Diplomacy & Crisis News

Trevor Filseth

Insurrection, Americas

Former president Donald Trump has sought to prevent the committee from questioning former members of his administration.

Former North Carolina Republican senator and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has abruptly ceased his cooperation with the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, according to his lawyer, George Terwilliger. 

Terwilliger indicated that Meadows had pulled out of the scheduled hearings because he was concerned that the committee, which includes seven Democrats and two Republicans, would have “no intention of respecting boundaries” with regard to topics that former president Donald Trump regarded as off-limits. The lawyer added that Meadows had reached his decision after learning that the committee had “issued wide-ranging subpoenas for information from a third-party communications provider,” ostensibly violating the agreement that Meadows had reached with the committee. 

From political exile in Florida, Trump has sought to prevent the committee from questioning former members of his administration. The former president has issued legal challenges to the committee’s authority based on “executive privilege,” a legal doctrine giving presidents some ability to withhold information from the public. It remains unclear, however, if executive privilege can be invoked by former presidents; President Joe Biden has expressly indicated that he will not invoke it on behalf of Trump administration officials. 

Although the matter of executive privilege is still being decided in the courts, Meadows, along with former Trump administration officials Steve Bannon, Dan Scavino, and Kash Patel, have all been subpoenaed to appear before the committee. All four men initially indicated that they would not testify to the committee while the question of executive privilege was being decided. After the committee initiated legal proceedings against Bannon, Trump’s former White House Chief Strategist, Meadows changed his mind and agreed to testify. Bannon has persisted in his refusal and was indicted in November for contempt of Congress; his trial is scheduled for July 2022. 

White House Chief of Staff, Meadows is the highest-ranking official to be called before the committee. His testimony could ultimately make or break the committee’s hypothesis that Trump was directly responsible for the storming of the U.S. Capitol, an attack in which more than one hundred police officers were injured and five died within days. To date, the connection between the officers’ deaths and the Capitol riot remains tepid. 

January 6 Committee members Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) indicated in a joint statement that Meadows would face legal consequences for his refusal. 

“If indeed Mr. Meadows refuses to appear, the Select Committee will be left no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution,” the two representatives said in the joint statement. 

Trevor Filseth is a current and foreign affairs writer for the National Interest. 

Image: Reuters

To show the world the United States is back as a democratic leader, Biden should hold the U.S. military and its allies accountable in warfare.

On Wednesday morning, seven UN peacekeepers from Togo died and three others were seriously injured when their vehicle hit an improvised explosive device in the Bandiagara region in central Mali. 

Paul Richard Huard

A-10 Warthog, Europe

The Henschel Hs 129 wasn't a Warthog. It was a turkey.

Here's What You Need to Know: By the time that the Hs 129 entered service in quantity, the German army was on the defensive.

At first glance, you might think the Henschel Hs 129 was the perfect ground-attack airplane.

Twin engines. A heavily armored cockpit that protected the pilot from small-arms fire. The aircraft even eventually had the heaviest and most powerful forward-firing cannon ever fitted to a production military aircraft during World War II.

The Hs 129 was supposed to be the Luftwaffe’s ultimate aerial tank-killer, dealing death from above to Soviet T-34s on the Russian front. In other words, it would be easy to see it as a World War II-forerunner of today’s formidable A-10 Warthog.

There was just one problem: By all accounts, the Hs 129 was a questionable performer. In fact, the original Hs 129 A-1 series was so bad that the Luftwaffe refused to accept any of the A-1s for service.

The Hs 129 wasn’t a Warthog. It was a turkey.

Still, the aircraft occupies an interesting niche in aviation history. It’s an aeronautical also-ran that reminds us that despite their reputation for Teutonic technical superiority that included producing jet fighters and ballistic missiles, the Nazis could screw up, too.

“The Hs 129 was intended to be the A-10 Warthog of its time, but never came close to achieving that exalted status,” John Little, assistant curator and research team leader at The Museum of Flight, Seattle, told War Is Boring. “Though slow, the A-10 is extremely maneuverable, pleasant to fly and does everything extremely well from plinking tanks to bringing its pilots home alive.”

“The Hs 129 was a dog of an airplane that should have been completely redesigned to incorporate more powerful engines, more reliable engines, lower stick forces, better maneuverability and better visibility,” Little continued. “Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, the need for the Hs 129 was so great that it had to enter service even though it was far from combat-ready. With that said, the Hs 129 was rugged and popular with its pilots—that’s about all that it has in common with the A-10.”

By the late 1930s, German military planners decided the Luftwaffe needed a dedicated ground-attack aircraft. German pilots who flew ground-attack missions as members of the Kondor Legion during the Spanish Civil War learned that low-level attacks could demoralize the Republicans with strafing runs, destroy installations with more accurate bombing, disrupt communications and pinpoint enemy artillery.

There was nothing revolutionary about the idea of a dedicated attack aircraft — the first planes for that purpose were developed during World War I.

But Hitler didn’t want to fight a war like World War I. He wanted rapid movement that swept away Germany’s adversaries. That strategy called for special aircraft that could support German ground forces.

But design difficulties, intelligence failures and poor decision-making in the Luftwaffe high command plagued the manufacture and deployment of the Hs 129, Little said.

The high command “underestimated the need for a dedicated ground-attack aircraft— and particularly a dedicated tank-killer—until it was far too late,” he said. “For example, prior to Operation Barbarossa, the German Abwehr had estimated that the Soviets had only about 10,000 main battle tanks. The actual number was about 24,000. By the time the Germans realized that they needed a dedicated tank-busting aircraft such as the Hs 129, the die had already been cast.”

What’s more, the German government treated Henschel as an all-purpose manufacturer and often directed it to build aircraft for other firms.

“Henschel spent much of the war ‘tooling up’ to produce other companies’ aircraft, only to be ordered to switch to another aircraft before having actually produced any airplanes,” Little said.

The result was that Henschel made relatively few aircraft. Counting the three Hs 129 design prototypes and the eight Hs 129 production prototypes, only 870 Hs 129s appear to have been built, compared to more than 33,000 Messerschmitt Bf 109s and 20,000 Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, the Luftwaffe’s main fighter aircraft.

By the time that the Hs 129 entered service in quantity, the German army was on the defensive and the most urgent mission was destroying Soviet armor. When available in sufficient quantity and equipped with adequate armament, the Hs 129 proved to be fairly effective against Soviet tanks.

Unfortunately for the Germans, there were never more than five squadrons of Hs 129s, and they often carried inadequate weapons.

Then there were the design problems. The Hs 129 was slow, with a top speed of less than two hundred miles per hour when fully loaded. The plane’s three-inch-thick canopy glass impeded the pilot’s view.

What’s more, the Hs 129’s French Gnôme-Rhône 14M engines were hypersensitive to dust and sand.  The engines would frequently seize during flight with no advance warning.

Perhaps embracing the idea that flying a plane that doesn’t kill them might make them stronger, most pilots of Hs 129 actually liked the aircraft for one significant reason—it was damn near indestructible. It could also haul could carry some very heavy Rüstsätze—armament packages—for destroying armored vehicles.

In fact, Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer, Luftwaffe ground-attack ace and recipient of the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, achieved most of his 80 tank kills while piloting an Hs 129. His record made Ruffer was one of history’s most successful tank-killing pilots.

But his love affair with the Hs 129 did not end well. In 1944, Soviet flak hit Ruffer’s aircraft while he was flying a mission over Poland.

He was killed instantly when his Hs 129 exploded.

Paul Richard Huard is a military historian, free-lance journalist and contributor to War Is Boring, where this article first appeared.

Image: Alf van Beem / Wikimedia Commons

A meeting to boost support for UN Peacekeeping ended on Wednesday with 62 countries making new pledges, and advancing existing commitments, to help enhance the performance and impact of these operations worldwide. 

Serious domestic efforts at justice in Colombia have led the court to suspend its longest-running examination to date.

In a long overdue step, the U.N. Security Council may finally address climate security.

With productivity-boosting measures, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) agreement could reduce poverty and inequality while spurring sustainable and inclusive growth, according to a report launched on Wednesday by the UN trade and development body, UNCTAD.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Coronavirus,

In all, more than one-third of Americans between the ages of thirteen and fifty-six have cited the nearly two-year-long pandemic as a chief source of stress.

Results from a new poll are indicating that the ongoing coronavirus pandemic has taken a huge toll on most Americans—but the heaviest struggles are being experienced by teenagers and young adults.

In all, more than one-third of Americans between the ages of thirteen and fifty-six have cited the nearly two-year-long pandemic as a chief source of stress, and many have admitted that it has made certain parts of their lives harder, according to a survey conducted by MTV Entertainment Group and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

However, when it came to education, friendships, and dating, the impact was found to be more pronounced among Gen Zers.

“Among Americans in Gen Z—the survey included ages thirteen to twenty-four—46 percent said the pandemic has made it harder to pursue their education or career goals, compared with 36 percent of Millennials and 31 percent in Generation X. There was a similar gap when it came to dating and romantic relationships, with 40 percent of Gen Z saying it became harder,” the Associated Press writes.

“Forty-five percent of Gen Z also reported greater difficulty maintaining good relationships with friends, compared with 39 percent of Gen X Americans. While many Millennials also said friendships were harder, Gen Z was less likely than Millennials to say the pandemic actually made that easier, 18 percent vs. 24 percent. Roughly half of Americans across generations, including Gen Z, said the pandemic led to struggles having fun and maintaining mental health,” it continues.

Developing Brains

According to Dr. Cora Breuner, a pediatrician at Seattle Children’s Hospital, the outsized impact on Gen Z could be partly blamed on where the children are in their respective brain development.

“It’s this perfect storm where you have isolated learning, decreased social interaction with peers, and parents who also are struggling with similar issues,” she told the news agency, adding that many children do lack the necessary skills to be able to cope with stress and make complex decisions.

Deteriorating Mental Health

The poll’s findings shared similarities with a separate national study conducted by FAIR Health earlier this year. The nonprofit, which collects data for the largest database of privately billed health insurance claims in the United States, examined thirty-two billion records to closely study individuals in the younger age groups.

What the researchers discovered was that in March and April of 2020, mental health claims for those aged thirteen to eighteen approximately doubled compared to the year prior. Moreover, in the Northeast region for the thirteen to eighteen age group, claim lines for generalized anxiety disorder surged 93.6 percent, while major depressive disorder claim lines increased 83.9 percent.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on mental health, particularly on that of young people,” FAIR Health president Robin Gelburd said in a statement. “The findings in our new report have implications for all those responsible for the care of young people, including providers, parents, educators, policymakers, and payors.”

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

Image: Reuters

Women, children and other vulnerable groups are more likely to have their human rights impacted by unilateral sanctions, an independent UN human rights expert alerted on Wednesday.

Stephen Silver

Omicrom, Americas

Warning: a severe illness takes time to develop and the new variant was only spotted less than two weeks ago.  

Centers for Disease Control Director Rochelle Walensky said on Tuesday that the Omicron variant, the latest major variant of the coronavirus, is in fifty countries and nineteen U.S. states. 

“While we are still working to understand the severity of omicron as well as how it responds to therapeutics and vaccines, we anticipate that all of the same measures will at least, in part, provide some protection against omicron,” Walensky said during a White House briefing on the coronavirus.

White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeff Zients added that the U.S. administered 12.5 million shots, more than half of them boosters, in the last week, the highest weekly total since May of this year.

As for the trajectory of the new variant, Dr. Anthony Fauci said during the same briefing that data will likely be available by next week about how well the current vaccines hold up against the new variant. 

Fauci said during the briefing that while early reports from South Africa indicate that the new variant leads to more mild illness, it’s also true that much of the cohort of those infected so far in that country is younger. Many people who have become infected had already been infected by the previous variants and recovered.

Meanwhile, also Tuesday, CNN looked at the reports that Omicron cases in South Africa have been milder, concluding that while it’s too soon to tell, there are positive indicators.

The news network cited a pre-print study stating that the Omicron variant “carries a portion of genetic material that’s very similar to segments seen in one of the types of coronaviruses that causes the common colds,” which is an indicator that the new variant might resemble a “nuisance virus” more than something deadlier. 

However, multiple experts told CNN that it’s too soon to reach any conclusions.  

“Even assuming the insert came from a common cold virus—that’s very dicey—it probably would not make it more like the common cold virus,” Robert Garry a virologist at Tulane University’s medical school, told CNN.  

The other warning from doctors and other experts is that severe illness takes time to develop, the new variant was only spotted less than two weeks ago.  

“There’s a distinction between hopeful and reality. It’s good to hope but it is much too early to conclude that Omicron only produces mild infections. We don’t have those data," William Schaffner, medical director at the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases and an infectious diseases expert at Vanderbilt University, told CNN. He added that “Covid has thrown us several curveballs.”  

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for the National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver. 

Image: Reuters

Stephen Silver

Coronavirus,

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the Division of Infectious Disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC that it appears the Omicron variant will lead to more mild infections for the fully vaccinated.

Ever since the Omicron variant of the coronavirus appeared for the first time the week of Thanksgiving, researchers, as well as the general public, have been wondering whether the variant has the ability to resist existing vaccines.

One study, albeit an early one, indicates that is indeed the case.

According to CNBC, an early preprint study out of South Africa, from the Africa Health Research Institute, finds a “41-fold drop” in antibodies’ ability to “neutralize” the new variant, compared to the original coronavirus, among subjects who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

The study is preliminary, based on very early data, and is not yet peer-reviewed. It also has a very small sample size, consisting of fourteen plasma samples from twelve vaccinated people.

“The results we present here with Omicron show much more extensive escape” than was the case with the previous variant, the study said, per CNBC. “Previous infection, followed by vaccination or booster is likely to increase the neutralization level and likely confer protection from severe disease in Omicron infection.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the Division of Infectious Disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC that it appears the Omicron variant will lead to more mild infections for the fully vaccinated.

“I think that there’s still going to be protection against serious illness,” Offit told the network. “I think with either vaccination or natural infection or both. You’re going to be protected against serious illness.”

While it remains very early in the life of the new variant, early indications are that the Omicron spreads faster than earlier variants, but doesn’t lead to illness that’s as severe, especially in vaccinated people.

Meanwhile, the CDC said Tuesday, per NPR, that cases of Omicron have been reported in 50 different countries, as well as 19 states- both numbers that the CDC expect to get larger. She added that at least in the U.S. the Delta variant remains the dominant one.

“While we are still working to understand the severity of omicron as well as how it responds to therapeutics and vaccines, we anticipate that all of the same measures will at least, in part, provide some protection against omicron,” the CDC’s director, Rochelle Walensky, said Tuesday.

On the same day, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that data will be available, likely by next week, in terms of how well vaccines hold up against the new variant. He added that while early indications out of South Africa are that the disease is less severe than past variants, not much time has passed, while many of those infected so far in that country are younger individuals.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters

Professional provocateur Éric Zemmour makes Marine Le Pen look like a moderate.

Paul Richard Huard

Aircraft Carriers, Asia

The sinking of the Card was stunning victory for the Viet Cong, yet little remembered today.

Here's What You Need to Know: The USNS Card was the last carrier in U.S. military history to date sunk by enemy action.

It was shortly after midnight when two Viet Cong commandos emerged from a sewer tunnel that emptied into Saigon Port, each man carrying nearly 90 pounds of high explosives and the components needed to make two time bombs.

Their target was the largest American ship in port, USNS Card. An escort carrier that saw distinguished service as a submarine-hunter in the North Atlantic during World War II, during the early morning hours of May 2, 1964, Card was part of U.S. Military Sealift Command.

The ship supported an escalating military commitment of the South Vietnamese government that occurred well before the Tonkin Gulf Incident. Since 1961, Card had transported both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to the beleaguered nation as well as the U.S. pilots and support crews need to operate them.

The commandos swam toward Card, where they spent about an hour in the water attaching the charges just above the waterline near the bilge and the engine compartment on the ship’s starboard side. They set the timers and quickly swam away.

The charges exploded. Five civilian crewmen on board Card died, the explosion tore a huge hole in the engine-room compartment and a proud ship that had survived German U-boat attacks was on her way to the bottom — the last aircraft carrier in U.S. military history to date sunk by enemy action.

The sinking of the Card was stunning victory for the Viet Cong, yet little remembered today. It illustrated how vulnerable naval vessels can be even when faced with a low-tech enemy … and how difficult maintaining port security can be in a war with no real front.

But it also demonstrated how resilient American naval forces are. In 17 days, salvage crews raised Card out of nearly 50 feet of water, and six months later the ship returned to service for another six years.

Not surprisingly, North Vietnam celebrated the sinking of Card, considering it a propaganda victory of the first rank. The U.S. government refused to even acknowledge the vessel’s sinking, telling the public the carrier had only been damaged.

The North Vietnamese government even commemorated the event by portraying the operation on a 1964 postage stamp.

Naval vessels often have a mystique about them — they look formidable, bristle with weapons and aircraft, and have the ability to project a nation’s power anywhere on the planet. In particular, aircraft carriers are the symbol of a nation possessing “great power” status.

But they are vulnerable to attack. For example, there are reasons why even aircraft carriers have numerous escort vessels — destroyers, guided-missile cruisers, even submarines — to protect a carrier as well as engage the enemy.

We shouldn’t be too surprised when an enemy takes out a naval vessel in combat, even if it is a commando with a time bomb, James Holmes, a naval historian and analyst who teaches at the U.S. Naval War College, told War Is Boring.

“We shouldn’t get carried away with thinking of warships as ‘castles of steel,’ or latter-day dreadnoughts, or whatever,” Holmes said. “A castle is a fortification whose walls can take enormous punishment, whereas most modern warships have thin sides — the nuclear-powered carrier being an honorable exception. So a guy with a charge can do a lot of damage.”

Holmes said the sinking of Card “provided a preview” of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 — a textbook case of a low-tech assault taking out a prime example of U.S. naval might.

Al Qaeda operatives mounted a suicide attack against Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, using a small boat packed with explosives that targeted the American ship while she was docked in Aden harbor. The blast tore a huge hole in the vessel, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 — the deadliest attack on a U.S. Navy ship in recent history.

The blast from the explosion reached Cole’s galley, killing and wounding many there as sailors were lining up for lunch. Investigators later said they did not consider the timing of the attack a coincidence.

Fifty years ago, penetrating harbor security was a major concern as well for the perpetrators of the attack on Card.

Lam Son Nao, 79, the leader of the Viet Cong commandos, was a maintenance worker at the port at the time of the attack. He used his job as cover while he gathered intelligence, hid explosives and planned the mission.

Despite patrol boats filled with harbor police, Nao and his companion were able to mount their operation because of careful planning and the corruption of Saigon law enforcement.

“For the Card mission, my fellow operative and I pretended to be fishermen,” Nao said in an April 22, 2015 interview with Vietnamese News Service. “When our boat reached Nha Rong Wharf, the police chased us to the bank of the Thu Thiem Peninsula. To avoid having my boat inspected, we pushed the boat to a swamp, so that the police boat could not reach it.”

Nao told the harbor police that he wanted to shop at a market on a nearby island, offering to share part of the clothing and radios he planned to buy there. Then, he gave the police a generous bribe — and they let Nao go his way.

The aftermath of the attack on the Card rallied American rescue and salvage crews to deal with a severe crisis. The American brass and Pres. Lyndon Johnson wanted to keep the results of the attack as quiet as possible.

However, raising Card would be a major salvage operation.

Five Navy divers investigated damage to Card. One said he found the remains of a U.S.-made demolitions pack — evidence that the Viet Cong might have used stolen American military munitions.

In the meantime, the Navy sent the salvage vessel USS Reclaimer and the tug USS Tawakoni to Saigon Port to begin pumping water out of the sunken vessel. Despite poor diving conditions and numerous equipment malfunctions, salvage crews raised Card in a little more than two weeks.

Soon, both Reclaimer and Tawakoni towed Card out of Saigon harbor on their way to the U.S. Navy port of Subic Bay in the Philippines for repairs.

Naval vessels are very flexible ships capable of recuperating from serious battle damage. Apparently, Card was no exception — ships are often “re-purposed” in the U.S. Navy and enjoy long lives in service, Holmes said.

“The carrier Midway went from being a World War II carrier to a modern supercarrier over the course of her life, which reached into the 1990s,” he said. “That philosophy — deliberately build ships to allow for easy changes and upgrades over a long life — is making a comeback.”

Even Cole survived her attackers. After 14 months of repair, Cole departed dry-dock on April 19, 2002, and returned to her homeport of Norfolk, Virginia.

The ship deployed again in 2003. Cole remains in operation with the Sixth Fleet. Card decommissioned in 1970.

This first appeared in WarIsBoring here.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Trevor Filseth

Russia, Eurasia

President Joe Biden expressed reservations to Putin about Russia’s role in fomenting the border crisis. He urged diplomacy and de-escalation on both sides. 

President Joe Biden and Russian president Vladimir Putin outlined their positions on the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian crisis during a virtual meeting on Tuesday. The two political leaders largely steered clear of confrontation. Instead, they voiced their concerns about the situation in Eastern Europe to one another. 

Tensions have risen in eastern Ukraine after Russian military forces, numbering as many as 175,000, have taken up positions along the border. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has described this move as a precursor to an invasion. 

The White House summarized the leaders’ two-hour meeting in a statement, which described how they discussed “a range of issues.” These issues included the escalation of forces along the border, broader tensions in Russo-American relations and opportunities for dialogue, and ransomware and cyberattacks between the two nations.  

During the meeting, Biden expressed reservations to Putin about Russia’s role in fomenting the border crisis. He urged diplomacy and de-escalation on both sides. Also, he raised the issue of economic sanctions against Russia—which he had previously described as “high impact economic measures”—in the event of a conflict, extracting a price from Moscow if it pursued military action in Ukraine. The president indicated that the United States supported Ukrainian sovereignty and opposed Russia’s attempts to influence decisionmaking in Kiev through coercion. 

For his part, Putin has expressed frustration at NATO’s eastward expansion into the historically Soviet bloc, including the proposed admission of Ukraine, which has proceeded since the Euromaidan revolution of 2014. Earlier in the week, Putin had asked for a guarantee from Biden that NATO would not be expanded further east, which he described as a “red line” for Moscow. The White House rejected this request, noting that decisions regarding NATO membership are made with the alliance as a whole.  

Biden and Putin also explored areas for cooperation, most prominently the ongoing Iranian nuclear negotiations in Vienna, in which both Washington and Moscow are part of the “P5+1” signatories to the original 2015 agreement.  

While no concessions were made from either side, both leaders “tasked their teams to follow up,” according to the White House statement.  

The Kremlin spoke positively about the meeting. It said the discussion served as an entry point for further negotiations. “It’s hard to expect any sudden breakthroughs, but the presidents demonstrated their willingness to continue practical work and begin discussing sensitive issues that seriously concern Moscow,” Kremlin official Yuri Ushakov said after the talks had concluded. 

It is expected that Biden will also hold a meeting with Zelensky in the coming days, to reassure the Ukrainian government of continued American support. 

Trevor Filseth is a current and foreign affairs writer for the National Interest. 

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Cavalry, Europe

Cavalry charges once defined European warfare. World War I made it virtually irrelevant in the European theatre. 

Here's What You Need to Remember: Cavalry was all but useless after the opening weeks of the First World War, at least on the Western Front. The static trench lines made it impossible for cavalry to flank enemy positions, while direct assaults against machine guns and fortified positions resulted in horrific bloodbaths.

In countless wars around the world over the centuries, cavalry was a flexible multipurpose force that offered greater mobility than infantry, while it performed long-range reconnaissance and security for commanders. During battle, cavalry secured and protected the flanks and rear of the infantry line, and could be used to counter enemy cavalry or counter an enemy infantry attack.

Cavalry was used to cover a retreat as well as to push back a retreating enemy. It was thus an effective unit that was part scout, part strike force and part rearguard all in one. Soldiers on large, heavy horses could break enemy formations while small lighter horses could scout, patrol and pursue.

During the nineteenth century, cavalry further evolved with specialized heavy cavalry, and in some European armies continued to wear metal breastplates or "cuirass" armor as well as steel helmets; while light cavalry were armed with lances or rifle carbines. Horses also gave generals and their staff extra height and ability to move around a battlefield to direct their soldiers.

Before the outbreak of the First World War almost all military officers, especially in Europe, could ride a horse; while many of the men who entered the army and ended up serving in the ranks also had some riding skills. Yet, even a generation later, during the Second World War, few younger officers had ever been on horseback and apart from those men who grew up on farms hardly any of the ranks could ride.

In other words, in a single generation, the traditional cavalry all but disappeared from the battlefield, and the reason was that warfare changed in unexpected ways.

Cavalry was all but useless after the opening weeks of the First World War, at least on the Western Front. The static trench lines made it impossible for cavalry to flank enemy positions, while direct assaults against machine guns and fortified positions resulted in horrific bloodbaths. Yet, cavalry along with mounted infantry played a role in some of the other theaters of operation, notably the Palestine Front, where Australian Light Horse (mounted infantry that typically dismounted to attack) took part in a class "cavalry charge" against Turkish lines on October 31, 1917, at the Battle of Beersheba.

Yet apart from such moments, it was clear the days of glorious charges were a thing of the past. It wasn't just the defensive weapons that included rapid-fire machine guns, but also the introduction of the tank, the truck and the airplane. Tanks quickly became the spearhead of a new strike force, trucks could move men and materials faster and further and the airplane could scout much further and more accurately than the mounted scout.

It wasn't just the military innovations that changed and evolved. During the industrial revolution across Europe and much of North America, vast segments of the population moved to cities, and by the turn of the century trolleys followed by subways came to move people to work. Then the automobile arrived and as people learned to drive they never bothered to learn to ride.

By World War II, the armies of the world were increasingly mechanized. While it is true that Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union with more horses in 1941 than the Emperor Napoleon had when he invaded Russia in 1812, the size of the armies were vastly different. Moreover, the Germans largely used the horses to transport material because of a lack of trucks and few of the millions of men who marched towards Moscow knew how to ride.

Horses did play a minor role in a few engagements on the Russian Front. The Charge of the "Savoia Cavalleria" at Izbushensky in August 1942 is considered the last "significant" cavalry charge in history, where 700 Italian soldiers of the Regiment "Savoia Cavalleria" successfully attacked some 2,500 Soviet soldiers of the 812th Siberian Infantry Regiment. The last true “charge” took part during the Battle of Schoenfeld near the end of the Second World War in March 1945, when a small united of Polish cavalry, supporting Soviet infantry overwhelmed a German artillery position.

Cavalry is now relegated to parades and other ceremonial duties, but how it disappeared should still be viewed as a portent to what could come in the future. While superior weapons led to the end of the cavalry, so too did the fact that fewer people could ride horses. Today many millennials, as well as members of Generation-Z, are opting not to drive. That could hasten a need for self-driving tanks and other military vehicles if the know-how to drive isn't there. Thus, we could see a future where the tanker went the way of the cavalryman.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. 

This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Features of the new COVID-19 variant Omicron, including the extent to which it will spread, and the sheer number of mutations, suggest that it could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic, but it’s still too early to say for sure. 

Charlie Gao

Israel, Middle East

American equipment in Israeli service is often extensively modified to fit the IDF’s unique mission.

Here's What You Need to Know: Israel is a key customer of American weaponry.

The Israel Defense Forces field a wide variety of American military equipment, due to significant amounts of American military aid to Israel. However, American equipment has not always been the best suited to the tough desert and urban conditions encountered by the IDF. As a result, American equipment in Israeli service is often extensively modified to fit the IDF’s unique mission. Here are some unique derivatives of American equipment that the IDF fields.

1. MAPATS Antitank Missile

The IDF has had a long relationship with the antitank guided missile. In the long desert approaches that surround Israel, antitank missiles can direct the flow of combat and are very effective weapons. While the first ATGMs fielded by Israel were the French SS.10 and SS.11, it was replaced in the late 1970s by the American TOW (Orev in IDF service) missile. However, due to its wire-guided nature, the TOW has range limitations and cannot be used in all circumstances. Bodies of water, trees and power lines can disrupt the TOW’s guidance or endanger the TOW’s operator. As a result, the Israelis developed a version of the TOW that used laser guidance to avoid these issues. A new engine and improved warhead also gave it superior penetration and speed to the original TOW. The MAPATS has seen export success, although it is being replaced by other, newer Israeli ATGMs of wholly indigenous design.

2. Israeli M16 and CAR-15 Variants

While nominally most of the IDF has switched over to the Tavor, variants of the M16 continue to serve in the IDF. However, in the late 1980s and 1990s, these rifles were the frontline rifles of the IDF, replacing the heavier FN FAL and the Israeli Galil (although Galil carbines remained in service in the Armored corps, due to their shorter lengths with stocks folded). In the aughts, Israel set about modernizing these rifles. Due to the largely urban nature of combat the IDF Infantry engaged in, the long twenty-inch and 14.5-inch barrels of the M16s and Colt 653s were deemed too long. The barrels were sawn off to around 12.5 inch length, and the resulting carbines were called “mekut’zrar.” Furniture on these varied, but always had an eye towards the practical. Fabric bands could be wrapped around the plastic handguards to make them more rigid and stop them from creaking, red dots were added straight onto the carry handles and stocks were often replaced with modern six-position M4 stocks. The results were relatively modern, lightweight carbines on the cheap. Mekut’zrar carbines are still seen in service today, although they’ve been supplanted by new stocks of M4s and the Tavor series.

3. Machbet Self-Propelled Antiaircraft Gun

While the M163 VADS was always considered to be kind of a “stopgap” solution for the short-range antiair defense solution for the U.S. military, the VADS saw significant Israeli service in the 1982 Lebanon War. In addition to scoring a kill on a Syrian MiG-21, they provided valuable ground support, suppressing infantry in urban and mountainous areas with their rapid-fire twenty-millimeter cannons. While they were phased out of American service in the 1990s and replaced with the better-armored but slower-firing M6 Bradley Linebacker, Israel opted to upgrade its VADS to the new “Machbet” standard instead, fitting an optoelectronic tracking system, better radar, a quad-Stinger pod and an ADA network datalink to the VADS to make it effective against a wider variety of targets and faster reacting.

4. The F15 Baz Meshopar

Israel was one of the first customers for the American F-15 fighter. It has served admirably as the backbone of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) throughout the late 1970s to the present day. In addition to its superb performance in the air-to-air role during the 1982 Lebanon War, the F-15 was also used in Operation Opera and Operation Wooden Leg, both long-range-strike missions. These were done with the addition of some indigenous guidance and sensor pods. While Israel later acquired variants of the ground-attack F-15E Strike Eagle under the name F15I Ra’am, they also updated their first- and second-gen F-15s to a new standard with indigenous electronics and parts, under the name F-15 Baz Meshopar, or Baz 2000. The upgrade included a new radar with AIM-120 and Israeli Python missile compatibility, redone cockpits with a new throttle and stick and glass cockpit, and improved electronic-warfare capability. This upgrade program ran from 1995 to 2001, and these upgraded F-15s are expected to continue to serve far into the future.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: REUTERS/Amir Cohen

Charlie Gao

Fighters, World

The JF-17 is a relatively new single-engine fighter, meant to compete against other light fighters.

Here's What You Need to Know: A JF-17 pilot said that the Su-30 was one of the most formidable threats.

The 2019 India-Pakistan border skirmish resulted in major shake-ups within the Indian Air Force (IAF). The most accepted narrative, that of a loss of an IAF MiG-21 Bison to no losses of the Pakistan Air Force bodes poorly for the IAF. But interestingly, according to a July interview, the skirmish marked one of the first “hot” use of Pakistan’s new Chinese JF-17 “Thunder” fighters.

The JF-17 is a relatively new single-engine fighter, meant to compete against other light fighters like the F-16, Gripen, and MiG-29 for export contracts. As the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is the only large user, most solid information about the aircraft is from Chinese marketing documents. But the July interview gives one pilot’s opinion on how the JF-17 stacks up against most common adversaries, from Sukhois to F-16s.

The extent of the JF-17’s “hot” usage following the border skirmish was in patrols near the border. In some incidents, the pilot said that during these patrols, he was getting radar lock-on Su-30MKIs at ranges in excess of 100 kilometers.

However, this doesn’t mean that a JF-17 could kill with a missile at that range. The JF-17’s primary beyond-visual-range (BVR) armament is the PL-12 missile, which is still undergoing integration (as of February 2019). During the actual border air skirmish, PAF F-16s lobbed AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM missiles at similar ranges, which forced IAF aircraft to go defensive to dodge the missiles, but no kills were scored. As the PL-12 is said to have a similar range to the AMRAAM, it’s likely that its kinematic performance at range is similar, and it too wouldn’t be able to score a kill.

But if the JF-17 allows the pilot to “lob” a missile at planes at such ranges, it still might be a step ahead of the IAF’s Su-30MKIs. According to an NDTV report, the Russian R-77 missiles cannot engage targets past 80 km.

Despite the Su-30’s missile limitations, the JF-17 pilot said that the Su-30 was one of the most formidable threats the PAF faces. This is likely due to the strong engines and maneuvering capability of the Su-30, which allows it to recover energy quickly after maneuvering and makes it hard to shoot down in a within visual range (WVR) engagement.

Interestingly, the pilot then goes onto state that he’s not that afraid of the Su-30 because he’s trained against F-16s with AMRAAMs, which he thinks is a far superior missile. The pilot also states that the MICA on the Mirage is also a significant threat.

This suggests that the pilot probably thinks that the fight will be largely decided, or largely influenced by the BVR stage of the engagement and that the JF-17’s capabilities in that arena are competitive to the F-16 and Mirage. However, the pilot does say that the JF-17’s limited BVR loadout is its main weakness, as most models of the JF-17 can only carry four BVR missiles, compared to the Su-30MKI which can carry eight or more.

The pilot also gives good marks to the JF-17 for reliability, flight characteristics, and maintenance. As the JF-17 is one of China’s “clean slate” designs, this bodes well for the reliability characteristics of the current generation of Chinese aircraft. However, the JF-17 still uses a Russian engine, and the PAF rejected offers to use Chinese engines in their JF-17s in 2015. Engines remain a critical weakness in the Chinese aerospace industry.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: REUTERS/Luke MacGregor

Fast and flexible, the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) was set up to promote swift, coordinated action in humanitarian crises, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator told a High-level Pledging Event on Wednesday, adding: “It has more than fulfilled its mission”.