed to giving signals to encourage more strife via weak policy measures.

Strikes inside Russian territory has escalated the war recently, as Russian logistical hubs in places inside of Russia like Belgorod have been hit by NATO supplied Ukrainian weapons systems. While the use of these advanced weapons are limited to the region around Kharkiv and the supply network supporting Russia in their advance in the region, the use of NATO weapons to hit targets inside of Russia is a new development that was not previously encouraged by NATO. A strike inside of Russia may produce unwanted casualties, encourage more local support for Russia’s war, and be used to popularise a response by Russia against the rest of Europe. It remains to be seen whether or not Russia would attempt a strike at a logical hub for Ukraine in a place like Poland or Germany, as such responses tend to escalate a situation very quickly.

There has been some discussion of having a ceasefire take place between Ukraine and Russia, as efforts to push Russia out of ceased territories with NATO wonder-weapons has not been successful and Russia could claim that part of their objectives have been met to satisfy their narrative within Russia before losses produce a political upheaval. Such a ceasefire might ease the pressure on budgets in Western nations via military funding in Ukraine, but would also lead to a production race for artillery and other weapons as the next conflict is likely to come about sooner rather than later. If Russia is able to outproduce NATO arms and secure its energy exports in the next few years, there is a chance that the conflict would continue. If weak Western policy allows an arms gap to form in the region, it will likely lead to more conflict, especially if efforts to deter conflict in Ukraine is not married to policies in other parts of the world that supply Russia.

Weakness in policy has already lead to poor policy encouraging more conflict. With the Bucha Massacre, unwavering support was given to Ukraine until their war could be won, but with Western allies in the Middle East, massacres lead to increased weakness and encouragement of Russia’s allies supplying terror weapons to Russia. The response for months was to protect the aggressor in the region, even when rearming Russian forces to the detriment of Ukraine. While international shipping was being targeted, guided and supplied by Russia’s ally, it was met without any response from the massive coalition of NATO allies against such support, being only defensive in nature, even against civilian targets. Weakness in such policy has prolonged the conflict as no real support was given to achieving a victory against a Russian ally in contradiction of NATO’s policy approaches in Ukraine. Weakness in one area rewards aggression in all areas, and such a situation guarantees a larger global conflict.

The contradictory policy between both regions is a signal to China over their threats to Taiwan. China’s intent to take any action against Taiwan surrounds two very important variables, time and opportunity. China likely has five decades to take action against Taiwan, even if they suffer a declining economy in the longer term. China does not need more territory or population, as it is in excess of both. As a trading nation, China benefits greatly from economic trade, and conflict would simply block import routes, or alienate export nations from trading with China. As well, China’s military age population have grown up with more opportunities and luxuries, losses of these young people would not be supported by most families for the gain of Taiwan and a declining trade economy for all citizens. At the moment, the Western world is very content to ignore China’s human rights record and purchase consumer goods from China, a situation that is a win-win for the CCP.

The main catalyst for China to invade Taiwan is weakness in the West. This weakness can take many forms, as a passive response against internal strife in North America and Europe, taking advantage of easily corruptible political movements, and Western policy decisions that reward further conflict as seen in current US policy against Russia in the Middle East. How someone living in China might know a conflict is about to begin would not necessarily be increased negative views on Taiwan, as that is a regular discussion inside of China and abroad, but increased stories on failures of Western democratic societies, more patriotic news and shows, and an information campaign against India as India is the largest current military threat to China outside of US hegemony in the region, and their future economic competitor. Convincing the population to go to war with Taiwan where losses could not be hidden will be seen in conjunction with a larger conflict with India. India would be top of mind for most Chinese citizens, and a victory in that region is not something most people would sacrifice their male kin for in support of their Government. Its simply not worth the cost, but in such a place, policy decisions are made to benefit the Party. That fact should be top of mind when making security decisions in Europe, the Mid East and in Asia as poor responses to a situation are as much of a threat as the situation itself.

Bipartisan consensus is key—but depends on U.S. control of supply chains.

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and other Palestinian territories is now more than a half-century old. The fading of memories with time has led to a lack of understanding of the roots and nature of the recent violence between Israel and Palestinians that now centers on the Gaza Strip.

Much rhetoric over the past eight months has tried to erase memories even more drastically by pretending that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began on October 7, 2023—as if the Hamas attack on southern Israel on that day was a bolt from the blue that was motivated by nothing but some unexplained innate hatred of Israelis. One need not go far back in the history of the conflict for a perspective that undermines that description. For example, consider the period from September 2014 through September 2023, following the previous Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip and before the current carnage that began last October. During that period, according to United Nations statistics, 1,632 Palestinians were killed by Israelis—mostly by Israeli security forces and some by settlers in the West Bank. That is more than the approximately 1,200 fatalities, according to the Israeli government’s publicly announced estimate, who were victims of the Hamas attack in October. During the same 2014–2023 period, 155 Israelis died at the hands of Palestinians.

Go back much further in the conflict’s history, and one can see that understanding the nature and causes of Palestinian violence perpetrated against Israel is not only not a matter of parsing Hamas’s motivations; it mostly does not involve Hamas at all.

There is much to learn from that long and troubled history, including how early Zionists realized that their project necessarily involved the use of force against the people already living in Palestine. David Ben Gurion, the future prime minister of Israel, said in 1919, “There is a gulf, and nothing can fill that gulf…I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews…We, as a nation, want this country to be ours, the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.”

Then there were the bloody events of the 1940s, including massacres and mass displacement that are beyond the living memory of most of today’s Palestinians but were such a searing collective experience that the Nakba or “catastrophe” lives on as part of the Palestinian national consciousness. Terrorism that was then part of the larger conflict over Palestine was largely the work of groups led by two other future Israeli prime ministers: Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. 

For many Americans today who are several decades old, initial awareness of international terrorism associated the phenomenon primarily with Palestinians. International terrorism became a headline item in the late 1960s and early 1970s to a much greater degree than it had been for many years before. Palestinian groups perpetrated several of the most spectacular, headline-grabbing attacks, such as multiple simultaneous hijackings of airliners and their subsequent destruction at a desert airstrip in 1970 and the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

The timing of this surge in terrorism and the fact that Palestinians were leading perpetrators was no accident. The key precipitating event was the 1967 Six-Day War, initiated by Israel, resulting in the Israeli capture of Arab land in Palestine, Egypt, and Syria and marking the beginning of the decades-long Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. 

Palestinian groups conducting the terrorist attacks included, among others, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Sa’iqa, Fatah, and splinter groups such as Black September (which planned and executed the Munich massacre). The groups represented an assortment of ideologies and political orientations, united only by their common anger over the Israeli subjugation of their Palestinian brethren. Nonetheless, they were predominantly secular rather than Islamist (the founder and longtime leader of the PFLP, George Habash, was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church).

Hamas, which would not be founded until 1987, had no part in any of this.

A standard piece of advice to someone who complains about a long series of bad relations with other people is to look inward at what the complainer might be doing that is causing the recurring problem rather than to keep blaming others. The advice applies to countries as well as to individuals.

But Israel, with its long and violent relationships with Palestinians—now accompanied by bad relationships with international tribunals and much of the rest of the world—is not following that advice.

Its failure to do so is driving a continuation of the bloodshed and humanitarian disaster that the Gaza Strip has become during the past eight months. The Israeli government’s declared objective in continuing its assault on the Strip is to “destroy Hamas.” Taking Israeli leaders at their word, their determination to pursue this objective is the principal barrier to a cease-fire.

Even if Israeli decision-makers were totally indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians and cared only about the security and well-being of Israeli citizens, the objective of “destroying Hamas” is misguided on multiple levels.

Hamas is not a standing army whose destruction is to be counted in terms of eradicated battalions. It is a movement, an ideology, and a vehicle for expressing dissatisfaction with subjugation by Israel. It gained support among Palestinians who saw it as the most forthright group in standing up to Israel—especially in contrast to the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, which they see as little more than an auxiliary to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Israel’s conduct in Gaza has increased Hamas’s popularity among many Palestinians and, as such, can be expected to be a boon to recruitment.

Even more fundamentally—and as the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows—there is nothing special about Hamas that distinguishes it from all the other vehicles of resistance against subjugation by Israel. Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood. If there were no Israeli occupation, then it would function as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the same as the wings of the Brotherhood in Tunisia, Jordan, and Egypt (before Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s 2013 coup) have functioned—as peaceful competitors for political power in their respective nations. Hamas itself has functioned effectively as a peaceful competitor for power in its own nation when given the chance to do so.

Whatever one thinks of what Hamas has become today, it has become that not because of something in its genes that distinguishes it from other Palestinian entities. It has become that because of the conditions to which Israel has subjected the Palestinian nation. If Hamas were to vanish tomorrow, other groups would use violence as a means of resistance against Israeli occupation. The assortment of groups that were active in the 1960s and 1970s did so, and so will other groups, including ones yet to be formed, in the future as long as the occupation and its associated treatment of Palestinians continues.

The suffering that residents of the Gaza Strip have endured over the past eight months will take place in Palestinian consciousness alongside the Nakba of the 1940s and the Israeli conquests of 1967 to sustain Palestinian anger and motivate those future groups.

This tragic story will end not with the destruction of any one group but only with Palestinian self-determination and an end to occupation. 

Paul R. Pillar retired in 2005 from a twenty-eight-year career in the U.S. intelligence community, in which his last position was as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia. Earlier, he served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units at the CIA, covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. His most recent book is Beyond the Water’s Edge: How Partisanship Corrupts U.S. Foreign Policy. He is also a contributing editor for this publication.

Image: Muhammad Aamir Sumsum / Shutterstock.com.

Summary: The YF-118G "Bird of Prey" was a stealthy experimental aircraft developed by Boeing's Phantom Works in the early 1990s.

-It was designed to test radar evasion and low observability, paving the way for modern stealth fighters like the F-22 and F-35.

-The single-seat jet, which cost around $67 million, featured innovative design elements such as gull-shaped wings and the absence of a tail section.

-Although it flew only a few dozen times, the Bird of Prey influenced future aircraft designs and showcased rapid prototyping techniques.

YF-118G Bird of Prey: The Stealth Pioneer

The YF-118G was the stealthy, semi-secretive predecessor to the American-made F-22 and F-35 fighter jets. It set the stage for modern aircraft. Known as the “Bird of Prey,” the YF-118G only flew a few dozen times.

However, the Bird of Prey made significant contributions to the U.S. armed forces that are still deserving of recognition.

Specifically, the airframe proved that it was possible to implement radar evasion attributes and low observability thresholds in fighter planes. 

Establishing U.S. Air Superiority

 The Bird of Prey was developed in the early 1990s by Boeing’s Phantom Works. Functioning as the company’s advanced prototyping arm, the branch prioritized the development of sophisticated military products. The YF-118G was named after the Klingon spacecraft in the science fiction series Star Trek for its futuristic design and similar outward appearance. Alan Weichman was the engineer who led the Bird of Prey’s development. Weichman’s further work included Lockheed Martin’s Have Blue, F-117 Nighthawk, and Sea Shadow projects. 

Considering its sophisticated characteristics, the Bird of Prey single-seat jet was relatively inexpensive, costing approximately $67 million. Incorporation of off-the-rack components helped Weichman’s team produce the jet so cheaply. A single Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5C turbofan powered the jet, providing over 3,000 pounds of thrust, with a maximum speed of 300 miles per hour and a ceiling of 20,000 feet. The airframe’s novel design contributed to its stealthy exterior. The Bird of Prey had angular gull-shaped wings and was missing a tail section. The length of the airframe was comparable to the F-16. 

YF-118G - A Model Aircraft

 The Phantom Works team used a method of rapid prototyping that was unique at the time and also helped keep production costs low.

As described by Sandboxx, “rather than designing physical prototypes, subjecting them to testing, making changes, and fielding new prototypes for further testing, the Phantom Works team used computers to aid in their design work, simulating performance to the best of the era’s computing abilities.

As a result, they were able to produce prototype components that were far closer to the finished product than previous approaches would allow.” 

The Bird of Prey took its last official flight in 1999 and was declassified three years later. While the airframe had a short life, Boeing used its design for future aircraft. The X-32 Joint Strike Fighter prototypes and the X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle model incorporated some of the Bird of Prey’s attributes.

While Boeing declassified the jet’s design, as it had become industry-standard, some aspects of the Bird of Prey remain mysterious.

As leading U.S. defense companies continue to roll out stealthier, cutting-edge airframes, perhaps more of the Bird of Prey’s idiosyncrasies will be unveiled.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin 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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s Constellation-class frigate project is facing a 40% cost overrun, attributed to incomplete ship designs and underestimations in adapting foreign designs.

-Initially aimed to be cost-effective, interoperability issues with European warships have arisen due to design changes.

-Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro blamed the Italian contractor and the Trump administration, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted Navy's own rigid requirements as a significant factor. The actual cost of each Constellation-class frigate is now projected to be around $1.6 billion.

In classic Pentagon fashion, the bean counters and eggheads in the Navy “underestimated the price tag of [the Constellation-class frigate] by 40 percent.”

This, at a time when most Americans are struggling to pay for groceries and the US government’s debt interest payments are now outstripping its elephantine defense budget. 

Now, the Navy, which has been on a spending spree, has miscalculated the cost of its new frigate. Not by five or ten percent. But by 40 percent! If a private corporation miscalculated their budget for a project by 40 percent, people would have their careers ruined and it might actually take that company down.

But it’s just another rounding error for the Pentagon and defense industrial base that already receives far too much money and delivers far less than they promised! 

The U.S. Navy Just Wastes Our Money These Days

It appears that the Navy jumped the gun with their creation of the Constellation-class next-generation guided-missile frigate. 

According to USNI News, the Navy approved the design and development of the Constellationwith “incomplete elements of the ship design—including information gaps related to structural, piping, ventilation, and other systems—and underestimation of adapting a foreign design to meet Navy requirements.” These developments, in turn, has led to what the Navy is euphemistically referring to as “unplanned weight growth.” 

In other words, the new Constellation-class now has a big design, causing all sorts of complications for the boat as the Navy moves forward with its development. 

The problem redounds to the fact that the Navy has partnered with an Italian defense contractor, Fincantieri Marinette Marine, which is also responsible for the construction of several major European warships as well as building the Saudi multi-mission surface combatant to the Constellation-class and the US Navy’s disastrous Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Despite having incomplete elements of the ship design, the Navy told Fincantieri to start cutting steel for the Constellation-class.

Of course, only after the steel was cut did the Navy realize that they had erred. The whole point of building the Constellation with an Italian shipbuilder was to increase interoperability with allied navies as well as to decrease the overall cost. Well, now that the Navy so badly miscalculated the design requirements for the boat in question, there goes the cost-effective bit (interesting how that’s always the first thing sacrificed in these projects, no?)

In the specific case of the Constellation-class, partnering with Fincantieri was meant to allow for an 85 percent interoperability with the Italian shipbuilder’s FREMM-class frigate that many European navies use. Because of all the design changes the Navy insisted upon, the Constellation-class now has only a 15 percent interoperability rating with the European warships. 

Politicians Point the Finger

With extreme egg on their face, the Biden Administration’s Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro actually tried to blame both the Italian shipbuilder and the Trump Administration. In an election year in which the forty-sixth president, Del Toro’s boss, is struggling, the last thing they need is to be blamed for their obvious lack of oversight on this project. But don’t fall for the rhetoric. This is a major mess up by the Biden Administration. 

What’s more, Fincantieri did nothing wrong. 

Every contractor for the Defense Department underbids and overpromises. This is a matter of “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” It’s just that Fincantieri is a foreign contractor so it’s an easy target for a Biden Administration that is desperate to deflect blame. 

The true price of the Constellation-class is going to be closer to $1.6 billion, 40 percent more than what was initially planned for. But for all the accusations made against Fincantieri and the Trump Administration, everyone knows that it was the Navy’s own onerous (and exclusionary) “511 functional design documents,” that even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended be seriously amended to better comport with cost-save measures in the long-run.

The Navy is to Blame Even More Than the Politicians Are

If there is any group other than the Biden Administration that should be blamed for allowing such a cluster-you-know-what, it is the Navy itself. Indeed, the GAO recommendations made to improve Navy acquisitions as well as to prevent this type of disaster from unfolding again were not political. They were bureaucratic. And, of course, the Navy is trying to deflect as much as the Biden Administration. 

Of the five major recommendations the GAO made to make the Navy’s 511 functional design requirementsless rigid, the Navy accepted four—begrudgingly— but balked about the fifth, which called for the Navy to update its testing practices. 

The bottom line is that the Defense Department is stuck in the past. The way that they purchase, design, and build equipment is not reflective anymore of the ever-changing realities of modern warfare. 

Nor are they mindful (or respectful) of the fact that they are handling billions of tax dollars, taken from the paychecks of hard-working Americans who are increasingly under economic strain. If the Navy believes they need the systems in question (they actually don’t), they should take care to manage the program better and keep costs down as much as possible. 

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.

Carbon emission standards and rising immigration are the top two concerns fueling the right’s rise.

Summary: Persistent rumors about Russian President Vladimir Putin's health have circulated since the invasion of Ukraine, with speculations ranging from cancer to Parkinson's disease.

-Ukrainian officials, in particular, have been vocal about these rumors, suggesting that Putin's illness could potentially end the conflict. Despite frequent analyses of his public appearances, no verifiable evidence confirms these claims.

-The Kremlin denies any health issues, and CIA director William Burns has stated that Putin appears "entirely too healthy."

Is Putin Seriously Ill? Rumors and Realities

Persistent rumors have swirled around the health of Russian President Vladimir Putin since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began. Despite the Kremlin’s assurances, the 71-year-old’s physical status is the source of constant speculation. 

The Kremlin leader has been rumored to suffer ailments ranging from terminal cancer to Parkinson’s disease. News outlets and social media channels have dissected footage and videos of the Russian president, overanalyzing his movements, skin color, and other perceived abnormalities. 

Even if Putin were truly ill, the Kremlin would never divulge such sensitive information.

What Ukraine Has to Gain from Putin Health Rumors

Ukrainian officials have perhaps remained the most adamant over the last couple of years that the Russian leader suffers from a terminal illness. Clearly their hope is the Russian leader is ill and passes away -- and maybe ending the war in Ukraine. 

In early 2023, Kyiv military intelligence head Kyrylo Budanov insisted that Putin may not be long for this world. "He has been sick for a long time; I am sure he has cancer. I think he will die very quickly. I hope very soon," he told ABC News.

However, just like Moscow is prone to spread propaganda and misinformation, so is Ukraine in the context of this war. It is in Kyiv’s best interest to spread rumors and speculation that the Russian president is not fit to be in a leadership position.

Other Speculation on Putin 

Other Ukrainian officials have mirrored Budanov’s rhetoric about Putin’s possibly imminent death. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speculated a few weeks after his colleague’s ABC interview that he was not even sure Putin was still alive and making decisions for the country. Obviously, the Russian president has been seen alive many times since those remarks were publicized. 

Also last year, Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Anton Gerashchenko published footage of Putin during a visit to occupied Crimea. The Russian leader appears to be limping in the video, causing some to question whether he is indeed suffering from a serious health condition.

More recently, a former head of the UK’s M16 intelligence apparatus, Sir Richard Dearlove, claimed that Putin is likely suffering from something “fundamentally wrong” with his health. Dearlove went so far as to suggest Parkinson’s disease – a neurological ailment which can cause delusions. 

“Probably Parkinson’s which of course has different representations, different variations, different seriousness,” Dearlove said in February. “But if the man is paranoid, and I think the murder of Navalny might suggest a certain paranoia, that is one of the symptoms.”

Regardless of these rumors, zero verifiable evidence exists that confirms Putin is contending with any kind of serious or terminal illness. In fact, as CIA director Williams Burns put it last year in an interview with Newsweek, “As far as we can tell, he [Putin] is entirely too healthy.”

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. 

Summary: The U.S. Navy's F/A-XX fighter program is set to replace the F/A-18 Block II Super Hornet and will serve as the “quarterback” for manned and unmanned aircraft.

-This future sixth-generation fighter will complement the F-35C Lightning II and UCLASS unmanned aircraft, addressing long-range operational needs and next-generation survivability.

-While detailed specifications remain classified, the F/A-XX will feature an open architecture for various payloads and sensors and will support autonomous operations.

-Despite its importance, the Navy has delayed the program to prioritize current readiness amidst heightened global tensions.

Navy's F/A-XX Fighter: The Future of Air Superiority

The U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance fighter program has earned plenty of coverage in recent months. But the Navy has a sixth-generation fighter program of its own. 

When the F/A-XX future fighter eventually enters service, it will operate as the Navy’s “quarterback” for manned and unmanned aircraft. The future fighter series is planned to replace the F/A-18 Block II Super Hornet. 

Unlike the Air Force, however, the Navy has opted to delay development of the F/A-XX in order to free up resources for current readiness needs.

What We Know About the F/A-XX Fighter Program

While exact specs and capabilities surrounding the F/A-XX remain highly classified, some information has been divulged to the public. A Navy spokesperson last year asserted that the service had “identified operational reach, capacity, long range kill chains, autonomy, and next generation survivability as key enablers in the Air Wing of the Future and supporting Family of System,” according to Breaking Defense.

The Navy first issued a formal request for gathering information and research on a sixth-generation platform over a decade ago. Since the F/A-18 Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler are nearing the end of production, introducing a next-generation jet series is essential to maintaining air superiority. 

The new aircraft will complement the existing F-35C Lightning II fighter and UCLASS unmanned aircraft and will be deployed to operate in anti-access/area denial environments. As tensions continue to ramp up between Washington and Beijing over the South China Sea, the new F/A-XX series will need long-range capabilities in order to traverse the huge swaths of ocean that define the Indo-Pacific region. 

Analysts agree that the Navy’s new fighter will be involved in uncrewed operations. The war in Ukraine has highlighted the important role these cheap and easily operable unmanned aerial vehicle systems can play in modern warfare. In fact, the Air Force’s upcoming NGAD platform will include “wingmen drones” to fly alongside crewed fighters. Perhaps most significantly, the Navy’s new fighter is expected to feature an open architecture design that will enable a range of payloads, weapons, and sensors to be interchanged.

While the F/A-XX will be critical for the Navy as Beijing and Moscow continue to work on their own sixth-generation programs, the service is currently prioritizing existing systems. 

Since Hamas’s October 7 attack against Israel, the Navy’s carriers and other ships have been deployed more frequently to the Middle East in order to contend with hostile actors in the region. The Navy has been busy in the Red Sea, shooting down barrages launched by Iran and its affiliates. China is also a threat to invade the island nation of Taiwan, forcing the U.S. Navy to always be on alert in the South Pacific. For now, the service’s decision to focus on current capabilities in light of these threats appears to be the right one.

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. 

Images are from Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

Whether, when, and how to open a new combat theater or line of operations ranks among the most freighted decisions military commanders and their political overseers can ever make. Today, of course, marks the eightieth anniversary of D-Day, the Allied landings in German-occupied Normandy. There is no shortage of tales of valor and sorrow out there to commemorate the day, and I would not presume to add to them. Instead let’s revisit the June 6 assault on Fortress Europe through the prism of strategic theory. 

Strategic grandmaster Carl von Clausewitz beseeches military and political leaders to ask themselves three hard questions before vaulting forces into a new theater like World War II France. Clausewitz deliberately sets the bar high for such a decision. He regarded strategy as a process of setting and enforcing priorities, his logic being that no combatant society boasts enough diplomatic, economic and industrial, and military resources to accomplish all worthy goals it espies. A combatant that tries to achieve everything, everywhere, ends up achieving little, anywhere. It dilutes its strength among multiple commitments, leaving itself weaker than antagonists at every point of impact on the map or nautical chart. 

Trying to do it all courts extreme peril. 

For the sage of Prussia, then, it’s best to decide what matters most and husband manpower and firepower to obtain it. As a corollary the leadership should abjure secondary endeavors except on a not-to-interfere basis with attaining the primary goal. It makes no sense to forfeit what matters most for the sake of something that matters less. That’s why he fashioned what I’ve taken to calling his “Three Rs” to guide decisionmaking vis-à-vis new theaters or efforts. 

Namely reward, resources, and risk. 

Again, Clausewitz counsels military magnates to concentrate on one big thing rather than trying to do it all. Striking repeatedly and relentlessly at whatever lends cohesion to the foe’s army, government, or society blazes the surest route to triumph at arms. Still, he does grudgingly allow that extraordinary circumstances could warrant extraordinary measures. Siphoning resources from the main theater could be worthwhile, he concedes, “when secondary operations look exceptionally rewarding. But we must repeat that only decisive superiority can justify diverting strength without risking too much in the principal theater” (his emphasis). 

So there’s your trusty Clausewitzian guide to thinking through weighty decisions such as whether to mount an amphibious invasion of France. The more abundant the resources, the lower the risk—and the easier it is to give the order setting in motion a promising new enterprise. 

In that strategic sense Allied leaders’ decision to proceed with Operation Overlord was easy in mid-1944. After all, American industry had fully geared up by then and was turning out mountains of war matériel—easing the military poverty Clausewitz saw in his own lifetime. Material plenty allowed the Allies to open the new theater at the same time fighting raged in Italy, and at the same time U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine forces were lumbering across the Pacific toward imperial Japan. Indeed, U.S. forces staged amphibious landings on the island of Saipan—an operation of magnitude comparable to D-Day—within days after the landings in Normandy. 

In short, not just decisive but crushing superiority of resources opens up new operational and strategic vistas. It lets political and military leaders ordain new ventures without running undue risk in likewise important theaters. Despite his qualms about frittering away resources, Clausewitz would have to approve of the decision to invade Normandy eighty years ago today. 

And he would arch an eyebrow in wonderment at how the mighty U.S. defense industry has fallen since. 

About the Author: Dr. James Holmes, U.S. Naval War College 

Dr. James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and a Nonresident Fellow at the University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs. The views voiced here are his alone. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, could face decades in prison if convicted on felony gun charges. This trial, occurring shortly after former President Donald Trump’s conviction in New York, has garnered significant attention.

-Hunter Biden’s charges include lying about his drug use on a federal form when purchasing a handgun and possessing a firearm while addicted to drugs.

-The case is seen by some as politically motivated. If convicted, Biden faces serious legal consequences, and President Biden has stated he will not pardon his son.

-The trial’s outcome may hinge heavily on the evidence presented.

Hunter Biden’s Historic Gun Charges Trial Begins Amid Political Tensions

The deeply troubled son of President Joe Biden could face decades in prison if convicted on felony gun charges in the now historic trial.

This week, Hunter Biden became the first child of a sitting president to go to trial – and it comes just days after former President Donald Trump was convicted of a felony in New York for falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

The case involving the younger Biden is being as closely watched by observers as Trump's trial, especially as many Republicans have suggested there is a two-tier justice system that wrongly convicted the former president. However, the cases aren't the least bit similar – with the exception that neither man has any prior convictions. For that reason, in both cases, it could result in a lesser sentence. Trump faces up to four years for his low-level felony conviction and is scheduled to be sentenced in July.

Hunter Biden's situation is more serious. The first two charges in the three-count federal indictment are tied to the purchase of a handgun that the president's son made, including lying on a form that is submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and affirming that he was legally allowed to buy the weapon.

The president's son responded to the questions about whether he was an "unlawful user of, or addicted to" any illegal drugs by checking "no." At the time, Biden was addicted to crack cocaine, which according to his own admission, he was used quite often.

The third count relates to the possession of the handgun, as it is against federal law to possess a firearm while abusing drugs.

Biden only had the weapon for 11 days, before his paramour – who was his late older brother's widow – threw the gun in a dumpster over concerns for his mental health. That trash receptacle was reported to be near a school, and it was later found by someone who was collecting cans, and then turned over to the police.

"Guns present a danger if they get in the wrong hands, and that’s the impetus behind these laws," Nabeel Kibria, a Washington, DC-based defense attorney who has handled hundreds of gun cases, told CNN. "The evidence seems pretty stacked against Hunter … but who determines who is an addict? What are the bright-line rules that must be followed?"

Hunter Biden Trial: Is It a Witch Hunt or Politically Motivated?

Many Democratic lawmakers have remained quiet on the issue, but supporters of the president on social media have largely called the case to be politically motivated, and an attempt to hurt President Biden's reelection chances this November.

The gun charges were originally to be dismissed as part of a plea deal made last year, but after that fell apart, prosecutors moved forward to prosecute Hunter Biden for his illegal purchase and possession of the firearm. Legal experts have been divided on whether the charges are warranted, while Hunter Biden's legal team has tried to suggest he made an error while filling out the form.

It will first be up to the jury to decide whether the president's son is guilty of any three or all of the charges. If he is found guilty, District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who is presiding over the case, will ultimately determine his fate and whether he is sent to prison.

As the case is being held in Delaware, the home state of the Biden family, the president's son may have a more friendly juror perhaps than former President Trump had in his Manhattan courtroom. However, Noreika was appointed by Trump.

In other words, this may truly be a case where the evidence will be more crucial than ever.

Finally, the White House has been quite vocal that it would not pardon Hunter Biden if convicted – as President Biden does have the power to issue such a pardon or to commute the sentence. Experts have suggested with such a close election, the president may be forced to see Hunter head to prison – at least until after Election Day.

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.

All images are from Shutterstock. 

Conflict with China is inevitable—but controllable.