Diplomacy & Crisis News

Since August 2021, all Central Asian republics have been, in one way or another, contending with Taliban rule in Afghanistan. While treading cautiously, each Central Asian government faces a host of major challenges related to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA). 

While no Central Asian state has formally recognized the Taliban, all Central Asian republics have, to varying degrees, engaged the IEA and unofficially recognized Afghanistan’s only de facto government. Tajikistan sits on the far end of this spectrum as the most firmly anti-Taliban Central Asian country.

President Emomali Rahmon’s government believes that the IEA constitutes an illegitimate regime. Tajikistan sees the IEA as a grave threat to its national interests and regional security. There appears to be no reason to expect any thaw in Dushanbe’s relationship with the Taliban.

The former Soviet republic has vowed not to formally recognize the Taliban because it was “formed through oppression.” Tajikistan is the Central Asian republic that has given the greatest support to Afghanistan’s anti-Taliban forces, as was also the case during the Taliban’s first time in power (1996–2001) with the Northern Alliance. Tajikistan has hosted the National Resistance Front (NFR), a military alliance comprised of former Northern Alliance members who remain loyal to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Mohammad Zahir Aghbar, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s ambassador to Tajikistan, still runs the Afghan embassy in Dushanbe. This diplomatic mission in Tajikistan has been a focal point of anti-Taliban activity.

Ethnicity is an important factor. While the Taliban is mostly Pashtun-dominated, Afghan Tajiks played a leading role in the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Its past leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was a Tajik. His son, Ahmad Massoud Jr., and the former vice president in the Ashraf Ghani government, Amrullah Saleh, who is also an ethnic Tajik, reportedly spent much of their time in Dushanbe working against the IEA. For political purposes, the government in Dushanbe feels the need to show sympathy for ethnic Tajiks in Afghanistan, at least to some degree.

Ideological dynamics are also relevant. While all Central Asian states are staunchly secular, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have taken a mostly pragmatic approach to relations with the IEA. In contrast, Tajikistan sees any political engagement with the Taliban as a threat to its rigidly implemented secularism.

“With most of the regional countries including the Central Asian countries preferring to do business with the Taliban, Tajikistan finds itself as the odd man out in pursuing such a policy. However, at the same time, it has possibly emerged as the lone theater for keeping the anti-Taliban resistance forces alive. Many of the unknown sources of support for these groups could have been routed through Tajikistan,” according to Shanthie Mariet D’Souza, a Fulbright-Nehru Visiting Chair at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst School of Public Policy.

“Thus, Tajikistan’s policies may have been useful for countries and actors who still hope for the establishment of an inclusive government in Afghanistan or even pressurizing the Taliban to change its policies in some ways,” she added.

Border Security and Violent Extremism

Of all Central Asian countries, Tajikistan has the longest border with Afghanistan, and the government in Dushanbe has long perceived grave security threats from Afghanistan. This brings us to Jamaat Ansarullah (JA).

Founded in 2010, JA is a group made up of Tajik extremists who seek to oust Tajikistan’s ultra-secular government. The organization recruits its members from within Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Banned in Tajikistan, JA has a record of waging attacks inside the Central Asian country. Shortly before the collapse of Ghani’s government, the Taliban put JA “partially in charge” of securing Afghanistan’s 843-mile border with Tajikistan. Although the IEA denies harboring any armed group that threatens the security of any Central Asian country, authorities in Dushanbe reject that claim.

Beyond questions surrounding JA, there are other ways in which Dushanbe sees the Taliban regime as a direct threat to peace and stability in Tajikistan. “Pro-Taliban social media channels are also highly critical of the Tajikistan government and operate Tajik-language social media channels,” explained Adam Rousselle, an editor and contributor at Militant Wire.

“There are also concerns over cross-border narcotics trafficking into Tajikistan, which has risen despite Taliban efforts to stamp out the trade elsewhere in the country. It is possible that JA is engaged in drug trafficking into Tajikistan as well,” he added.

Within this context, it was understandable why Tajikistan beefed up security along its border with Afghanistan in the period just before the Taliban retook power in August 2021.

Mutual Lack of Inclusivity

The Taliban’s exclusion of Tajiks from governance is problematic from the perspective of Dushanbe. This is both for nationalist and security reasons. Authorities in Tajikistan believe that the Taliban’s marginalization of ethnic Tajiks risks pushing more of them toward violent extremist groups, chiefly Islamic State–Khorasan Province (ISKP), which would pose a security threat to Dushanbe.

“The reason why Tajikistan is taking the matter of the seclusion and discrimination of ethnic Tajiks in Afghanistan seriously, is because Tajikistan fears that if discriminated ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan do not find sympathy and support from Tajikistan or from NRF inside Tajikistan, then these ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan may increasingly join ISKP to settle their score with Taliban,” Ahmad Sayer Daudzai, the former Afghan ambassador to the UAE, told these authors.

“There is plenty of evidence that ISKP has been recruiting non-Pashtun fighters from ethnic minorities of Afghanistan, especially from urban areas, as these non-Pashtun youth have ethnic grievances with the Pashtun Taliban movement and can find a platform with the non-ethnic ISKP,” added the former Afghan diplomat.

However, calls for inclusivity coming from Dushanbe clash with the reality of Rahmon’s authoritarian government, which tolerates no opposition, even of a moderate Islamist hue. This stance violates the terms of the 1997 UN-brokered Tajik Peace Accord that ended the country’s vicious five-year civil war. The government cracks down harshly on outward signs of Islamic piety. Authorities recently imposed new restrictions on the wearing of hijabs in public. Such measures fuel violent extremism and push Tajik citizens toward ISKP—a significant concern not only for the Taliban but also for many other countries that have suffered from its terrorism, including Russia and Turkey.

Pragmatic Engagement

Although Tajikistan’s formal position is that the IEA is illegitimate, and Dushanbe opposes the idea of countries recognizing the Taliban, the Central Asian state has had no choice but pragmatic accommodation when it comes to the realities of post-U.S. Afghanistan. Tajikistan’s government has made efforts to work with the Taliban in cross-border economic relations and the struggle against ISKP.

“Tajikistan never stopped providing electricity to Afghanistan, even after the Taliban retook power, despite the non-recognition of their regime, and the fact that Afghanistan was in debt to pay for this electricity supply. Last February though, Afghanistan finally cleared the debt. Quite paradoxically, the representatives of the two national electricity companies met a few times since the summer of 2021 to renew partnerships and even agree on an additional supply of electricity and potentially extend transmission lines,” said Mélanie Sadozaï, postdoctoral research associate at the University of Regensburg.

“In addition to these meetings and agreements, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan, which was closed [in] February 2020, reopened in September 2023 to allow some cross-border markets to operate. Officials in Tajikistan have not denied these activities and have declared publicly that while their political position towards the Taliban [hasn’t] changed, they would support economic and trade relations for the benefits of both countries,” she told these authors.

Intelligence services of the government of Tajikistan and the IEA have also had meetings to discuss the ISKP threat, even if little information is publicly available about such engagement. Whether the shared threat perception of ISKP is enough to bring about a better relationship between Dushanbe and the Islamist rulers in Kabul is unclear, but experts have their doubts. This is primarily due to the lingering JA issue that appears set to ensure that Tajikistan-Taliban relations remain extremely negative.

“The threat posed by the ISKP could provoke security cooperation between the Dushanbe and the Taliban, but for this to happen, there would need to be a dramatic reduction in the threat JA poses to Tajikistan. Whether the Taliban exerts enough authority over JA to achieve this is unclear and until this happens, meaningful cooperation between the two countries seems unlikely,” commented Rousselle.

Throughout the foreseeable future, Tajikistan-Taliban relations will probably remain largely frosty. Pragmatic engagement on trade and the growing acceptance of the reality of IEA rule in Afghanistan by Tajikistan’s Central Asian neighbors, as well as important external partners, such as Russia, China, and Iran, may ease some friction. But the vexing questions about security, ideology, and nationalism will continue to bedevil the Tajikistan-Taliban relationship.

Eldar Mamedov is a Brussels-based foreign policy expert. He has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington and Madrid. Since 2009, Mamedov has served as a political advisor for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula. Find him on X: @EldarMamedov4

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, and an Adjunct Fellow at the American Security Project. He is a frequent contributor to Al Jazeera, Gulf International Forum, The New Arab, Responsible Statecraft, Stimson Center, and Amwaj.Media. Throughout Mr. Cafiero’s career, he has consulted many public and private sector entities, briefed diplomats of various countries on Gulf affairs, and worked as a subject matter expert for multinational law firms. Mr. Cafiero holds an M.A. in International Relations from the University of San Diego. Find him on X: @GiorgioCafiero.

Image: DeniskaPhotoGuide / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: Washington must prioritize deterrence, especially with a reliable, long-range strategic stealth bombing capability. The B-21 Raider is poised to be the most sophisticated bomber ever built, intended to replace the aging B-2 Spirit.

-The U.S. Air Force aims to acquire many B-21s to enhance capabilities and strengthen deterrence, although budget constraints may limit numbers.

-The B-21 is essential for maintaining America’s nuclear triad and deterrence against near-peer rivals like China and Russia. In an era where nuclear warfare is a growing threat, cutting the B-21 program would severely compromise U.S. national defense.

The B-21 Raider: America's Key to Maintaining Air Superiority

With the world order we know it tending toward collapse, Washington must ready itself to survive in a world that is decidedly anti-American. 

Deterrence is one key plank in that survival strategy. Sadly, as I recently told an audience at the Heritage Foundation, “deterrence is dead.” Restoring deterrence must be a leading priority for the next president, and a primary element of any deterrence strategy is having a reliable, long-range strategic stealth bombing capability. America’s existing stealth bombers, such as the B-2 Spirit, are aging and need to be replaced. 

Hence, the creation of the B-21 Raider. 

B-21: A Bomber America Needs

The new B-21 will likely be the most sophisticated bomber ever built. The U.S. Air Force wants a lot of these bad boys (they’ll be lucky if they even get 100) to replace the B-2, increase capabilities, and strengthen deterrence. Yet Congress is understandably balking at this program. Sure, it’s an awesome suite of technologies, and if it all goes to plan, it’ll advance America’s manned stealth bombing capabilities significantly. 

On the other hand, however, America appears to be on the brink of some kind of debt crisis. Interest payments on the national debt have already surpassed annual defense spending for the first time. So the Pentagon is not going to be able to justify the kind of expenditures it has for the last 80 years. This is why the Senate's proposed National Defense Authorization Act slashes funding for the Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX carrier warplane by some 90%. It’s why the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance fighter program is in jeopardy.       

The B-21 is subject to the same realities. But unlike a sixth-generation warplane, which would be redundant and costly, America actually needs a reliable long-range stealth strike capability. With the B-2s aging out of service, unless the B-21 Raiders are given the approval they need – and are built in a timely and reliable manner – the United States will lack the stealth strike capabilities it has become accustomed to for the last several decades. 

Without this cornerstone of U.S. national defense, America’s ability to deter near-peer rivals such as China or Russia will suffer. 

A Key Plank In America’s Nuclear Triad

The B-21 is described as a “nuclear-capable, penetrating strike stealth bomber” that “will be a component of a larger family of systems for conventional Long Range Strike, including intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, electronic attack, communication and other capabilities.” According to the Air Force’s official description, this warbird will be able to “accommodate manned or unmanned operations. Additionally, it will be able to employ a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.”

My colleague Harrison Kass has argued that “were the B-21 to be canceled, were the U.S. left without a stealth bomber option, [America’s] nuclear triad would be compromised.” 

We are living in an age where the prospect of nuclear warfare is more prevalent than it has been in decades. 

The United States, because of bureaucratic inertia, refuses to design and deploy the kind of space-based weapons defenses needed to protect the homeland from these strikes. What’s more, America’s nuclear weapons arsenal is in dire need of modernization, and possibly expansion. The nuclear triad puts redundancies in place.

The long-range stealth bomber is a key component of that triad. The B-21 will be it, unless Congress chooses to cut the program before it even takes wing. In this current environment, removing America’s long-range stealth strike capabilities is a really bad idea—even if the price tag is high for the B-21.

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: At the Farnborough International Airshow 2024, the UK, Italy, and Japan unveiled a new concept model of their multinational sixth-generation fighter, the centerpiece of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). The updated design features a pure delta panform and larger wingspan to enhance aerodynamics.

-The fighter emphasizes speed, range, and payload over traditional dogfighting roles. Engineers from BAE Systems, Leonardo, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are collaboratively developing the aircraft, which is set to enter service in the mid-2030s.

-Despite earlier concerns, the UK's new Labour government supports the program, ensuring its continued progress. The GCAP aims to create an advanced, interoperable fighter jet with intelligent weapon systems and next-generation radar, capable of processing 10,000 times more data than current systems.

GCAP's New Fighter Model: A Leap Forward in Design and Capabilities

At this week's Farnborough International Airshow 2024, the UK, Italy, and Japan unveiled a new concept model of the multinational next-generation fighter that is expected to be the centerpiece of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). The new concept artwork for the future sixth-generation fighter highlighted its emphasis on speed, range, and payload – over a traditional dogfighting role.

As described by international military analyst firm Janes, the fighter features "a pure delta panform in place of the previously touted modified delta."

"In the 18 months since the launch of the GCAP, we've been working closely with our industrial partners in Italy and Japan under the collaboration agreement, and also with the three governments, to understand and align requirements for a next-generation combat aircraft," said Herman Claesen, managing director, Future Combat Air Systems, for lead UK company on the project BAE Systems. "The new model … shows notable progress in the design and concepting of this future fighter jet. We'll continue to test and evolve the design, as we move closer towards the next phase of the programme."

The new concept model is on display this week at the UK's largest airshow, also emphasized how the design has evolved. In addition to the delta panform, the aircraft features a larger wingspan than previous concepts, including those of the UK's Tempest. The changes were meant to improve the aerodynamics of the future combat aircraft.

"Engineers from across BAE Systems, Leonardo and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are working together under a collaboration agreement on the design and development of the future combat aircraft using a range of innovative digital tools and techniques, including computer based modelling and virtual reality to evolve the aircraft’s design during its concepting phase," the companies said in a joint statement.

GCAP is Already in Supercruise

Though the design of the sixth-generation fighter has evolved, the timeline hasn't changed. The companies stated that the aircraft is still on track to enter service in the mid-2035s. The goal of the GCAP is still to develop an advanced, interoperable, adaptable, and connected fighter jet. It has also been touted to be equipped with "an intelligent weapons system, a software-driven interactive cockpit, integrated sensors and a powerful next generation radar" that can provide "10,000 times more data than the current systems."

There had been speculation that GCAP may not have the same level of support from the UK's new Labour government, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

"We are heading towards 2025 at pace," Claesen told Janes in Farnborough. "In readiness for 2025 to take on the international design and development contract, we have been working at phenomenal pace, and the key message is that pace has continued absolutely since the last time we got together [at Farnborough 2022], whether it is from a government point of view or whether it's from an industry point of view."

GCAP's Triple Alliance

The UK and Italy's Tempest program merged with the Japanese F-X project. In December 2022, the UK, Japan, and Italy signed an international treaty to collaborate on the development of an advanced front-line fighter. Though the name has changed, the goal has not.

Tempest was initiated to develop a replacement for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is operated by both the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Italian Air Force, while the F-X program was jumpstarted to produce an aircraft to replace the aging Japanese F-2 fighters. It is further worth noting that all three nations have adopted the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multirole fifth-generation stealth fighter – but appeared to be looking towards a sixth-generation combat aircraft.

"The pace of the programme is extraordinary, building on a solid foundation and industrial legacy in each country and government-led partnership. Since the treaty was signed in December 2023, the programme has seen strong commitment from each partner. Each brings different, but complementary, qualities and requirements. We are now working closely together to exchange knowledge, address common challenges, and achieve common goals," added Guglielmo Maviglia, chief GCAP Officer at Leonardo.

It would seem among the sixth-generation fighter programs, GCAP may be the one that will supercruise its way to service – and while it may incorporate the latest stealth technology, the efforts to develop this aircraft aren't being hidden from view.

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 Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. Image are from when the GCAP program was called Tempest. 

Summary and Key Points: The UK Ministry of Defence, in collaboration with Raytheon UK, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), has successfully tested a high-energy laser weapon system (HELWS) integrated onto a British Army Wolfhound armored combat vehicle.

-Conducted at the Dstl range in Porton Down, this marks the first time a portable laser weapon has been fired from a land vehicle in the UK. Designed to counter unmanned aerial systems (UAS), the HELWS has already proven its effectiveness by downing over 400 targets in tests.

-This development is part of the UK's Land Laser Directed Energy Weapon (LDEW) Demonstrator program and aims to enhance the British Army's capabilities in countering drone threats. The next phase involves further testing and familiarization for British Army soldiers.

Development of Laser Truck Continues in the UK

Numerous military aircraft have been described as "bomb trucks" for their ability to carry massive loads of ordnance. The UK Ministry of Defence has sought to create a different type of truck – namely a laser truck of the ground-based wheeled variety. This week, Raytheon UK, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) announced the successful test of Raytheon's High-Energy Laser Weapon System (HELWS), which was integrated onto a British Army Wolfhound armored combat vehicle.

The test was conducted at the Dstl range in Porton Down in southwest England, where the HELWS was fired at full power. Described as a "major leap forward in the UK Ministry of Defence's Land Laser Directed Energy Weapon (LDEW) Demonstrator" program, it marked the first time that any portable laser weapon was fired from a land vehicle in the UK.

Anti-drone Platform

Though directed energy weapons (DEW), including high-energy lasers, have been in the works for some time now, the role has evolved since Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine more than two and a half years ago. Small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have put into question the role of the tank on the modern battlefield, as the lumbering behemoths have been destroyed by loitering munitions – so-called kamikaze drones – as well as with other UAS that have literally dropped ordnance on the tanks.

"The increasing prevalence, proliferation and evolution of drone warfare makes the rapid adoption of counter-UAS technologies ever more important," Raytheon UK said in a statement on Monday. It further noted that the new variant of the HELWS had been designed to defeat NATO class 1 drones, while remaining compatible with current air defense platforms that include radar, command and control, and other systems. That ensures that the lasers could readily be deployed with air-to-air missiles, Close-in Weapons Systems (CIWS), and other air defenses.

"We have proven that the Raytheon high energy laser weapon system can track and engage targets whilst mounted on a vehicle," explained James Gray, chief executive and managing director of Raytheon UK. "The speed at which this capability was delivered is only possible due to the hard work of our British SME partners, coupled with the operationally proven technology developed by Raytheon."

Laser Ray Gun

The HELWS is already certified for use in combat with U.S. military forces, and the 300kW-class platform was developed as part of the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative (HELSI) program, which sought to create a high-performance DEW. It has logged more than 40,000 testing hours and successfully downed more than 400 targets. It has already been deployed overseas.

The vehicle-based HELWS will undergo additional testing in the UK, and the next phase will call upon British Army soldiers to be familiarized with the platform.

"The joint working between Dstl, DE&S, and industry has enabled rapid evolution of this laser demonstrator. The successful testing of this high-powered laser weapon marks a pivotal moment in our ongoing efforts to enhance the future operational capabilities of the British Army," said Matt Cork, Dstl Programme Lead. "This technology offers a precise, powerful and cost-effective means to defeat aerial threats, ensuring greater protection for our forces."

The British Army isn't alone in developing a laser.

Earlier this year, the UK's Royal Navy announced that it was testing the DragonFire, a line-of-sight laser-directed energy weapon (LDEW) that could potentially engage targets at the speed of light. In addition to its extreme accuracy, the DragonFire's intense beam can cut through a target – including a drone or missile – leading to its structural failure.

The platform is also highly cost-effective compared to other air defense systems, costing only around £10 per shot. As previously reported, tests of the platform have been underway at the MoD's Hebrides Range, located off the coast of Scotland. The Royal Navy hopes to deploy the platform by 2027.

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 Creative Commons. 

The stated aim of the Biden administration’s policy on Ukraine has been to achieve the defeat of Russia, and to this end, it provided assistance to Ukraine. It did not undertake any serious diplomatic initiative with Russia and Ukraine on a negotiated settlement. Vice President Harris may, of course, adjust that policy if the Democratic Party nominates her and wins the elections in November. As of now, it appears that she will likely continue Biden’s policy. 

If the Trump-Vance ticket prevails, there is likely to be a push for serious negotiations toward a diplomatic settlement. The time between now and the election, as well as the transition to the new administration, should be utilized to begin discussing potential settlement options and modalities, as well as their prospects and implications for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and the United States.

A Trump administration may become both a catalyst and an opportunity for a Ukraine settlement. Both President Trump and Senator Vance have consistently called for such a settlement and have expressed doubts that U.S. and European assistance to Ukraine and economic pressure on Russia can realistically bring about Ukraine’s victory in the war. Both have been concerned about the level of U.S. assistance and have argued that European powers should carry the predominant burden since the conflict is “in their neighborhood.” 

Senator Vance has made an additional argument. He has argued that given the U.S. military capabilities, including our industrial base, the priority should be to focus on the threat from China and that the effort in Ukraine diverts resources needed to deal with Beijing’s vital challenge.

Nor would it be unreasonable for Trump to conclude that the situation on the ground in both Ukraine and Russia provides an opportunity for a political settlement. Victory is not imminent for either side. Ukraine’s resistance has been heroic but has come at the cost of enormous casualties. War fatigue among the populace, if it has not set in already, is inevitable. President Zelensky faced significant challenges in his mobilization effort. The country has suffered mortal blows to its energy and power grid, and there are electricity and fuel shortages due to Russian attacks on refineries. The coming winter is likely to be particularly harsh.

However, while Ukraine may not have the military capability to evict Russian forces from its territory, it has had some military success in liberating areas once occupied by Russia. It now has more weapons, including weapons capable of striking Russian soil, and it has the green light from its allies to deploy those at least selectively. Ukraine has inflicted damage on the battlefield and inside Russia. Kiev also produces more weapons at home and has economic and security commitments from several countries, including the United States. Ukraine, with support from its partners, can continue the war for the foreseeable future.

Russia has important advantages in the war, but for them, too, the cost of the ongoing conflict has been high. Russia has sustained more casualties than those on the Ukrainian side. Many young, technologically skilled Russians have left the country. Ukrainian drones have attacked Russia’s infrastructure. The war is now within Russia itself, making Russians more alert to the conflict. The war has also damaged Russian relations with much of the international community, and the costs of sanctions imposed on it have been significant, including the loss of a large part of its formerly lucrative energy market.

Internationally, the war has made Russia dependent on China, North Korea, and Iran. There is a long history of Sino-Russian mutual rivalry. While both have resented the U.S. power position after its success in the Cold War, they have different long-term objectives. Putin is an advocate of multipolarity, with Russia as one of the poles. China’s long-term objective is global preeminence, with Russia at best as a junior partner. Moscow believes that better relations with the West, especially the United States, could serve its interests. However, that is highly unlikely to occur without an acceptable ending to the Ukraine war.

The war has also strengthened rather than weakened NATO. The alliance has expanded in the last two years and is spending more on defense. If Trump is elected, allies will come under pressure to spend even more. Prospects for Russian victory against Ukraine in the foreseeable future are uncertain at best.

Russia will face a crucial additional risk if Trump is elected. If Putin does not respond positively to a peace initiative offered by the newly elected American President, he will undermine prospects for any improvement in relations. It may also have other unforeseen consequences, such as removing any limitations on Ukrainian use of American weapons and pushing against Russian interests in other regions, including North Korea and Iran.

The same goes for Ukraine. Since American diplomatic and material support is critical to the ongoing conflict, whatever America advocates will have significant weight. If President Zelensky obstructs a Trump negotiation initiative, the United States might reverse the permission given by the Biden administration for the use of American weapons against certain areas of Russia or make future aid conditional on cooperation.

Will these factors produce an opportunity for a peace settlement? I believe they will, though it will not be easy, and success is not assured. Any peace initiative will have to deal with four critical issues and bridge some very significant differences between the parties and other stakeholders.

1. Territory. Territory is obviously a critical issue, and the two sides are far apart on it. Ukraine wants the return of all territories occupied by Russia since 2014, including Crimea and Donbas. Based on his recent peace proposal, Putin—who alone will decide for Russia what is acceptable or not—is publicly demanding that Ukraine turn over to Russia even more territory than it currently occupies. Based on a recent opinion poll, the vast majority of Ukrainians, some 83 percent, reject the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, as demanded by Putin. During the presidential debate in June, President Trump characterized Putin’s proposal as unacceptable.

One option that some experts believe might work is the following: a) Russian forces pull back to areas Moscow controlled before the start of the 2022 war, i.e., Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. b) Ukraine agrees not to use force to liberate these areas but to seek the resolution of their ultimate future through negotiation and peaceful means only. c.) the remaining areas of Ukraine now occupied by Russia will be administered by a UNSC-mandated administration (a kind of protectorate) for ten years or so. At the end of that period, an internationally administered referendum would determine whether the people of these areas choose to rejoin Ukraine, join Russia, or have another option.

2. A robust security guarantee for Ukraine. A legitimate question of the Ukrainian leadership is that, after an agreement and a ceasefire, what is to deter and prevent Putin sometime later, say two years or more, having regrouped and enhanced his military capabilities, to push into the UN-administered areas and the rest of Ukraine to continue his goal of subjugation? This Ukrainian concern is not without cause, as Moscow has followed this method before.

In the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in 2022, the option under consideration was Ukraine’s permanent neutrality along with a security guarantee by guarantor states consisting of the United States, Great Britain, China, Russia, France, Belarus, and Turkey. The draft text noted that EU membership was not inconsistent with permanent neutrality (Austria being evidence of that). 

Since then, Ukraine has been seeking NATO membership and NATO guarantees. At the recent NATO summit in Washington, the alliance stated that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership was “irreversible.” However, several NATO members have serious reservations about such an outcome. Russia regards Ukraine’s membership as a threat to its national security. Ukraine and the alliance might be willing to consider some defined buffer zones and distances that NATO and Russian combat forces shall maintain from the Ukraine-Russia border. 

One other option is likely to appeal to a future Trump administration: the EU provides guarantees by signing a security treaty with Ukraine, a future member of the entity. Given the limited security capabilities of the EU, that commitment to Ukraine’s security could be supplemented with a commitment by Europe’s two nuclear powers: France and the United Kingdom. In other words, both nations would commit to regard an attack on Ukraine’s post-settlement territory as an attack on themselves, to which they would respond accordingly. Of course, there could be alternative European permutations. Nonetheless, while these options might be appealing to Washington, Europeans are likely reluctant to accept this responsibility alone.

There is also the option of a U.S.-Ukraine defense treaty of the kind we are considering with Saudi Arabia. This year, the United States signed a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine aimed at enhancing defense cooperation, not a defense treaty. The Biden administration was not prepared to go that far, and given President Trump’s and Senator Vance’s statements, a bilateral defense treaty of that kind would be unlikely on their watch.

3. Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine has suffered colossal damage. On the basis of geography and because of Ukraine’s projected EU membership, Europe is the natural lead for the massive reconstruction effort that will be required. Additionally, although the American private sector has already shown signs of interest—and here, we may expect a Trump administration to excel—a key negotiating point should be Russia’s contribution to Ukraine’s reconstruction, given the enormity and brutality of the destruction they caused. As part of the settlement of the conflict, in the discussion of the future of sanctions against Russia, a portion of the frozen Russian assets might be allocated to reconstruction.

4. Russia’s diplomatic standing. For Russia, an essential motivation in agreeing to any Ukrainian settlement will be the benefits of future relations with the West and particularly with the United States. Russian diplomats consistently complain that “because of Ukraine,” the United States has refused to engage in discussion of critical matters such as the Middle East, Europe’s security architecture, and nuclear, missile, cyber, and space issues. Some may find this surprising. Consequently, we must understand and not underestimate the extent to which Russia’s leadership still values relations with the United States. They have signaled that in exchange for an agreed-upon road map for better mutual relations, they would be more flexible on terms for a settlement in Ukraine. A future Trump administration should play this card astutely.

The United States has significant leverage over both Russia and Ukraine. A new administration has an opportunity to use that leverage effectively. The discussion, analysis, and debate on settlement options and how best to pursue them should start now. 

Zalmay Khalilzad is the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Follow him on X: @realzalmayMK.

Image: Drop of Light / Shutterstock.com.

The U.S. vice president has secured enough pledged support from delegates to win August nomination vote.

How protests against a quota system turned into an uprising against Sheikh Hasina’s government.

But experts say the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement Beijing brokered is unlikely to succeed.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is facing competition from Russia's S-70 Okhotnik-B, a highly autonomous combat UAV developed by Sukhoi. First tasked in 2011 and with prototypes visible by 2017, the S-70 shares components with the Su-57 fighter, including internal weapons bays.

-The UAV can carry 2.8 tons of munitions, reach speeds over 620 mph, and features stealth technologies.

-Initially expected to enter production in 2024, the timeline may be delayed due to the war in Ukraine. The S-70’s capabilities highlight its role in the global race for sixth-generation air dominance.

Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik-B: Russia’s Advanced Combat UAV for the Future

The U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance program, or NGAD, has plenty of competition. It will not be the only sixth-generation fighter platform in the skies. Beijing and Moscow are fielding their own respective next-gen fighters, and the race is on to get there first. 

Like the Air Force’s NGAD, Russia’s planned sixth-generation fighter jet is expected to fly alongside a fleet of highly autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles. Referred to in the U.S. as “drone wingmen,” these sophisticated airframes provide a lower-cost, unmanned option to accompany the manned aircraft. Russian manufacturer Sukhoi is developing the S-70 Okhotnik-B combat UAV to fulfill this role. 

An Overview of the S-70’s Origins

Russia’s Defense Ministry first tasked engineers at Sukhoi with creating a new UAV system in 2011. The first prototype was seen in 2017, when the drone’s flying wing configuration was showcased. One year later, the S-70 carried out its first series of tests and was reportedly capable of reaching a top speed of 200 kilometers per hour in a speed and stop trial. 

While Moscow refers to the S-70 “Hunter B” UAV as a sixth-generation platform that can penetrate outer space, the aircraft’s exact specs have not been confirmed. The S-70 is partly derived from its Mikoyan Skat predecessor and possesses several key components of the Sukhoi Su-57 fighter. 

Between 2018 and 2022, Russian state-run media outlets reported that Hunter-B prototypes were being constructed at the Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Plant. They are believed to feature enhancements to onboard radio-electronic equipment and structural elements. 

The S-70 was supposed to enter serial production in 2024, but the war in Ukraine may have pushed back this timeline.

The S-70 in Its “Wingman” Role

As mentioned previously, the Hunter-B should share several components with Moscow’s Su-57 fighter. Specifically, the aircraft is believed to feature similar internal weapons bays, meaning it will use the same beyond-visual-range weaponry. 

The S-70’s real prowess will come from its armaments. The drone is expected haul a vast array of ordnance, including 250 caliber and 500 caliber bombs. According to Army Recognition, the UAV will also be able to carry unguided bombs weighing up to 1,000 kilograms, in addition to a range of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles. In total, the drone can carry up to 2.8 tons of munitions in its two internal weapons bays. 

Powered by the same AL-21 jet engine that drives the Su-27 fighter jet, the Hunter-B is capable of reaching speeds in excess of 620 miles per hour, according to Army Recognition:

“The drone can autonomously perform complex missions, including takeoff and landing, making it a formidable asset in modern warfare. Its ability to carry various types of munitions, from precision bombs to air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, enhances its versatility on the battlefield. It also features stealth technologies, including a flat nozzle design that improves its radar invisibility, a critical factor in its effectiveness.”

Other Specs and Capabilities

Russia state-media outlets report the S-70 weighs roughly 20 tons, with a wingspan of 14 meters. Although this is smaller than the Su-57, the difference is minimal. 

In 2023, The War Zone published a report analyzing video footage released by Moscow that shows a reporter walking across the wing of a Su-57 positioned next to an S-70 drone.The aircraft appear roughly the same size. 

As detailed by the article, the new drone is “covered in various intakes and exhausts, as well as antennas, and a forward-facing camera system under the central part of the forward fuselage.” The UAV reportedly features electro-optical targeting, as well as radio and other reconnaissance equipment. 

Considering shortages amid Russia’s ongoing Ukraine invasion, this sophisticated drone might not see combat any time soon. But it is an important entry in the race to field the next generation of aerial combat platforms.

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. 

Biden’s withdrawal from the U.S. presidential race may have hit a nerve in China.

Summary and Key Points: China has completed the construction of a bridge over Pangong Tso, a high-altitude lake near the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC) between China and India. The bridge, located at the narrowest part of the lake, will significantly reduce travel time for Chinese forces, potentially facilitating quicker deployment of their Type 15 light tanks to the LAC.

-This development has heightened tensions between the two nuclear powers, especially after a prolonged standoff in the region. In response, India has unveiled its new Zorawar light tank, designed for rapid deployment and high-altitude operations.

-The tank features a 105mm main gun, AI capabilities, and amphibious functions, positioning India to better defend its interests in the rugged terrain of the LAC.

China Completed Bridge Over Very Troubled Waters Near LAC

Beijing has more than its fair share of what could rightfully be described as "troubled waters" – and those include the Taiwanese Strait and the South China Sea, each a potential flashpoint for a war with its neighbors. However, far from the Western Pacific is Pangong Tso or Pangong Lake – an endorheic lake in the eastern Ladakh Valley that is near the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC) between China and India.

Located 13,862 feet above sea level, it is one of the highest-altitude lakes in the world, while it is 134 km (83 miles) long, which also makes among the largest lakes in Asia. Though noted for its scenic beauty, its remoteness means few actually can ever see it – and it doesn't generally receive a lot of international attention.

Yet, it could be a flashpoint for a war between China and India, especially as the former just completed construction on a controversial infrastructure project.

Bridge Over Troubled Waters

It was reported this week that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has finished construction on a bridge at the narrowest part of Pangong Tso in Khurnak, connecting the north and south banks of the lake.

Construction of the 400-meter-long, 8-meter-wide bridge began in late 2021, following a months-long standoff between Indian and Chinese forces near the LAC. The bridge will allow for PLA forces to move directly north-south and troops coming from the Khurnak Fort could see their travel times cut from 12 hours to three to four hours, while it will cut down a 180 km (111 mile) loop from the Khurnak to the south banks.

"The bridge will also add a new route connecting Khurnak Fort and surrounding facilities with the PLA's largest base in the vicinity, at Rutog," the Center for Strategic & International Studies reported.

The bridge at Pangong could also allow the Chinese military to quickly deploy its Type 15 light tank to the disputed LAC should fighting break out between the two nuclear powers. The tank, which first entered service in 2018, is noted for being armed with a fully stabilized 105mm rifled main gun, a robust armor package, and CRBN (Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) protection typically found in larger MBTs.

India Ready to Respond

Both sides have increasingly fortified their positions along the 2,100-mile-long LAC, while also developing platforms that are well-suited to the rugged, high-altitude terrain.

It was earlier this month that India announced 25-ton Zorawar light tank has entered service. Named after the 19th-century Dogra General Zorawar Singh, who led military operations in Ladakh and Western Tibet, the Zorawar was jointly developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and private vendor Larsen & Toubro (L&T). The quick development and fielding of the tank is noteworthy as the Indian Army only issued a Request for Information (RFI) in 2021 calling for a new tank that weighed less than 25 tonnes, yet had a margin of 10 percent and the same firepower as a regular MBT.

It would appear that the tank more than met the requirements, and arrived just as China has increased its ability to more quickly deploy its forces near the LAC.

The Zorawar is armed with a 105mm main gun, while it is also artificial intelligence-enabled, and further fitted with an active protection system that includes tactical drones to provide situational awareness and loitering munition capability. In addition, the light tank was designed to be air transportable for rapid deployment, but it can also operate from high-altitude areas to island territories. It features amphibious capabilities that could allow it to ford any deep streams and rivers in the region, while it can traverse steep climbs.

The new tank was unveiled to the media for the first time on July 6 at the company's production facility in Hazira, Gujarat. Manu Pubby, senior editor for the Indian-based Economic Times shared photos of the tank on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. It is noted to have a lower profile and lower center of gravity than the far larger 50 to 60-ton T-72s and T-90s.

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: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Massachusetts (BB-2), commissioned in 1896, is often considered the worst battleship in U.S. Navy history due to its numerous design flaws and operational issues. This Indiana-class battleship (as seen below) suffered from severe stability problems, making it difficult for the crew to operate its guns effectively.

-Its propulsion system was unreliable, frequently breaking down and requiring repairs. The ship's armament, including four 13-inch guns, was poorly balanced, causing it to list severely when fired.

-Despite participating in notable actions during the Spanish-American War and the Boxer Rebellion, the USS Massachusetts' fundamental design flaws rendered it largely ineffective in combat, earning it a dubious place in naval history.

The USS Massachusetts (BB-2) is the Worst US Navy Battleship Ever

For decades, the U.S. Navy billed itself as holding the greatest battleship fleet in the world. Indeed, before the events of the Pacific Theater of the Second World War, the American Navy could lean heavily on its marvelous designs for battleships, as well as its industrial capacity to produce those battleships. 

But even great navies miss their mark every so often. One such missed mark for the U.S. Navy’s battleship design and engineering team was USS Massachusetts (BB-2).

Some Facts and Figures 

Commissioned in 1896, this Indiana-class battleship stands out as one of the most poorly designed and underperforming battleships in the history of the Navy. The vessel suffered from a series of design flaws and operational issues that left it ineffective in combat. Despite these facts, it had a relatively long history, serving in the Spanish-American War and being a key part of the international fleet that was assembled to respond to the Boxer Rebellion in colonial China. 

One of the most significant problems with USS Massachusetts was its lack of stability. The ship’s hull was not properly balanced. It had a tendency to roll excessively even in moderate seas. Under these conditions, the crew had difficulty operating the ship’s guns effectively, as the constant rolling often made it nearly impossible to aim accurately. 

A battleship that is fundamentally incapable of targeting its enemies seems like a pretty bad battleship, if you ask me!

Another major flaw in the design of Massachusetts was its propulsion system. Equipped with two vertical, triple-expansion steam engines, these systems were prone to breakdowns and malfunctions. This meant that the ship often had difficulty maintaining its top speed, and it was frequently forced to return to port for repairs.

In terms of armaments, USS Massachusetts was equipped with four 13-inch guns, which were the largest guns available at the time of its construction. Again, though, there were balancing issues, this time with the guns themselves. And because these guns were improperly balanced, the weight of these weapons caused the ship to list severely when they were fired. 

Bottom line: Massachusetts was an incredibly unreliable weapons platform in combat.

This boat had a displacement of 10,288 long tons and was not only equipped with 13-inch guns, but also had eight 8-inch guns, four 6-inch guns, twenty 6-pounders, six 1-pounders, and two 18-inch torpedo tubes. Massachusetts had a length of 350 feet, 11 inches, and a beam of 69 feet, 3 inches, as well as a draft of 27 feet. She had a top cruising speed of 15 knots, or 17 miles per hour, and carried a complement of 473 officers and men.

Her Service Record

The ship saw action during the Spanish-American War that proved to be historic. On May 31, 1898, USS Massachusetts along with USS Iowa (BB-4) and USS New Orleans, bombarded forts at the entrance to Santiago de Cuba. They also engaged the Spanish cruiser Cristobal Colon, forcing it to retreat into Santiago’s inner harbor.

On July 4, 1898, Massachusetts returned to Santiago, Cuba, and helped USS Texas force the Spanish cruiser Reina Mercedes to beach and surrender.

These actions were part of larger naval operations during the Spanish-American War that saw the U.S. Navy successfully blockade the Spanish fleet in Santiago and ultimately secure victory in the conflict.

A couple of years later, during the Boxer Rebellion in colonial China, USS Massachusetts was deployed as part of an international naval force to protect foreign interests and to relieve the siege of the Legation Quarter in Beijing. On June 17, 1900, Massachusetts, along with other American ships, was ordered to proceed to Taku, China, to support the international relief expedition. 

The Worst Battleship in US History

Despite this service, Massachusetts stands out as one of the worst-designed and worst-performing battleships in the history of the United States Navy. Its numerous flaws, including its lack of stability, unreliable propulsion system, and poorly balanced armament, rendered it largely ineffective in combat.

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?)

How to decode the esoterica of Chinese political meetings.

Summary and Key Points: The UK’s Vanguard-class submarines, the largest ever built in the country, are set to be replaced after three decades of service. These 16,000-ton ballistic missile submarines, introduced in the early 1990s, have been a crucial part of Britain's sea-based nuclear deterrence, carrying Trident missiles capable of reaching targets up to 4,000 miles away. Outfitted with Rolls-Royce PWR2 nuclear reactors, the Vanguard-class includes four submarines: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, and Vengeance.

-The new Dreadnought-class submarines will replace the aging Vanguard-class. Four Dreadnoughts are planned, with three currently under construction. These new submarines will also carry Trident missiles and are designed for a service life of nearly 40 years.

-Despite delays in the Astute-class submarine program affecting the Dreadnought timeline, the transition marks a significant update to the UK’s naval capabilities. The Dreadnought program, costing £31 billion, reflects the UK's commitment to maintaining a robust sea-based nuclear deterrent.

UK Vanguard-Class Submarines to Be Replaced After Three Decades of Service

The British Vanguard-class, a massive ballistic missile submarine, is soon to be replaced after serving for multiple decades. Capable of displacing 16,000 tons (submerged), the Vanguard-class is the largest submarine made in the United Kingdom.

In fact, the Vanguard displaces twice as much as the submarine she replaced, the Resolution-class. But having been introduced thirty years ago, the Vanguard-class submarines are now outdated; The Royal Navy will retire all four – the Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, and Vengeance.

Meeting the Soviet threat

As you might expect for a NATO ballistic missile submarine unveiled in 1994, the Vanguard was built to provide the Soviet Union with a nuclear deterrent. And unlike the United States, who relied upon a nuclear triad, which spread nuclear deterrent responsibilities across the land, air, and sea, the British focused primarily on sea-based deterrence – meaning that the Vanguard was of outsized importance. To further enhance the Vanguard’s deterrent abilities, the British purchased Trident missiles from their American allies, a deal that then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher oversaw. The Trident missile can reach targets up to 4,000 miles away and are fired from the Vanguard’s ballistic missile tubes.

The Vanguard also carries four 21-inch torpedo tubes, which can carry up to 16 Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes. The Spearfish torpedo can hit target while traveling at faster than 90 miles per hour, detonating a 660-pound explosive charge. The torpedo gives the Vanguard both anti-submarine and anti-surface abilities.

Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering, which is currently BAE Systems Submarines, built the Vanguard-class, the first of which was commissioned in 1993, and the last of which was commissioned in 1999.

All four Vanguards are outfitted with a Rolls-Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, which can convert water into steam to drive the engines and generate electricity. The Vanguard can reach speeds in excess of 25 knots – a respectable speed for the nearly 500-foot vessel – for a virtually unlimited range. The PWR2 has twice the service life as previous models, and estimates hold that the Vanguard could circle the globe 40 times before needing to refuel, although this theory is unlikely to have been tested.

Set for replacement

The Dreadnought-class is scheduled to replace the aging Vanguard class. The Dreadnought will also use the Trident missiles from the Vanguard, however. At present, three Dreadnoughts are under construction, with four planned total. The Dreadnoughts are expected to be named: Dreadnought, Valiant, Warspite, and King George VI. The Dreadnought will be slightly longer than the Vanguard, measuring 504 feet long, and similarly, will displace about 17,000 tons.

The Dreadnought is expected to have a service life of nearly 40 years, which represents a 50 percent increase over the Vanguard. And the Dreadnought better last awhile, at 31 billion pounds, the program is extremely expensive.

While the Dreadnought will replace the Vanguard, delays to the Astute class submarine construction are in turn causing delays to the Dreadnought class, which may mean the Vanguard gets to stay in service a little while longer.

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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit is the most expensive aircraft in the U.S. military’s inventory, costing upwards of $2 billion per unit when adjusted for inflation.

-This flying-wing stealth bomber, designed to deploy nuclear weapons undetected, is significantly more expensive than other military aircraft like the F-22 Raptor, C-17 Globemaster, and even Air Force One.

-The B-2 enhances the U.S. nuclear triad by providing a stealthy and precise delivery method for nuclear payloads, adding an element of unpredictability. However, its high cost raises questions about whether its marginal benefits justify the substantial financial investment.

-The most expensive aircraft in the U.S. military’s inventory is the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, and there is no close second. 

Is the B-2 Spirit Worth the $2 Billion Price Tag?

The world’s first stealth bomber, the B-2 is a flying-wing aircraft distinctive for its lack of vertical stabilizers, horizontal stabilizers, or traditional fuselage. Painted black, the B-2 looks worthy of a Batman film. 

But despite distinct appearances and world’s-first claims, the B-2’s most notable feature is its cost. When first funded in the early 1990s, the B-2 cost $1 billion per unit. When adjusted for inflation, each B-2 costs upward of $2 billion. For a single aircraft, that is hard to justify.

To put the B-2’s cost in perspective, consider the price tags of other U.S. military aircraft. 

The F-22 Raptor, the world’s first fifth-generation fighter, costs $350 million per unit. The C-17 Globemaster, which can transport tremendous quantities of U.S. military equipment around the world, costs up to $340 million per unit. The P-8 Poseidon costs $290 million per unit, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the interconnected fifth-generation marvel, costs $115 million per unit. 

Air Force One itself, designed to support the head of the entire executive branch in transit, costs $660 million. You could buy four Air Force Ones for the price of one B-2. You could buy six F-22s, or about seventeen F-35s. For the price of one B-2, you could cover about 40% of the cost to build a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that houses about 5,000 sailors and 100 aircraft.

So, were the B-2’s unique costs worthwhile? Did the U.S., at $2 billion per unit, get its money’s worth? Short answer: probably not.

B-2 Spirit: Expensive Deterrence

The B-2’s primary selling point is the fusion of stealth technology with the ability to deploy nuclear weapons. In theory, the B-2 allows the U.S. to deploy nuclear weapons with pinpoint precision, without the delivery method being detected beforehand. 

Essentially, the B-2’s stealth features were meant to remove predictability from U.S. nuclear deployment tactics, inspiring greater caution from U.S. adversaries who would be forced to assume the U.S. could strike with surprise, anytime and anywhere. In short, the B-2 is designed to enhance the “air” portion of the U.S.’ air-land-and-sea nuclear triad, which in turn enhances Washington’s nuclear deterrence capabilities.

Without question, a stealth bomber enhances the nuclear triad. And while the U.S. has a strategic incentive to maintain nuclear superiority over other nations, at a certain point, systems become somewhat redundant. That’s not to say that another weapons system can reproduce the precise abilities of the B-2, or the operational options it confers. But the U.S. already has first and second nuclear strike options. It has a large and wide-ranging stockpile of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its nuclear missile-armed submarines lurk stealthily in oceans around the world. And of course, non-stealth bombers like the B-1 and B-52 can deliver nuclear payloads, although they are less likely than the B-2 to survive in contested airspace.

Sure, the U.S. has a more complete nuclear triad with the B-2 stealth bomber. It is, arguably, incrementally safer with the B-2 stealth bomber on call. But at $2 billion per unit, the B-2’s marginal benefits are hard to financially justify.

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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: A Google Earth image has captured a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber over a Missouri farm near Whiteman Air Force Base, sparking discussions about the stealth capabilities of the U.S. Air Force's most advanced bomber. Critics wonder how such a high-tech aircraft could be seen on a widely accessible platform.

-The B-2, known for its stealth and long-range capabilities, remains critical to U.S. defense, despite being occasionally visible in public and on satellite images.

-This sighting, while notable, does not undermine the B-2's stealth advantages, which have proven crucial in numerous combat missions since its introduction.The plane should be considered 'rare' in that there is only 19 of them. 

-The aircraft is set to remain in service until the 2030s, replaced eventually by the B-21 Raider.

The Rare B-2 Bomber

Civilians have pounced on a stilled image of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber that appeared over a farm in Missouri close to Whiteman Air Force Base years back.

This photo was captured by Google Earth, and it has some critics wondering why the stealth technology on the B-2 didn’t hide it better. The enterprising person who used Google Earth cheekily referred to the B-2 as conducting a “crop dusting mission” and you can see the agricultural scene below the bomber in the video here.

But is there actually a real problem here or not?

Here is a quick rundown of the B-2s history and some very key facts about this one-of-a-kind bomber.

B-2: Is the Sighting on Google Earth a Showstopper?

It’s probably not fair to criticize the bomber’s stealth signature based on one incident on Google Earth, but it is alarming that an app available to anyone with Internet service can track the B-2.

This is, after all, the most expensive and advanced bomber in the Air Force’s arsenal. Adversaries have noticed and could possibly use Google Earth to show B-2s taking off from Whiteman AFB in the future. They could count the number of take-offs, for example, and receive an early warning on intercontinental missions as well as training sorties. Of course, we must keep in mind this is entirely dependent on how often Google Earth updates its maps.

Some Spectators Have Caught a Rare Glimpse

The B-2 sometimes makes appearances at air shows and even conducted a fly-over at the Super Bowl over Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida in January of 2021. But sightings are rare because there are only 20 in service.

The Air Force has plans to use the flying wing until 2032 and gradually put them out to pasture after the B-21 Raider comes onto the scene in five or six years.

The B-2 Has Set Records for Longest Flights

The B-2 was meant to cruise past enemy air defenses with stealth characteristics. The B-2 has also made some historic, record-setting flights. After 9/11, it ventured all the way to Afghanistan for a bombing run that took 44-hours. Then it landed, made a quick change to a replacement crew, and flew back to Missouri in 34-hours.

Crew Rest and Comfort Is Important on Multi-day Missions

How does the crew handle such a long flight? The B-2 actually has a bed, a toilet, and a microwave aboard so creature comforts are covered for pilots who need a break.

It Has Substantial Amounts of Maintenance and Operating Costs

But these features come with a price.

The B-2 is the most expensive bomber in history. It takes over $44 million a year just to maintain it. Each airplane set the DOD back $2 billion. The Air Force originally wanted 132, but Congress put the kibosh on that order and only authorized 21 with one lost during a crash in 2008 to make a total of 20 now flying. None have been shot down in combat.

The Flying Wing Concept Has Been Around Since the 1940s

If you can believe it, the flying wing is not new.

Designers have experimented with the style since World War II when they tested the experimental Northrop XB-35 and YB-35. Then the service branch, known as the U.S. Army Air Forces at the time, went to work. They replaced the props with eight turbojet engines, added four vertical stabilizers, and gave it four air dams.

The development wasn’t always smooth. In 1950, one of the experimental airplanes did a nosedive when the landing gear failed, and the prototype busted in two and was a complete loss. By 1953, the entire flying wing program was retired after only 13 flights.

The flying wing design saw no other development until the Air Force figured it would be the best way to get a stealth model into the air. This was 40 years after the experimental flying wings.

The Enemy Evolved and the B-2 Responded in Combat

Northrop Grumman introduced the B-2 and based it in Whiteman AFB in 1993 because the Russians and Chinese were creating a web of dangerous air defenses with new radars and improved fighter interceptors. It made its combat debut in the War in Kosovo by eliminating Serbian targets without resistance. During that conflict, it destroyed around 33-percent of all targets in the first eight weeks of fighting. Then Afghanistan and Iraq became a rich killing field for the B-2. In 2017, it also removed ISIS terrorists from the battlefield in Libya with GPS-guided bombs.

Important Part of the Nuclear Triad

The B-2 can deploy up to sixteen B-61 or B-83 nuclear gravity bombs on the rotating launchers inside its two weapons bays. In 2018, it carried the upgraded B61-12 nuclear bomb.

It can fly up to 6,000 nautical miles without re-fueling which gives it global reach. The idea is to fly low and use the stealth characteristics to sneak into combat theaters.

Unfortunately, the bomber was not able to sneak past intrepid viewers of Google Earth recently, but that was just a minor hiccup. The B-2, along with the B-1, and B-52 will “deliver the mail” in combat when called upon. And the B-2 will still be able to penetrate deep into enemy airspace.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

All images are Creative Commons and Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In January 2017, two Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base executed a complex and costly 34-hour nonstop mission to bomb Islamic State targets near Sirte, Libya. This mission, part of President Barack Obama's counterterrorism campaign, marked the B-2's last combat sortie to date.

-The operation required extensive aerial refueling and cost around $8.8 million, excluding additional costs for refueling and munitions.

-Despite the high expenses, the B-2's advanced stealth capabilities ensured the mission's success.

- The Problem, a Numbers Challenge That Can't Be Fixed: Currently, the B-2 fleet, which consists of only 19 aircraft, is set to be equipped with the extended-range GBU-62 JDAM-ER, enhancing its strike capabilities as it remains in service until the B-21 Raider's introduction in the 2030s.

The B-2 Spirit's Enduring Legacy and Its Future with JDAM-ER

In January 2017, the United States Air Force deployed a pair of Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB), Missouri, to bomb targets in the Libyan desert near the city of Sirte. According to reports from the time, the overnight bombing sortie killed more than 80 suspected Islamic State militants. It marked the first time the bombers had been used in combat since the 2011 air campaign that helped force Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi from power.

The mission was one of the final B-2 deployments made during former President Barack Obama's global counterterrorism campaign, but it was costly and complex. It reportedly required at least five aerial refueling tankers to allow the B-2 stealth bombers to make the 10,000-mile, 34-hour nonstop CONUS-to-CONUS flight to Libya and back. At the time, each of the bomber's operating costs was approximately $130,000 per flight hour. 

The 34 flight hours came out to roughly $4.4 million – or $8.8 million for the pair. That price didn't factor in the cost of the aerial refueling plans, or the 100 GBU-38 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs equipped with GPS guidance carried and deployed on the targets by the two bombers.

The January 2017 mission was also the last B-2 combat sortie to date, but the Spirit remains in the U.S. Air Force's arsenal and will continue to operate into the 2030s when its replacement, the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider enters service.

Extending the JDAM Range

The B-2s that struck the Islamic State targets more than seven years ago did so with the GBU-38 JDAM, but lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee have called for the stealth bomber to be able to carry the heavier-hitting GBU-62 Joint Direct Attack Munitions – Extended Range (JDAM-ER).

"The 500 pound JDAM-ER variant features a modular add-on wing kit, which (utilizes) small diameter bomb glide technology. The wings unfold in flight and triple the range of the weapon from the standard 15 miles (24km) of a conventional JDAM system to more than 45 miles," Airforce-Technology.com explained.

The U.S. began supplying the JDAM-ERs to Ukraine last year.

Few But Powerful

Seen as the first successful "flying wing" aircraft, the B-2s low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics have provided it the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. The Spirit's capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation further has provided a strong, effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.

The B-2's low observability was derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signatures. These signatures make it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track, and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings, and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."

The United States Air Force currently operates 19 B-2 Spirits, following a mishap in December 2022. One of the Air Force's then-20 B-2s made an emergency landing and caught fire at Whiteman AFB. The air service determined it would be too costly to repair the bomber.

However, the remaining fleet of 19 bombers could soon pack an even greater punch than was employed on its last combat sortie seven and a half years ago.

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.

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?)

« Le 24 février 2022, aux premières heures de la matinée, j'ai senti au plus profond de moi-même que la parenthèse de l'après-guerre s'était refermée. » Le géopolitologue Dominique Moïsi décrypte un monde dominé surtout par ses émotions, comme l'illustre « le divorce que révèle et creuse la guerre en Ukraine (...) / France, Europe, Conflit, Géopolitique, Armée - 2024/07

Summary and Key Points: The M1 Abrams has been the backbone of the U.S. Army's armored forces since 1980, renowned for introducing advanced technologies like Chobham composite armor and a multi-fuel turbine engine. Now, General Dynamics is looking to the future with the AbramsX, a new model featuring a hybrid electric diesel engine, artificial intelligence systems, and a reduced crew size. The AbramsX promises to be lighter and more fuel-efficient, addressing some of the criticisms of the current Abrams models.

-However, the Defense Department has expressed reservations about the program, particularly regarding the integration of AI and the relevance of tanks in modern warfare.

-Whether the AbramsX will secure the necessary funding to become the Army’s next primary battle tank remains to be seen.

The Future of U.S. Tanks: General Dynamics Unveils AbramsX"

The tank most commonly associated with the modern U.S. Army is the M1 Abrams. This third-generation battle tank has served as the U.S. cavalry’s backbone since 1980. 

The Abrams was at the forefront of several new technologies, introducing Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, a multi-fuel turbine engine, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) protection, and separate ammunition storage to the U.S. Army. Indeed, the Abrams has served admirably for over 40 years. 

Now, a new model designated the AbramsX is likely to introduce the next round of novel technologies. It will keep the Abrams relevant for the foreseeable future – assuming the project can secure funding from the Department of Defense.

What We Know So Far on AbramsX

Last year, General Dynamics offered a short YouTube clip advertising the AbramsX. The video made a splash. “It’s the biggest upgrade of America’s military tank technology since early in the Cold War, The Washington Post wrote. 

Naturally, the AbramsX will feature updated technology relative to existing Abrams variants. The biggest upgrade is the inclusion of a hybrid electric diesel engine, which is expected to make the AbramsX lighter and improve its fuel economy. 

In keeping with the economic theme, the AbramsX will operate with a smaller crew than its predecessors. And like most weapons systems being developed these days, the tank will also incorporate artificial intelligence systems.

Is the AbramsX a Worthy Investment?

The Defense Department has expressed reservations over investing in the AbramsX program. 

The new tank “faces an uphill climb in the halls of the Pentagon,” according to The Washington Post. “Russia’s war in Ukraine has shown the promise and peril of tank technology in a modern battlefield,” while “military strategists worry how useful tanks might be in a potential war against China.”

Further contributing to the reservations is the inclusion of artificial intelligence. Thankfully, not everyone is willing to sign off on the use of AI in a next-era battle tank. James Cameron’s treatment of the risks associated with artificial intelligence, the Terminator series, may have a hyperbolic tinge, but it speaks to plausible concerns associated with the embedment of artificial intelligence within military technology.

All In all, “it’s going to be hard for the tank community to get resources to do a major upgrade,” Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said to The Washington Post. 

Mixed reviews for AbramsX Tank

While the Abrams has served as the Army’s primary battle tank for over forty years, the model is not beyond criticism. Designed to rival the Soviet Union’s impressive tank fleet and drive across the sweeping plains of Eastern Europe, the M1 Abrams is very much a product of the Cold War. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Soviet Union still existed, investing in a new tank made more sense.

But times have changed. And while the Abrams has performed sufficiently well to stay in service, the model has not been perfect. The tank is expensive, gas-guzzling, and clumsy in battle. The AbramsX is General Dynamics’ attempt to solve these problems. 

Some of the results seem encouraging. For example, the AbramsX is ten tons lighter than current models. The hybrid electric diesel engine will be 50% more fuel-efficient than the current engine, which is rated for just one mile per gallon.

Will the DoD get on board, and fund the AbramsX as the Army’s tank of the future? We’ll see.

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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Akula-class submarines, built by Amur Shipbuilding Plant and Sevmash, are a testament to Russian naval engineering. Featuring a double hull design, these submarines offer greater buoyancy and versatility compared to their Western counterparts. Powered by the OK-650B pressurized water reactor, also used in various other Soviet submarines, the Akula-class submarines are known for their advanced capabilities and reliability.

-The Akula I variants include the Puma, Delphin, Kashalot, Kit, Pantera, Bars, and Narvel, while the improved Akula-class, Project 971U, consists of Volk, Morzh, Leopard, Tigr, and Drakon. The lone Akula II variant, Vepr (K-157), launched in 1994, showcases significant advancements in armament and sensors. India leased an Akula II submarine, renamed INS Chakra, from Russia, though it was returned early due to propulsion issues.

-The Akula-class submarines remain a critical component of the Russian Navy, with the Vepr expected to stay in service for decades.

Akula-Class: Russia’s Formidable Submarines and Their Role in Modern Naval Warfare

The Akula-class submarines were constructed by the Amur Shipbuilding Plant Joint Stock Company at Komsomolsk and by Sevmash at the Severodvinsk shipbuilding yard.

Each submarine was designed as a double hull system consisting of an inner pressure hull and an outer hull. This layout enables more freedom in the exterior hull’s shape, allowing the submarine to reserve more buoyancy than its Western counterparts.

Each Akula submarine is powered by one OK-650B pressurized water reactor, the same system incorporated onto many Soviet predecessors.

When the OK-650 was introduced to service in the 1970s, it was considered more advanced and reliable than previous submarine reactors. This reactor has also been installed on the Sierra I, Sierra II, the Oscar I, Oscar II, and Typhoon class submarines.

The first seven boats that make up the Akula I class are the Puma, Delphin, Kashalot, Kit, Pantera, Bars and Narvel. An improved Akula-class variant known as Project 971U includes the Volk, Morzh, Leopard, Tigr and Drakon.

In terms of armament, the Akula class was quite formidable. Each submarine was designed to carry S-10 Granat (designated by the West as SS-N-21 Sampson) cruise attack missiles. The S-10 Granat is comparable to the American-made Tomahawk. Subsequent Akula-class variants were fitted with six additional 533mm external torpedo tubes.

The submarine class also sported more advanced sensors than previous submarines. Specifically, the Akula’s surface search radar is the Snoop Pair or Snoop Half.

As detailed by Naval Technology, “]T]he submarine is fitted with the MGK 540 sonar system which provides automatic target detection in broad and narrow-band modes by active sonar. It gives the range, relative bearing and range rate. The sonar system can also be used in a passive, listening mode for detection of hostile sonars. The sonar signal processor can detect and automatically classify targets as well as reject spurious acoustic noise sources and compensate for variable acoustic conditions.”

The Akula II variant

Only one Akula II variant was ever completed- the Vepr (K-157).

In 1990, her keel was laid down and she officially launched four years later. In 1995, the Vepr commissioned. Two additional Akula II-class variants were planned in the late 1990s. However, neither boat was completed.

Notably, the hull sections from the Rys (K-333) and the Kuguar (K-337) were later incorporated in the constructions of the Alexander Nevsky and Yury Dolgorukiy. The Akula II submarines measured at 110m long and could displace up to 12,770t.

Each submarine in this class had a top speed of 35 knots submerged and a maximum diving depth of 600m. Although construction of the Akula II began back in 1991, it was suspended for nearly a decade due to a shortage of funds.

India and the Akula-Class 

A unique leasing opportunity arose when Moscow granted the Indian Navy the ability to “rent” the Akula II submarine.

The SSN, renamed INS Chakra by New Delhi in 2023, was expected to enter service with the Indian Navy in 2007. However, several delays postponed this deadline. At first, issues with installing new systems and technologies onboard set engineers back in schedule. In 2008, a fatal gas leak that broke out on the submarine led to the deaths of 20 civilian crew members, further pushing the submarine’s entry to service back.

Ultimately, New Delhi would sail the INS Chakra for under nine years before returning the submarine to Russia in 2021. Reports suggested that the submarine was returned to Moscow early due to issues with its nuclear propulsion system.

The Akula II SSN was more formidable in armament than its sister variant. Armed with four 533mm torpedo tubes, the submarine could deploy Type 53 torpedoes, RPK-6 or RPK-2 missiles.

Additionally, this vessel could sport naval mines, the RPK-7 missile and four 650mm torpedo tubes.

In 2022, NATO naval forces monitored the Vepr when it transited from the Northern Fleet to the Baltic. The boat is expected to remain in service with the Russian Navy for another few decades.

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. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

All images are Creative Commons.