Agrégateur de flux

On Thursday, negotiators from Parliament and Council reached a provisional agreement on updating rules to trace import and export of civilian firearms more effectively.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Thursday, 14 March

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Thursday, 14 March

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

A bit of tricky one, this. It partly explains the hiatus in posting of late, although that might also be down to the rubbish weather.

As we move towards a General Election, interest has naturally turned towards what a Labour government might look like and do. And EU policy is a recurring question.

On the one hand, the party played down the issue. It’s not that salient among voters; the party worries its views might dissuade swing voters; and the Conservatives will make full use of an ‘will of the people’ argument on any big changes in relations.

On the other, the relatively distant trading relationship with the EU is a deadweight cost to the economy, instinctive sympathies for close relations exist throughout the party leadership and there’s an incentive to demonstrate how to ‘make Brexit work’ is more than just about tone.

Which leaves observers in a position of some uncertainty.

I have yet to speak to anyone who thinks there is a more developed and ambitious EU policy within the party, awaiting the moment it can be unleashed, presumably after a crushing election victory.

At the same time, the piecemeal and hopeful approach of what we already know appears to be not fully fit for any constructive purpose. As Tim Shipman noted last week, it’s not enough to say that you’re not the Tories and hope everything falls into your lap. Both the EU and its member states have already secured their key objectives in the TCA/WA treaties, so the UK needs to have a more compelling sell if changes are to ensue.

All of which is a prelude to a graphic-in-progress.

Here I’ve try to gather all the public elements of Labour’s EU work in the post-Johnson period. That includes speeches substantively about the subject (although all of these drift off into broader framings to various degrees), policy statements and interactions with relevant people.

It’s a limited overview, since there are various other things going on that I’m aware of, but can’t easily substantiate. However, there’s nothing that suggests any significant divergence from the broad picture presented here: lots of getting-to-know-yous, warm words, but minimal policy development beyond that.

At a guess, the intention is to get a few (relatively) simple wins – on SPS, on security – and then to leave more involved options for the fabled second term. Of course, those more involved options are also the ones that need more time to negotiate, so whether anything significant could be wrapped up in time is a moot point right now.

But that is to miss the wider point, namely that while there is an agenda of strengthening the UK’s profile as a key partner, within which EU relations sit, the starting point is one of minimising spending of political capital, rather than a strategically-grounded reassessment.

That’s understandable from a political management perspective, but it runs the risk of leaving a Labour government underpreparing for handling any future bumps in the road, foreseen and unforeseen. Just as the Major government found that reactive European policy had its limits in the 1990s, so too might Starmer discover that leaning-in is the less politically-costly option in the long run.

PDF: https://bit.ly/UshGraphic126

 

The post Labour’s EU policy: Early markers appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Intelligence Online previously revealed how all Chinese associations, including the United Front Work Department (UFWD), which is China's instrument of influence abroad (IO, 28/02/23 and 22/01/24), have been reorganised to be placed under greater control of Beijing's diplomats. This change

The drone detection and counter-threat technology firm Hidden Level has stepped up its Washington lobbying efforts by retaining in late February Cornerstone

San Antonio, Texas - Sierra Nevada Corp and HawkEye 360 staff criss-cross pathsThe two long-standing intelligence community service providers HawkEye

Californian company Saildrone presented its maritime intelligence and ocean mapping projects at Saudi Arabia's World Defense Show, which took place

Plamen Tonshev, head of the State Agency for National Security, DANS (IO, 23/06/21), is being swamped with reports from his

A French court last month upheld the interior ministry's 2021 refusal to grant French nationality to a woman of Chinese

Whistleblower allegations obtained by Intelligence Online show that the FBI probe into the client list of two Luxembourg asset management

Alors que nous nous approchons à pas pressés du week-end, ce jeudi 14 mars, qui coïncide avec le quatrième jour du mois sacré de Ramadan, […]

L’article Le temps en Algérie ce jeudi 14 mars : voici les prévisions météo de cette fin de semaine est apparu en premier sur .

La scène économique algérienne continue d’être animée par les fluctuations incessantes des devises, avec une danse complexe entre le marché officiel et le marché informel. […]

L’article Euro, Dollar, Riyal saoudien… : quels sont les cours de change de ce jeudi 14 mars ? est apparu en premier sur .

President Biden’s initiative to have the U.S. military build a temporary port in Gaza to deliver relief supplies, announced on March 7 during the annual State of the Union address, has the potential to eventually contribute to resolving the food shortage in the strip. But it essentially sidesteps the immediate urgency of the problem and delays the brewing confrontation between the Biden administration and the Netanyahu government over Palestinian refugees in Gaza. 

U.S. officials stressed that “we are not waiting on the Israelis,” and in that sense, the United States is breaking with Israel by not asking permission. Yet, another way to look at this is that it avoids the need for the United States to force Israel to allow greater volumes of aid to come into Gaza via existing border crossings. That would be a much more helpful solution given the immediacy of the need and the fact that it will take nearly two months for the temporary port to get set up and start functioning. However, given Netanyahu’s failure to respond to repeated requests from Biden for increased throughput in a manner that sustainably delivers it, this would probably require Biden to threaten some conditions on U.S. supplies to Israel, which he remains unwilling to do. 

The port project itself also is fraught with potential problems. The Biden administration has asserted that no U.S. military personnel will go ashore in Gaza to unload or deliver aid or to provide security. Still, their presence in waters very near the Gaza coast could put them within range of Hamas weapons. It also has been reported that U.S. contractor personnel could be involved in organizing the distribution of supplies once they reach the pier, which would require them to go ashore. The operation also would reportedly rely on Israeli forces to provide security onshore, while Palestinians would distribute the aid and move it to recipients. 

This raises potential problems. A recent convoy of aid on trucks that came into Gaza from the north, escorted by Israeli forces, ended up sparking a melee in which over 100 people were killed as desperate Palestinians rushed the trucks. Also, given the apparent foot-dragging by the Netanyahu government over facilitating increased volumes of supplies coming in by land, can we be sure Israel will facilitate increased supplies coming in? 

That question inevitably ties in with Netanyahu’s stated desire to undertake a military offensive into Rafah, where substantial Hamas forces and probably Hamas leadership remain. He has said the offensive will go forward, even as President Biden has said that doing so without a viable plan to move the more than one million Palestinian refugees crammed into the city was unacceptable to the U.S.” It remains highly unclear, however, whether or not the Biden administration would finally be willing to impose any substantive penalties on Israel—in terms of military supplies or otherwise—in Israel ignores U.S. concerns about the potential for a humanitarian disaster and possibly forcing refugees into Egypt as a result of a Rafah offensive. Several U.S. officials told Politico yesterday that the United States would consider conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel in a case where Israel defied the White House on Rafah. However, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan forcefully denied yesterday morning that there were any “red lines.”  “The president didn’t make any declarations or pronouncements or announcements” in last weekend’s interview, according to Sullivan. 

The pattern seems to be repeating U.S. behavior since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza—the Biden administration is stating concerns, making exhortations and requests, but avoiding any threats of concrete consequences if Israel ignores its wishes. In that context, the Gaza port initiative looks like an attempt to prevent policy differences with Israel being brought to a head. The United States is now “doing something” for starving Palestinians with an impact two months away, but only if Israel chooses to facilitate it when the U.S. equipment arrives after having previously failed to facilitate adequate supplies by land, despite repeated pleas from Biden. 

Even with the potential for a humanitarian disaster looming in Rafah, which could also do severe damage to American interests in the region and possibly lead to a wider war, the Biden administration is backing off from any suggestion that it even has any “red lines.” As Netanyahu observed in an infamous open microphone incident in 2001, “America is something that can easily be moved.” Until the Biden administration finds its spine and stops avoiding confrontation, we can expect that Netanyahu will continue to ignore the United States and our national interests.

Greg Priddy is a Senior Fellow for the Middle East at the Center for the National Interest.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Entre l’Algérie et la France, si les relations politiques sont plutôt « tièdes » depuis quelques mois, et que le dossier de la mémoire piétine […]

L’article Les échanges commerciaux en hausse : entre Alger et Paris, les affaires se portent bien est apparu en premier sur .

In the days following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) stood alone in Congress to oppose the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which permitted the president to wage war in Afghanistan or against anyone else complicit in harboring or aiding Al Qaeda. Lee again urged restraint in the use of military force by suggesting a diplomatic alternative to the 2002 Iraq AUMF. Both military campaigns combined carried a price tag of $8 trillion, the immense loss of U.S. military and overseas civilian life, and a damaged reputation among the international community. In retrospect, Congresswoman Lee’s appeal for restraint, when the American public largely favored the use of overwhelming military might, was a harbinger of costs to come.

Lee’s actions need to be placed in the context of the linked themes of race and foreign policy. It is no coincidence that Lee—a Black woman with experience working with Oakland grassroots organizations, a daughter of a U.S. Army veteran, and representative of the progressive and racially diverse Twelfth District of California—was skeptical of a muscular foreign policy. Lee’s sentiments are an extension of a longstanding tendency in African American political thought to prefer the judicious use of military might abroad.

Given the high rates of military service among African Americans, alongside a heightened present concern with addressing racial and economic domestic challenges, it is no surprise that many Black Americans are sensitive to the human and material costs associated with a muscular U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately, policymakers in the past have not made it a priority to account for Black American opinion on the U.S.’s role in the world. Black American public opinion on U.S. military engagements has often foreshadowed broader public discontentment with poor foreign policy decisions. The historical record shows that foreign policy officials could have benefited from listening to Black American views on the U.S. role in the world. As Washington recalibrates to face a new set of global challenges, thoughtful engagement with Black American thinking on overseas military engagement offers a chance to build a more disciplined foreign policy attuned to the aspirations of the American people.

To be sure, Black American opinion has not always opposed involvement in foreign wars. While some Black intellectuals viewed both world wars as the “white man’s war,” many Black Americans saw both conflicts as an avenue to display their patriotism and a way to undermine the logic for formal Jim Crow segregation and discrimination. However, after the conclusion of the Second World War, and as the United States adopted a policy of global supremacy and containment of the Soviet Union, many Black American thought leaders such as Paul Robeson, WEB Dubois, and Martin Luther King, Jr. shifted against Washington’s Cold War policies. For them, their disillusionment with Washington’s foreign policy was driven in part by the persistence of domestic challenges such as racial and economic inequality, the immense loss of overseas civilian lives, and ensuing geopolitical instability born out of a militarized foreign policy.

It has long been known that the two flashpoints in the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, were largely unpopular among African Americans. In the case of the Vietnam War, Black Americans were some of the earliest opponents of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia, well before the antiwar movement gained nationwide momentum. Many Black American leaders’ discontent was rooted in the human and financial costs of the war while the battle against racial and economic inequality remained unfinished. Furthermore, while Washington understood the war as an attempt to stop the spread of communism, many Black American leaders understood the conflict as the Vietnamese people’s fight for self-determination. When the fog of war cleared in 1975, the war’s consequences reshaped the social fabric of America, led to regional instability in Southeast Asia, and undermined human rights. Rather than dismissing the logic of Black leaders as being “unamerican” or “communists,” policymakers could have benefitted from listening to the polemics of Black American civil rights activists and avoided the loss of overseas civilians and American servicemembers lives and saved the millions in military spending.

Although more than half a century ago, the lessons of Cold War conflicts remain with us. Today, among Americans both within and outside the Beltway, there is consensus that Washington’s attempt at regime change and dominance in the Middle and Near East was ill-fated. However, two decades ago, the American public favored a hawkish foreign policy, while African American public opinion stood largely in opposition to military intervention in the region. For instance, polling conducted a year after the invasion of Iraq in 2004 revealed that an overwhelming majority of African Americans (76 percent) felt it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, compared to 42 percent of Whites. While African Americans, of course, did not have more predictive power than their fellow Americans, their unique experience with military interventions of the Cold War, alongside a concern with America’s perennial domestic challenges, partially explains the heightened sense of skepticism towards the war well before costs were incurred.

President Biden’s painful but overdue withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2021 has provided foreign policy officials little reprieve as Washington is now met with a new set of global challenges. Washington’s commitment to global hegemony has resulted in a balancing act that includes anxiously managing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas War, and China’s rise. Such challenges have increased the specter of great power conflict, which could very well produce the level of carnage unseen since the twentieth-century wars in Europe.

Indeed, pundits are correct in noting that most Americans have not fully come to terms with the costs associated with the challenges of the twenty-first century. Perhaps the Black American community, with its high rates of military service, is in a unique position to fathom the costs of a great power conflict. For instance, a September 2022 poll conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reveals that only 20 percent of Black Americans would support sending troops to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion or sending troops to Taiwan in the case of a conflict with China. In an October 2023 poll, enthusiasm for sending troops to the Middle East if Israel were attacked by its neighbors was low among white respondents but especially lower among Black respondents.

Of course, these findings do not mean that many in the Black American community do not see the need for American leadership or that they do not support democracy, liberty, and human rights globally. Rather, it means they would prefer to see their country showing more discernment and prudence about its engagement in global conflicts and alliances. For instance, another Carnegie Endowment poll reveals that many  Black Americans believe the United States should be engaged in the world, but in a different manner. Findings from the survey indicate a plurality of Black Americans believe the United States should play a supporting role in sending humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine and coordinating an international response to China’s rise, for example. That number is significantly higher among those respondents who believe racial issues persist at home. Such findings speak to the fact that a U.S. foreign policy that helps our allies do more in defense of common interests would bode well with many in the community.

Washington’s understanding of diversity should not stop merely at incorporating more Black faces into the foreign policy apparatus. It should also include seriously examining and weighing the opinion of a community that has participated in and thought critically about every American conflict. The point here is that understanding the African American tendency to favor diplomacy over direct military action has implications for the twenty-first century. First, understanding the distinct foreign policy ethos of the African American community in our polarized political climate can serve both political parties in their messaging to Black Americans. Polling and pundits have pointed to the fact that African American enthusiasm has dipped significantly, leading to real concerns about voter turnout and the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election. As I have argued in previous works and as Naima Green-Riley and Andrew Leber point out in their recent Foreign Affairs article, at a minimum, such insights can aid in crafting political messaging that sparks voter enthusiasm and speaks to the needs and aspirations of the community beyond domestic concerns.

More importantly, Black American opinion on the use of force abroad makes a compelling case for a foreign policy that prioritizes sharing defense responsibilities with our allies, establishing competitive coexistence with a rising China, and retrenching from a posture of global dominance. Adopting such a foreign policy will help avoid future foreign policy decisions and policies that risk squandering resources, costing the lives of American servicemembers and overseas civilians, and damaging America’s international reputation.

Christopher Shell is a fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research explores Black American attitudes toward U.S. foreign policy. His writing has appeared in Responsible Statecraft, Foreign Policy, and elsewhere.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

The Hamas terrorist attack on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent Israeli military intervention in the Gaza Strip marks a turning point in relations not only between the two parties to the conflict but also between Egypt and Israel. Under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, those ties were steadily being expanded in the areas of economic and security policy right up until the events of last October. Now they are characterized by mutual recriminations: while Egypt accuses the Israeli leadership of working towards the expulsion of the population of the Gaza Strip to Sinai, Israel criticizes Egypt for its alleged support of Hamas. Neither accusation is unfounded and both should be taken very seriously by Germany and its European partners. In fact, the Europeans should stand alongside Egypt in rejecting expulsion, which implies putting pressure on Israel to ensure the protection of the civilian population in Gaza. At the same time, it is important to support Israel’s insistence that going forward, the secu­rity of the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip cannot be left to Cairo alone.

Summary: As China continues its ambitious naval expansion, speculation arises regarding potential collaboration with Russia in building aircraft carriers. Some analysts suggest such cooperation could benefit both nations, potentially altering global naval power dynamics. China's growing carrier fleet, though not on par with the U.S., enhances its regional influence. Collaborating with Russia could further bolster its capabilities. Meanwhile, Russia, lacking modern carriers, could gain from Chinese assistance to fulfill its naval ambitions. However, skepticism remains about the likelihood of such collaboration, with doubts over strategic alignment and resource allocation. Despite shared interests, alternative methods may prove more viable for both nations in challenging U.S. dominance.

The Aircraft Carrier Alliance Between Russia and China? 

China is deepening its strategic partnership with Russia, and at the same time, Beijing is aggressively working to expand its naval capacities. Some observers are beginning to wonder whether the two revisionist nations might soon collaborate on building aircraft carriers.

As Brandon Weichert argues, naval cooperation between Russia and China would be mutually beneficial. It would allow the two nations to perhaps tilt the global balance of naval power.

Benefits for China

China is in the midst of one of history’s most ambitious shipbuilding sprees. It already possesses three aircraft carriers, with a fourth on the way. And while the Chinese carrier fleet is nowhere near as sophisticated, large, or generally capable as the U.S. supercarrier fleet, it has augmented China’s ability to deploy airpower abroad. 

China has shown itself willing to build an expansive aircraft carrier fleet. Here, outside collaboration could be helpful, especially when chasing the United States. Aircraft carriers are expensive, and the U.S. has 11 supercarriers. China would have a hard time, even with Russian assistance, building a fleet that is the peer of the United States’. But augmenting its carrier fleet would help China assert itself regionally and back its aggressive territorial claims throughout the Indo-Pacific.

Benefits for Russia

Russia does not have a single functioning aircraft carrier at the moment. The Admiral Kuznetsov is an outdated dog, running on black-smoke-belching Mazut and sailing with a tugboat escort. The Kuznetsov has been under repair for several years, leaving observers to wonder whether she will ever sail again. Regardless, the Russians clearly need help developing and maintaining a carrier fleet – that is, if a carrier fleet is any kind of priority to Moscow.

Russia does have a history of naval ambition, “yearning to become a dominant naval power since the time of Peter the Great,” according to Weichert. But a lack of warm-water ports has always held the Russians back, and so has their inability to create a reliable aircraft carrier. Perhaps with Chinese assistance, the Russians could expand their aircraft carrier capabilities.

How Likely is an Aircraft Carrier Collaboration?

According to Weichert, China’s ambition to become one of the world’s dominant weapons manufacturers, paired with Russia’s desire to become a naval power with their own carrier fleet, means these two nations may well collaborate to build carriers together. 

“Russia wants [aircraft carriers], and China is proving it can mass-produce [aircraft carriers],” Weichert argues. “China wants Russia to be more of a fly in the strategic ointment for the United States. Beijing sees Moscow as a means to distract and drain the U.S. military, boosting China’s ability to accomplish their own revanchist goals in their part of the world.”

That may be so, but I’m less certain. I am not convinced that Russia and China are so strategically aligned that they would embark on the world’s first multi-nation aircraft carrier-building effort. I’m not convinced that China would invest its own resources to expand Russia’s naval prowess. There are cheaper, more efficient, lower-risk, and more effective ways to facilitate Russia’s disruption of U.S. objectives.  

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.

Summary: The Biden administration's decision to cut one of two planned Virginia-class submarines from the upcoming budget has sparked criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. While some argue it leaves the Navy ill-prepared for potential conflicts with China, others suggest it reflects a need to prioritize spending in a resource-constrained environment. Representative Joe Courtney, a Democrat from Connecticut, who advocates for increased submarine production, criticizes the move, citing its implications for national security and job creation. However, amidst debates over military spending, some experts caution against overstating the significance of the decision, suggesting it may not greatly impact efforts to address the perceived missile gap with China.

The U.S. Navy's Virginia-Class Submarine Problem: Really Cut a Sub? 

The Biden administration has cut one of two planned Virginia-class submarines from the upcoming year’s budget. 

The decision has sharpened criticism that the U.S. Navy is not adequately equipping itself for a potential conflict with China. But President Joe Biden is also taking heat from fellow Democrats who represent states where the Virginia class is built. 

“Democrats from states that build Navy subs are already vowing to fight the Biden administration’s decision to break with tradition and halve purchases of the Virginia-class attack sub in Pentagon spending plans unveiled on Monday,” Politico reported.

Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat who sits on the House Armed Services Seapower panel, has pushed in the past for increases to submarine production and was critical of the president’s budget.

“To me, this is going in the opposite direction of where the Navy, Joe Biden and the Congress has been going consistently, towards recognizing we need a bigger fleet,” Courtney said. 

Courtney represents a Connecticut district that is home to General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyards, which help build the Virginia class.  

Preparing for Conflict with China

Political considerations aside, the Virginia class is considered crucial to U.S. naval preparedness as the threat from China rises. 

The Virginia is especially important because the submarine class was designed to accommodate heavy missile payloads with the Virginia Payload Module. This helps mitigate the gap that grew while the U.S. was beholden to a treaty with Russia that prohibited the stockpiling of intermediate-range missiles. China, unfettered by any such treaty, built up a considerable arsenal of these missiles, developing a niche advantage over the United States. 

The Virginia class, modified to carry more missiles than preceding classes, is intended specifically to address this shortfall. The administration’s decision to cut production of a Virginia-class­ boat thus has implications for the effort to close the missile gap with China – and more generally, to be ready for a possible conflict with that nation.   

Can’t Have it All

Despite a yearly defense budget that is nearing a trillion dollars, American resources are finite, and choices need to be made. 

Frankly, if the Biden administration can’t fit another Virginia submarine into the budget, it probably means the U.S. does not need another Virginia-class submarine, despite the drive to close a missile gap with China.

In a perfect world, the U.S. would be producing multiple Virginia-class submarines each year. But with such a substantial military budget, its absence from the final request indicates the second Virginia submarine sat quite low on the hierarchy of needs, as arbitrarily as those needs might be defined. 

Rep. Courtney’s complaints offer insights into the nature of military spending. Courtney is dressing up his complaint with a national security gloss, but at its heart, it is a complaint about job creation. And when you multiply Courtney’s perspective across multiple districts and throw in the backing of corporate entities, you’re going to find yourself with a peacetime military budget exceeding what the U.S. spent during World War II, when it operated a multi-front war with existential ramifications.    

My point is: Don’t lose too much sleep over the slashing of next year’s second Virginia-class submarine.

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.

U.S. Navy Warships at a Crossroads: Overcoming China's A2/AD Challenge: For centuries, navies around the world have taken pride in their large surface warships. The dominance of these warships persisted even after the advent of submarines. In fact, during the Second World War, when submarines became a primary weapons platform for navies, the aircraft carrier stole all the headlines. 

Today, however, things are changing. 

A Sizeable Liability

The rise of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) means that the large surface warship’s days as the primary form of power projection in a naval fleet are coming to an end.

Consider that the Ford-class aircraft carrier, America’s newest, costs $13 billion per unit, plus hundreds of millions of dollars per year to maintain. The more numerous Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, while older than the Ford-class, are also very expensive. 

An aircraft carrier is a large, highly complex warship. Its purpose is to maneuver a floating airbase near the territory of an enemy in order to threaten that rival with precise and consistent airstrikes. 

Yet for a fraction of the cost, China’s Dong-Feng 26B missile can either sink an aircraft carrier outright or simply destroy its flight deck, rendering the carrier useless in battle. 

The carrier is the primary means of American power projection. Its absence or limitation leaves a critical gap in U.S. military capabilities. That is a strategic gap that a rival like China can easily exploit. 

It's not just aircraft carriers that are vulnerable to China’s growing anti-ship capabilities. Other surface warships are also targets. 

The Chinese military has developed a growing coterie of hypersonic weapons capabilities that it is planning to launch against incoming U.S. warships. Whatever defenses those warships have against conventional anti-ship missiles, there are no known countermeasures on U.S. warships to protect against these hypersonic systems. 

A Warning to the U.S. Navy from the Ukraine War

The world has already seen the asymmetrical risks posed to large surface warships in the Ukraine War. The Moskva, a Slava-class Russian battlecruiser and the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, was sunk by a Ukrainian drone in the dead of night while still docked in port. Similar attacks have targeted several other Russian surface warships since the Moskva sunk. 

All that money, all those precious resources committed to the larger surface warship fleet, and what does Russia have to show for it? 

Not a thing.

Events in the Ukraine War should be a lesson for U.S. naval planners, especially in relation to a potential conflict with China. Any such conflict, because of the geography involved, would require the U.S. Navy to lead the charge. The Navy would do so by deploying its massive aircraft carriers. 

China’s A2/AD capabilities far outstrip whatever the Ukrainians were using against Russia in the Black Sea. Therefore, the likelihood that America’s surface warships would be held at bay by China’s A2/AD forces is great.

America’s navy has no backup plan for dealing with this. 

American Submarines Are One Solution

You might believe that if surface warships are unable to do their jobs, the U.S. submarine fleet would be available. It would be, but there are a few sticky wickets involved with boomers. 

The first is that the U.S. Navy has been shortchanging its submarine fleet for years. In its budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2025, the Navy again made onerous cuts to its initial request for more submarines. 

The next problem is that naval shipyards have been in the doldrums for years. They cannot meet increased demand. This is at a time when China is rapidly expanding its navy. 

Even Subs are Not a Panacea to America's A2/AD Concerns 

Beyond these concerns is the fact that China has developed a suite of sophisticated submarine-tracking devices.

One example is the Yaogan constellation of satellites. China aims to use this “hidden aperture radar” system to intercept radio signals from the ground and triangulate the location of warships. The Navy has a similar system. 

The Yaogan constellation joins other Chinese systems meant to track U.S. subs—some more advanced than others. 

For example, China has developed a sophisticated laser tracking system that can scour the depths of the ocean from space. Beijing’s forces also utilize less sophisticated balloons mounted with advanced sensors to track the oceans from above.

US Navy Must Burst China's A2/AD Bubble

Still, submarines are much harder to kill than large surface warships. 

The Navy must focus on expanding its submersible fleet. What’s more, in the age of A2/AD, long-distance warfare will be essential. Bursting the A2/AD bubble will be key. 

Beyond submarines, then, the Navy requires a robust arsenal of unmanned drones and hypersonic weapons to annihilate known A2/AD emplacements. 

Yet the Navy isn’t investing in these systems. Instead, the Pentagon continues splurging on legacy systems—notably the costly aircraft carrier—and hoping that China’s A2/AD systems aren’t as effective as Beijing claims they are.

In other words, the Pentagon would rather spend its money enriching defense contractors instead of building relevant, cost-effective systems that can actually defeat the Chinese.

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.