Agrégateur de flux

After a stinging election setback, the long-ruling party is assessing its coalition options.

Members of Sweden's right-wing coalition are split over whether to cooperate with the far-right ID group after the European elections, as some have indicated serious interest in doing so, while Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of the centre-right Moderate Party (EPP) dismissed such a move on Tuesday.

The leaders of Britain's two main political parties faced off in the first live TV debate of the general election campaign on Tuesday (4 June), a month before voters go to the polls and with predictions of a record win for the main opposition Labour party.

Poland’s co-governing Left Party (S&D) would find it hard to support a second term for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen if she decides to cooperate with conservatives in the hard-right ECR group, Left MEP Robert Biedroń told Euractiv Poland, adding that the Prime Minister Donald Tusk should also rule out such cooperation.

How America can prepare for war in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Extreme weather now affects elections all over the world.

Les députés français devraient définitivement adopter mercredi une loi pour renforcer l'arsenal français contre les ingérences étrangères, toujours au cœur de l'actualité. Une partie de la gauche s'inquiète de dispositions qu'elle juge "contraires à l'État de droit".

Summary: In late April, Ukrainian forces claimed their first strategic bomber kill, reportedly downing a Russian Tu-22M3. This significant loss marks a strategic win for Ukraine in the ongoing conflict.

-The Tu-22M3, designated "Backfire" by NATO, is a supersonic, long-range strategic bomber that has been in service for over five decades.

-Developed during the Cold War, the bomber has seen action in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, and most recently, Ukraine.

-Despite its capabilities, including the ability to launch Kh-32 and Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles, the Tu-22M3's numbers are dwindling, highlighting the impact of the conflict on Russia's air force.

Ukrainian Forces Down Russian Tu-22M3 Bomber: A Strategic Win

In late April, Ukrainian forces achieved their first strategic bomber kill in the war against Russia. According to Kyiv, a Russian Tu-22M3 was destroyed for the first time since the invasion commenced back in February 2022. As detailed in a press release, “The enemy aircraft was shot down at a distance of about 300 kilometers from Ukraine. The damaged bomber was able to fly to the Stavropol region of Russia, where it fell and crashed.” The Kremlin also confirmed the destruction of its long-range bomber; however, its Defense Ministry insisted that the aircraft had crashed in a deserted area due to a “technical malfunction.” While both Ukraine and Russia have exaggerated incidents and numbers throughout the invasion, the loss of a Tu-22M3 is significant regardless of how it went down. According to the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, Moscow has lost an estimated number of 340+ airframes so far in the war. As the production line continues to be hindered due to budgetary and resource constraints, every Russian aircraft lost in the conflict is a big win for Ukraine.

Introducing the Tu-22M3 bomber

Designated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as “Backfire,” the Russian Tu-22M supersonic, long-range strategic bomber has remained in service for more than five decades. The aircraft was developed during the Cold War, designed by the USSR to operate in a missile carrier strategic bombing role. When the initial Tu-22 variant was first produced, it suffered from a range of issues that led to the platform’s unserviceability. To rectify these glaring design issues, Soviet engineers got to work on upgraded Tu-22 variants. The M3 models were officially introduced in the 1980s and continued to fly for Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Tu-22M3: Specs, capabilities, and operational history

While the Tu-22M3 in some ways resembles the American-made B-1 Lancer bomber, the Russian platform has far less bomb load capacity. In fact, the Tu-22M3 is virtually a “theatre” bomber designed primarily to strike inside continental Europe. In terms of armaments, the Tu-22M3 can sport the new Kh-32 missile- a heavily modified variant of the Kh-22. Additionally, the bomber is equipped with the subsonic Kh-SD or the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missile. Backfires were deployed in conventional bombing raids in Afghanistan during the 1980s and were again used one decade later in Chechnya and in 2008 against Georgian forces in the South Ossetian War.

Backfires in Ukraine

Throughout Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Backfire has been used to barrage the front lines and support the Kremlin’s offensive war efforts. According to Kyiv officials, the airframe has used KH-22 missiles to launch attacks targeting Ukrainian cities in the past, which is why the destruction of these bombers is key for the country. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated that Russia’s air force possessed a total of fifty-seven Backfires today. However, as the war progresses, this number will likely dwindle further.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are from Creative Commons. 

Summary: The Su-25 "Frogfoot," or "Grach," is a subsonic, single-seat, twin-engine jet designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau during the Soviet era.

-It is Russia's counterpart to the American A-10 Warthog, intended for close air support (CAS). However, it is less effective in combat due to its inferior armor and conventional 30mm cannon, which depletes ammunition quickly.

-The Su-25's combat performance has been mixed, performing poorly in conflicts such as the Soviet-Afghan War and the Syrian Civil War.

-The aging fleet and lack of significant upgrades have rendered it less effective in modern combat, as seen in the ongoing Ukraine war, where several Su-25s have been downed by Ukrainian defenses.

Su-25 Frogfoot: Russia's Struggling Close Air Support Jet

The Su-25, fondly known as the “Frogfoot” by its Russian pilots and “Grach” or “rook” by its official name, is a subsonic, single-seat, twin-engine jet warplane that was built by the Sukhoi Design Bureau Joint Stock Company in the Soviet era. It’s the Russian version of the A-10 Warthog, a close air support (CAS) system, but it’s nowhere near as effective in combat as the A-10.

The Frogfoot, like its American counterpart, is a flying tank. Although it has less armor and a bit more speed than the A-10. The Su-25 can climb at the rate of 58m/s and has a maximum speed of about 590 miles per hour. This warbird is by no means the fastest plane in the pack.

But it goes fast enough to allow it to accomplish its CAS mission sets.

Some Specs on the Su-25 Flying Tank

Armed with a Gsh-30-2 30-millimeter cannon under its nose, which can spray 260 rounds of ammunition as well as carry a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles and rockets, the Su-25 has been likened to a Swiss Army Knife. Except, instead of a corkscrew, this bird has a cannon.

Bear in mind, though, one of the main reasons this bird is not as effective in combat as its American rival, the A-10, is because the Russians did not arm the plane with a cannon like the A-10.

The Su-25 is armed with a conventional cannon that will go through its rounds at a fairly fast clip whereas the A-10, with its Gatlin gun and armored cockpit, can loiter over a battlespace and annihilate anything it needs to at close ranges.

The combat record of this bird is mixed, at best.

While it has been effective in certain roles, its effectiveness in modern combat is not that great overall. It performed badly in its maiden conflict, the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s, and it has failed to deliver in subsequent campaigns, such as the Russian intervention in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. Again, this is because of its poor design.

A Close Air Support platform is required to have armor and a cannon that won’t run out of ammo quickly. This allows for the bird to sit atop friendly forces and provide air cover for them in tight combat. But that’s not what the Su-25 Frogfoot can do.

It is at risk of being taken down rather easily (far more so than the A-10) by enemy ground fire. It cannot last as long over a battlespace as can the A-10. And it’s basically a really cheap knock-off of the A-10.

An Aging Fleet and Less Relevant Capability

The aircraft’s aging fleet and lack of significant upgrades over the decades have made it less effective in the modern combat scenarios it has been sent to fight in. The ongoing Ukraine war, for example, has exposed these vulnerabilities in painful detail, leading to significant combat attrition.

As of March of this year, the Ukrainian government announced that at least six Russian Su-25s have been shot down by Ukrainian air defenses (with many more, according to the Ukrainians, expected to be downed over the course of the war).

A Missed Opportunity for the Russian Armed Forces

The Frogfoot is an excellent concept that has not performed as it was expected to. This is because the Russians built the planes on the cheap and have failed to maintain them to make them compatible with the needs of modern warfare, as has been demonstrated both in Russia’s Syrian campaign and the Ukraine War. 

It’s a great idea for the Russians to have CAS, especially considering the missions their government has sent the Russian military on over the last decade. But Russia has executed that good idea badly. The Su-25 is not performing as it should be.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Joe Biden est arrivé mercredi en France pour les commémorations du Débarquement allié du 6 juin 1944, qu'Emmanuel Macron a lancées dans la matinée avec de premiers hommages aux maquisards bretons et aux premiers parachutistes de la France libre. 

The ex-president has been hit by a number of scandals but emerges once again to play a big role.

This is the first time that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will have to work with coalition partners since securing power a decade ago.

This paper outlines the main elements related to conditionality included in the Ukraine Plan, and compares it with the European Union’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s approach to conditionality, in particular with respect to the group of Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (FCS) that currently includes Ukraine.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

This paper outlines the main elements related to conditionality included in the Ukraine Plan, and compares it with the European Union’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s approach to conditionality, in particular with respect to the group of Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (FCS) that currently includes Ukraine.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Military leaders’ aggressive rhetoric may say more about China’s domestic politics than its position in the Indo-Pacific.

Event Video 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-vbfkav").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-vbfkav").fadeIn(300);});});

IPI hosted a Global Leaders Series event on June 4th featuring H.E. Bernardo Arévalo, President of Guatemala. The conversation between IPI President Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and H.E. Bernardo Arévalo centered around current issues facing Guatemala, sustainable development, and goals for the future.

During the event, President Arévalo reflected on the 25 years since the peace accords were signed, highlighting the need to address corruption and build democratic and inclusive institutions. He noted the unique nature of Guatemala’s accords, stating, “In contrast to most of the peace accords that were signed at that time, the accords in Guatemala were not only about ending the conflict but about having a blueprint for a democratic and inclusive future.”

He also highlighted his plans for his presidency, focusing on tackling corruption and crime through strengthening institutions. He emphasized, “We need to be able to strengthen our capacity to address crime today, but at the same time build the conditions that will enable young people simply not to consider worth to engage in criminal activities.”

Bernardo Arévalo currently serves as the 52nd president of Guatemala, having assumed office on January 15, 2024. A reform candidate of the Movimento Semilla party, he campaigned primarily on an anti-corruption platform while also frequently discussing Guatemala’s development and security needs. He previously served as a deputy in the Congress of Guatemala from 2020 to 2024, as Ambassador to Spain from 1995 to 1996, and as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1994 to 1995.

A 'tornado-looking' storm has killed at least 10 people after it hit several provinces on Monday.

The war in Ukraine is still raging on, with the Russian military on the offensive. The Russian forces are looking to capitalize on their momentum to achieve an operational breakthrough.

On the other side of the sandbox, the Ukrainian military is trying to buy time and stave off Russian forces.

At the same time, it amasses enough troops and resources to launch its own large-scale counteroffensive.

The Situation on the Ground

Overall, there is fighting on three sectors: in the east around Kharkiv, the second-largest city in Ukraine.

In the Donbas, where two sides are fighting it off in more than 10 pockets along the contact line. And in the south, where the fighting isn’t as heavy as in the other sectors.

At this time, the Russian forces have the momentum and are pouring forces on the sectors in search of an operational breakthrough. However, any advances made by both sides are measured in hundreds of yards instead of miles and any breakthrough is still far off.

In the meantime, losses continue to mount.

Russian Casualties in Ukraine

Every day, the Ukrainian military releases an official estimate of the Russian casualties. Although the numbers are approximate, more than two years of combat have shown that Kyiv’s assessments are generally on target.

Over the past 24 hours, the Russian military and pro-Russian rebel forces lost approximately 1,290 men killed, wounded, or captured, 18 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 15 main battle tanks, 67 artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), 69 support vehicles and fuel trucks, 27 unmanned aerial systems, 12 special equipment systems, and 3 air defense weapon systems.

In total, since February 24, 2022, the Ukrainian military claims to have killed, wounded, or captured approximately 512,420 Russian troops and destroyed or damaged 18,228 support vehicles and fuel trucks, 15,020 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 13,345 artillery pieces, 10,766 unmanned aerial systems, 7,794 main battle tanks, 2,268 cruise and ballistic missiles, 2,211 special equipment systems, 1,092 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), 827 anti-aircraft systems, 357 fighter, attack, and bomber jets, 326 attack and transport helicopters, and 28 surface combatants and submarines.

Although the Ukrainian government might be exaggerating some of these numbers—for example, the U.S. puts the number of Russian losses to around 320,000—it is undeniable that the Russian armed forces have suffered extremely heavy manpower and materiel casualties.

Today, it is estimated that Moscow has around 470,000 troops in Ukraine, showing an impressive ability to recover from extremely heavy losses and regenerate combat power. To be sure, the quality of the Russian troops is low, and their commanders have shown to be largely inept to conduct large-scale maneuver warfare. Moreover, morale among the Russian forces isn’t the best. For example, reports indicate that Russian troops who refuse to fight are forcibly sent to the frontlines instead of going through a court martial.

 But to win in a slugfest like the conflict in Ukraine, quantity might be enough on its own.

About the Author 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: Russia is reportedly allocating funds to equip its new Yasen-M class nuclear submarines with Zircon hypersonic missiles.

-Despite setbacks and losses in its naval fleet during the Ukraine invasion, this move could significantly enhance Russia's naval capabilities.

-The Yasen-class submarines, first conceptualized during the Cold War and updated in the 2000s, are known for their advanced technology and low noise levels.

-With the potential addition of the Zircon missile, capable of reaching Mach 9.0, these submarines could pose a significant threat.

-However, economic challenges due to the ongoing war may hinder the completion of this ambitious project.

Game-Changer: Russian Submarines May Soon Deploy Zircon Hypersonic Missiles

Russia is reportedly allocating funds to equip its new nuclear submarines with hypersonic missiles. 

Last summer, the head of Russia’s largest shipbuilder announced that the Zircon missile will be incorporated on the Yasen-M, the leading class of Russian submarines. Considering how poorly Russia’s naval fleet has fared during the country’s invasion of Ukraine, this capability could be a game-changer for the Kremlin. 

Kyiv claims its forces have sunk or disabled about a third of all Russian warships in the Black Sea since February 2022. In September, Ukraine confirmed it had successfully wrecked Russia’s Rostov-on-Don submarine during a missile attack in occupied Crimea. While the feat is noteworthy, Moscow’s underwater capabilities are still quite formidable, and its subs are arguably far more durable than its surface vessels. The potential introduction of Zircon-carrying Yasen submarines should worry Ukraine and Western officials.

Introducing the Yasen-Class

Russian officials prioritized their inherited fleet of submarines after the Soviet collapse in the 1990s. The Yasen class was first conceptualized during the Cold War, but the lead ship did not complete construction until 1993. The submarine class was conceptualized by Malakhit, a merger of two design bureaus. 

Funding issues halted the Yasen class’ progress, and when Moscow returned to the project in the late 2000s, new technologies had rendered the initial design obsolete. Instead of nixing the project altogether, though, Russian officials opted to relaunch the submarine class under a new “Yasen-M” designation. This new name came with specific design modifications that made the class relevant once more.

The Severondvinsk, the lead ship of the Yasen class, finally commissioned in 2014. The Kazan (K-561) followed suit and was commissioned in 2021, succeeded by the Novosibirsk (K-573) and Krasnoyarsk (K-571). The next boat planned to enter service with the Russian fleet is the Arkhangelsk (K-564). Seven additional submarines could join the class down the line. 

Specs & Capabilities

Each submarine has a submerged displacement of 13,800 tons and can reach a top speed of up to 35 knots. The upgraded variant is shorter, includes enhanced onboard electronics, and runs on a new KTP-6 reactor designed to minimize the submarines’ noise levels. According to reports, the reactor’s cooling loop facilitates a more natural circulation of water that does not require the constant operation of main circulation pumps, which tend to be extremely noisy. The Yasen ships are the first to be equipped with a fourth-generation nuclear reactor, which reportedly has a quarter-century-long core life and will not need refueling.

In terms of armaments, the Yasen submarines are well-equipped. Each submarine features 10 silos for vertically launched cruise missiles, in addition to Kalibr-PL and Oniks cruise missiles. The Kazan is also incorporated on the submarines, which can operate the UKSK (3P-14B) vertical launch system, composed of 8SM-346 modules.

Now, Russian state-run media claims that the submarines will arm the advanced long-range Zircon hypersonic cruise missile. Designated by NATO as SS-N-33, the 3M22 Zircon is perhaps Moscow’s most threatening new weapon. 

According to the Kremlin, the weapon can reach a top speed of Mach 9.0. Alexei Rakhmanov, chief executive officer of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, recently told RIA that, "Multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Yasen-M project will ... be equipped with the Zircon missile system on a regular basis.”

While the prospects of Russia’s Yasen-M submarines being equipped with Zircon missiles is concerning, the economic reality of the venture is murky. After more than two years of war in Ukraine, Moscow’s funds, manufacturing abilities, and other resources are depleted. It is unlikely that Russia has the means to complete this modification while the war rages on. 

If these hypersonic missiles are incorporated onto the Yasen submarines, it will give a huge boost to Russia’s naval strategy.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: As of 2024, the vulnerability of U.S. aircraft carriers to China's advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems has become a significant concern.

-These carriers, symbols of U.S. military power, are increasingly at risk from modern warfare technologies.

-The potential loss of a carrier would severely limit U.S. military response options and necessitate a strategic pivot towards developing weapons to counter A2/AD threats.

-The U.S. Navy needs to adapt to these modern warfare dynamics and reconsider its reliance on aircraft carriers as primary assets, focusing instead on more resilient and adaptable platforms like submarines and anti-A2/AD technologies.

Rethinking U.S. Naval Strategy: The Rising Threat to Aircraft Carriers

As of 2024, this prediction seems increasingly plausible. Aircraft carriers, long seen as symbols of US military supremacy, are vulnerable to China's A2/AD systems designed to counteract US power projection. With the US already facing global military challenges and a shift in warfare technology, the loss of an aircraft carrier could limit US military response options and necessitate a strategic pivot towards developing weapons capable of countering A2/AD threats. This scenario underscores the need for the US Navy to adapt to modern warfare dynamics and reconsider its reliance on aircraft carriers as primary assets.

The Vulnerable Giants: Are US Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete in Modern Warfare?

“The only way the US Navy divorces itself from the aircraft carrier cult is if it loses one in combat…which it’s going to, very soon, if things keep going at this rate.” Those prophetic words were spoken to me by a retired US Navy captain (and former neighbor of mine) way back in 2018. Back then, I assumed that he was just being the old codger he’d always presented himself as. 

Now, in 2024, he seems correct in his assessment. 

And what a feather in the cap it’ll be for any Chinese missile battery commander who manages to either sink or disable the flight deck of one of America’s carriers. 

Aircraft Carrier Drama: What is a Flat Top Next to Victory?

The aircraft carrier is, without a doubt, the greatest symbol of US military power to date. Able to travel anywhere on the high seas, making port calls along the way, these floating airbases are continual reminders of the potency—and investment into—military dominance that the US government has made over the years. 

Most of America’s aircraft carrier fleet are comprised of the Nimitz-class, with the new Ford-class being the replacement for these systems (though it remains to be seen if the Navy will actually be able to completely replace the Nimitz-class, due to the costs of the Ford-class carriers).

Whether it is the Nimitz-class or the Ford-class carriers, the fact remains that these systems are the most prominent warship on the high seas today. 

Carrying dozens of potent warplanes, reconnaissance aircraft, and possessing a suite of other important military capabilities, the aircraft carrier is America’s most prominent power projection platform. And since the United States is physically so much farther away from the territories of its rivals, the US military requiresoffensive power projection systems. 

To overcome the threat that America’s flat tops pose to them, the Chinese military has built a stunning array of what’s known as anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapons. These capabilities are specifically tailored to stunting the power projection potential of US aircraft carriers. Knowing how symbolic these weapons platforms are for the American psyche, as well as how expensive they are, Beijing has surmised that knocking these behemoths out in combat would prove so destructive to any American war effort against China, that Washington might sue for peace with China rather than risk a wider war.

Just How Could the US Retaliate If Its Aircraft Carriers Were Knocked Out?

Many reading this are incredulous about that notion. After all, US aircraft carriers are not only wildly expensive platforms with countless important other equipment aboard, but they are staffed by thousands of American sailors. If China got in a lucky shot and either sank or disabled a flat top, surely the Americans would “bring down the wrath of God” upon the Chinese, just as Uncle Sam did against Japan in the Second World War and against al Qaeda following 9/11. 

In the first case, the United States was a dominant manufacturing power that could truly be the “arsenal of democracy.” Losing ships in combat, as the US did in WWII, was not as catastrophic as today. In the second case, despite the speedy retaliation US forces engaged in after 9/11, ultimately, the United States lost the Global War on Terror. 

Since the War on Terror ended, the United States has found itself mired in a losing war in Ukraine. It is being challenged by petty tyrants from Iran to North Korea to Venezuela. Rag-tag insurgents, like the Houthi Rebels, are holding US power hostage in the Red Sea and Strait of Bab El-Mandeb. 

So, it is not entirely unbelievable that a near-peer competitor, like China, with its superiority in A2/AD systems or hypersonic weapons, could conceivably knock out an American carrier.

Once that sad event occurs, just how would the US retaliate? Would Washington escalate to nuclear warfare? Would they attempt to bomb China directly? 

The point is that, once the carriers are removed as the primary weapon system for the Navy, given how much the Navy has invested in its carriers, there will be both a limit to how the military could respond to a Chinese A2/AD attack as well as a degree of reticence. 

Likely, submarines would have to become a better power projection platform. But the Navy would have to be willing to lose a high number of these in combat. The defense industrial base is already having problems meeting increased demand for more submarines. In a wartime environment, this could be catastrophic. 

The Real Pathway Forward: Build Anti-A2/AD

Clearly, the aircraft carrier has become as useless to modern warfare as the battleship became when the Second World War broke out. Recognizing this problem now, rather than waiting for hostilities to erupt, would be the first necessary step for the Navy to avert the calamity of losing one of its flat tops to China’s A2/AD systems. 

Rather than continuing spending exorbitant sums of tax dollars on a wasting asset, like the aircraft carrier, why not redirect those funds into weapons that can overwhelm the A2/AD capabilities of China? Once those A2/AD systems were neutralized, then, the Navy could bring its flat tops into the fight. 

As it stands now, however, the aircraft carrier is going to get destroyed and usher in America’s defeat by China’s A2/AD.

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.

All images are Shutterstock,