Agrégateur de flux

ALGER, le 23 août 2024 – Les autorités de la wilaya d’Alger ont annoncé, ce jeudi, la fermeture d’une portion de la route nationale numéro […]

L’article Alger : Une route nationale fermée à la circulation du 23 au 25 août pour des travaux est apparu en premier sur .

Parliamentarians hoped to revise two Constitutional Court rulings to extend the Widodo administration’s influence.

Earlier this year, at the ninth International Conference of Tibet Support Groups (TSGs) held in Brussels, the Dalai Lama addressed 140 representatives from 40 countries. His speech highlighted Tibet’s environmental concerns as a global problem. This is not the first time the revered Tibetan leader has tackled the issues of climate change and the effects of ecological degradation due to wanton human activities.

Over the years, be it his speech at the “Endangered Tibet” conference in 1996 or his remarks at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), to name a few,  the Dalai Lama has not only cautioned about the global ramifications of “ecological neglect” in the “Third Pole” of the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau but also emphasized the importance of the “spirit of solidarity and cooperation” to counter transnational challenges.

But if the world at large has thus far remained relatively unmindful of the Buddhist leader’s words, what is the relevance of the Dalai Lama’s climate advocacy today? First, there is a direct correlation between his teachings on the interdependence of species on each other and nature and the impact of human-driven environmental changes, including severe water shortages.

Second, the significance of the Dalai Lama’s advocacy for climate action is related to China’s repression of the Tibetan people and culture. This repression, in part, takes the form of accelerating Tibet’s climate crisis through myriad infrastructure developments (from mega-dams to over-mining). In this context, the Dalai Lama has not shied away from calling out China for not only neglecting the ecological devastation in the Tibetan Plateau but actively participating in the overexploitation of natural resources “without proper environmental safeguards.”

The third reason is the current highly divided political landscape where the democratic states, and not just in the West, are increasingly recognizing the imperative of countering China’s militaristic aims, including in Tibet. China’s financial and diplomatic support of several authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and Iran have also created greater concerns about the dangers to the liberal order. Thus, today, there is potential for greater receptivity of Tibetan concerns than ever.

What is the extent of Chinese activities on the Tibetan and Himalayan ecology? What specific measures must the West and partners like India take to address the ecological balance in the Himalayas?

The Climate Crisis in the Third Pole

The Tibetan Plateau and its surrounding mountainous areas are commonly considered the “Third Pole” because they are home to the largest reservoir of glaciers and ice sheets on earth after the Arctic and Antarctica polar regions. In effect, several major rivers such as the Mekong, Salween, Yellow, Yangtze, Yarlung Tsampo (Brahmaputra in India), Indus, Irrawaddy, Ganges, Sutlej, and Karnali fountain from the Plateau. Thus, it serves as the “Water Tower of Asia,” providing fresh water and vital sources of livelihood to billions of people not just in Tibet but across South and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, the Plateau is not only one of the most biodiverse regions in the world but also rich in minerals, including rare earth reserves. Additionally, it is surrounded by four biodiversity hotspots—biologically diverse but threatened areas—namely the Himalayas, Mountains of Southwest China, Mountains of Central Asia, and Indo Burma. These hotspots are not immune to the repercussions of climate change, including glacial melting and extreme weather events like flash floods. This is exacerbated by increased human activities—from unbridled infrastructure development to increased hostilities in the Himalayas.

In such a scenario, it is time that the world and its leaders champion an ethical approach to climate-change solutions, including proper and widespread dissemination of information among the general populace, something the Dalai Lama has always underscored. However, the challenges are far from over. The rise in decibel levels from the U.S.-China great power competition and Russia’s Ukraine invasion means that the Chinese will stake a claim over Tibetan resources more aggressively than ever.

China’s Infrastructure Spree: Unlikely to Slow Down?

China has been systematically undertaking infrastructure development in Tibet and Xinjiang over the last twenty years. This has had devastating results for the fragile Himalayan ecology, and lowland areas have witnessed increased flooding. The intensive infrastructure buildup has led to habitat fragmentation and increased air and noise pollution.

In 2006, after the Golmud-Lhasa railway line became operational, there was a massive boom in mining operations on the Tibetan plateau. Mining exploration revealed that there were deposits of over 110 types of minerals across 3,000 sites, with a value of more than $125 billion. This included large deposits of copper, chromium, gold, and lithium, as well as oil and gas reserves. The heightened mining activity led to protests by Tibetan nomads, citing poisoned drinking water and the deaths of herd animals. Moreover, there are reports of the forced resettlement of Tibetan nomads to make way for mining and hydropower projects.

Between 2021 and 2025, China has planned to spend approximately $30 billion on infrastructure projects in Tibet under the Fourteenth Five-Year Plan: “By 2025, the total mileage of highways in Tibet will exceed 120,000 km, and that of expressways will exceed 1,300 km.” This development plan includes roads, railways, airfields, border villages, telecommunication facilities, and hydroelectric projects.

Moreover, China’s construction of hydroelectric projects on the river Yarlung Tsangpo (Brahmaputra) in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), such as the sixty-gigawatt mega-dam, is concerning for downstream states like India and Bangladesh. It will impinge on the availability of water in downstream nations and create opportunities for coercion and conflict. It is important to note that in Chinese president Xi Jinping’s security-obsessed worldview, water is not a global common but a source of leverage to solidify regional domination.

As a result, the vision of a Sino-centric order as a “community with a shared future for mankind” is hogwash intended to mislead the international community from investigating China’s repressive policies in Tibet (and elsewhere) that have accelerated climate change via increased mining of valuable minerals, building “dual-use” infrastructure, and “whole-village” relocation of Tibetan nomads, who are essential to maintaining the ecosystem of the plateau.

The consequence of all this activity is the rapid degradation of delicate environs and habitats, such as wetlands, alpine meadows, and forests. Several endangered species, including the snow leopard and Tibetan antelope, which reside here, are thus further vulnerable. Not only is wildlife threatened, but a recent study indicated that if the prevailing temperature trends continued, the Himalayan glaciers might disappear entirely, “having a significant impact on regional water supplies, hydrological processes, ecosystem services, and transboundary water sharing.” Studies show the Tibetan Plateau is warming three times faster than other parts of the world, leading to retreating glaciers. Thus, the international community needs to act fast not only to counter China’s policies but also to spur climate action.

India & the West Must Join Forces

Clearly, Europe and the West must include the Himalayan region in their environmental strategies since the climate crisis in the Third Pole will soon escalate into a global emergency. Concurrently, China’s recent militarization efforts in the Tibetan Plateau that have transformed villages into resettlement zones, including dual-use infrastructure such as helipads, highways, oil pipelines, road and rail networks, and dams, must be countered together.

India faces even more onerous direct challenges due to its Himalayan territory coming under threat from climate change. In addition, India’s decades-long border dispute with China and the risks associated with China’s growing eco-hegemony, including unrestricted access to Tibet’s critical water resources, are also no less a threat.

Against this scenario, the fast-changing conditions at the Third Pole have not received much attention compared to the northern and southern polar ice caps. Often, the mainstream media, in particular, has focused excessively on the disputed borders rather than the region’s environment, which is relevant to global well-being. This needs to change, and a concerted approach to increase public awareness should be one of the main targets.

More importantly, reliable, informed, up-to-date scientific knowledge is essential to tackle this crisis. That being said, Europe and the West must collaborate with India and other “like-minded” nations to develop scientific programs for environmental and climate change monitoring, including both ground-based and satellite-based monitoring.

Moreover, as the partnerships within the still-emerging U.S.-led Indo-Pacific economic and security architecture continue to take shape, it is important to include the Himalayan climate and geopolitical concerns into the mix. Naturally, bilateral, minilateral, and multilateral cooperation that earnestly works at climate change solutions is all equally vital.

In this regard, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)’s Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Package (Q-CHAMP) is a welcome initiative. While it recognizes the need for “integrating resilience” into policies from investments to governance, the Quad must look into including the Third Pole specifically in this ambit. Similarly, the G7’s push to address the tripartite crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution is admirable.

As the group of 198 countries that have ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change get ready to meet for the COP29 held in Baku later this year, new frameworks and partnerships will be needed to scale up climate cooperation, particularly for the three polar regions. This is all the more pertinent as the COP29 Presidency’s plan is based on two mutually reinforcing parallel pillars. The first is to get all parties to commit via national action plans, and the second is to ensure the availability of finance to enable action, thereby reducing emissions, adjusting societies to the effects of climate change, and addressing damages. COP29 must integrate the mountain region’s challenges into the negotiation tracks.

Hopefully, the debates this year will focus beyond energy transition and into the ways to control extensive damage caused by human actions and greed for more resources and power, particularly in politically and ecologically sensitive regions like the Tibetan Plateau. The international community, including decision-makers and the private and public sectors, needs to be involved in regional cooperation ventures in the Himalayas to ensure accountability, maintain transparency, and take responsibility.

Last but not least, the world’s leaders will do well to remember what the Dalai Lama cautioned nearly thirty years ago about developing a “greater sense of universal responsibility” for global well-being and solving environmental problems—words to live by.

Dr. Jagannath Panda is the Head of the Stockholm Centre for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs (SCSA-IPA) at the Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP), Sweden, and a Professor at the University of Warsaw.

Ana Carolina De Oliveira Assis is a Project Coordinator for the Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs (SCSA-IPA) at the Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP), Sweden.

This piece is an outcome of ISDP’s Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs (SCSA-IPA) research project titled “China’s Himalayan Hustle.”

Image: Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The F-22 Raptor, once hailed as the most advanced air superiority fighter, ended its production in 2011, leaving the U.S. with only 186 operational units.

-While the F-22 remains unmatched in air combat, the decision to cease production, driven by the post-9/11 focus on counterterrorism rather than high-end warfare, was likely irreversible.

-Restarting production now would be prohibitively expensive, estimated at $50 billion for just 194 fighters, and may not be justified given the current and future focus on next-generation aircraft like the NGAD. The era of the F-22 might be drawing to a close as warfare evolves.

The F-22 Raptor Is Rare 

The F-22, in many respects the most advanced fighter jet ever created, ended its production run in 2011. While the F-22 remains in service, with 186 operational airframes flying with the US Air Force, no new F-22s will be built, meaning what we have is what we’ve got.

Was ending production of the F-22 a mistake? Probably not. But it was likely irreversible. 

F-22 Raptor: Simply the Best But What About That War on Terror? 

When it comes to air superiority, the F-22 is the probably the best aircraft ever made; the F-22 was intended to replace the F-15 Eagle, which itself has an undefeated track record in air-to-air combat.

Initially, the Air Force had intended to buy 750 F-22s to create a legitimate fleet of stealth dog fighters, rendering the F-15 obsolete.

But the F-22, which was first blueprinted in the 1980s and flight tested in the 1990s, was of a different time. After 9/11 and the reactive invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the US became embroiled in counter-terror and counter-insurgency operations against nations that flew obsolete, ineffectual fighter jets. The US didn’t need a fifth-generation F-22 to take down fifty-year-old Iraqi MiGs.

By 2011, wars were ongoing in multiple theaters – neither of which relied upon the F-22 – the costly funding of F-22 production was axed. So today, while the F-22 is revered for its capabilities, only a few are operational. 

“Now the United States faces concerns about its dwindling fleet of F-22 Raptors that were once intended to replace the F-15 outright,” Alex Hollings wrote for Business Insider. “Only around 130 of those 186 delivered F-22s were ever operational, and today the number of combat-ready F-22s is likely in the double digits.” 

Clearly, the F-22 is not the future of the Air Force. The F-22s, which have a shelf-life, are still being flown regularly – meaning that the end of their service run is approaching gradually. 

“But America needs an air superiority fighter that can stand and swing with the best in the world,” Hollings wrote, “and as capable as the F-15EX II may be, it lacks the stealth it would need to survive an open war with a nation like China or Russia.” 

And while the US is developing the sixth-generation NGAD program – that product won’t be ready for a decade or more. “American’s air-superiority mission now runs the risk of not having the jets it needs for a high-end fight if one were to break out – as unlikely as that may be.”

You Can't Build Anymore F-22s

Yet, the US can’t simply restart F-22 Raptor production to fill the air superiority gap. The costs to do so would be exorbitant.

Much of the F-22 production infrastructure was converted into F-35 production infrastructure, so the plants that used to build F-22s don’t really exist anymore.

“In a report submitted to Congress in 2017, it was estimated that restarting F-22 production would cost the United States $50 billion just to procure 194 more fighters,” Hollings wrote. “That breaks down to between $206 and $216 million per fighter, as compared to the F-25’s current price of around $80 million per airframe and the F-15EX’s per-unit price of approximately $88 million.” As I said, the price of restarting the F-22 production would be exorbitant. But would it be worth the investment? Probably not.

Is the Time of Raptor Over? 

The role of dogfighting has decreased dramatically in modern warfare, accounting for improvements in both offensive and defensive technologies. A pure air superiority fighter was more foundational to Cold War doctrine than twenty-first-century doctrine.

Granted, the US needs an air superiority fleet. But restarting the F-22 program, on the off chance that America needs them for combat over contested air space in either Russia or China, is probably not worth the investment.

Open conflict with either Russia or China should be avoided at all costs, given that each nation is a nuclear power. Making such an investment as egregious as restarting Raptor production to facilitate conventional war with nuclear powers is a bad investment. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a prolific defense writer with over 1,000 articles published.  An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he 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. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Le fleuve Niger est sorti de son lit. Les fortes pluies de la mousson avaient déjà causé d'énormes dégâts dans le sud-ouest du Niger. Désormais, c'est la capitale, Niamey, qui est durement touchée. Même scénario au Tchad, où les inondations ont fait des dizaines de morts et des centaines de sinistrés. 

Summary and Key Points: The Mikoyan MiG-27, developed from the MiG-23 fighter, was designed for low-level ground-attack missions with a powerful Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 23mm six-barrel gun.

-While this weapon made the MiG-27 formidable, it also caused significant problems, such as extreme recoil and vibrations that damaged the aircraft's structure and systems.

-Though intended for use in Europe, the MiG-27 was first deployed in the Soviet-Afghan War, where its sophistication proved unnecessary and problematic. The aircraft's design flaws, particularly those related to its main gun, highlighted the challenges of Soviet engineering in harsh combat conditions.

The MiG-27 Had a Big Gun That Causes Some Big Problems

Optimized for low-level strike operations that were anticipated in a war in Western Europe, the Mikoyan MiG-27 (NATO reporting named Flogger-D) was a variable-sweep ground-attack aircraft that proved unnecessarily sophisticated for the war in Afghanistan, where it was first employed in combat. Instead, robust, reliable, and simpler aircraft maintained an edge in that conflict.

Development of the MiG-27 began in the 1960s, based on the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 fighter (NATO reporting name Flogger), but modified for use as a ground-attack fighter.

Modified MiG-23

As the first swing-wing fighter to enter service with the Soviet Union, the MiG-23 wasn't without more than its share of notable issues. It was reported to be difficult to fly and expensive to maintain, while its engines had a short service life. Moreover, it was reported to have an operational range of less than 1,600 miles, while its top speed was just 1,553 mph.

Development on the MiG-27 was protracted, and it ran years behind the MiG-23, even as the aircraft shared major parts of the airframe while numerous subsystems were common to both. However, the MiG-27 was noted for having a simpler propulsion system, and a different nose.

Different Armament For a Different Role

As noted, whereas the MiG-23 was a true fighter, the MiG-27 was developed to serve as a ground attack aircraft. It first entered service in 1970.

For that role, it was armed with a single Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 23mm six-barrel gun on its centerline, and for that reason, the MiG-27 and its weapon have earned comparisons to the United States Air Force's Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II.

Though designed for use in Europe against NATO armor, the MiG-27 was first employed in combat in the Soviet-Afghan War where it proved far from effective. Much of the issue could be the design of the aircraft and notably that main gun.

According to "alternative aviation" website Hushkit.net, the GSh-6-30, which earned the nickname "Gasha," was far lighter than the A-10's GAU-8, with a greater rate of fire and a heavier projectile ­ it was very accurate and extremely loud. But it wasn't without problems.

It had a rate of fire of around 5,000 rounds per minute, and was able to expend the aircraft's 300 rounds in just a few seconds – and aviators were trained to fire short bursts of just a second or two to ensure the gun wouldn't overheat.

Firing the gun wasn't for the faint of heart, said Indian pilot Anshuman Mainkar in an interview with Hushkit.net.

"The aircraft seemingly came to a stand-still, engrossed with its target – tracers creating an illusion of morse communication. Smoke and the smell of cordite entered the cockpit, and in a flash it was all over…the airframe shuddered during the trigger pull, and surge was a possibility, hence the exit had to be smooth and deliberate."

Mainkar further explained that when fired, the nearly 12-foot-long gun produced around six tons of recoil that practically shook the aircraft apart. The vibrations were powerful enough that some of the MiG-27s in the Indian Air Force service were found to have cracked fuel tanks, broken avionics systems, and other structural problems.

In other words, the MiG-27 was very much a tried and true Soviet design. It may have gotten the job done when firing at a target on the ground, but it was almost as damaging to the aircraft doing the firing.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Sumantra Maitra. The Sources of Russian Aggression: Is Russia a Realist Power? (Lanham, Lexington Books) 234 pp., $110.00, Hardcover. $45.00, Ebook.   

Ten years ago, the borders of Eastern Europe shifted for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine saw its pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, ousted from power, shortly followed by the takeover of Crimea by the Russian Federation. These events also started the war in the Donbas, which, in February 2022, escalated into an all-out war on Ukraine. 

In the United States, this slow-burn regional escalation characterized Russian president Vladimir Putin as a latter-day Adolf Hitler who was attempting to reunite all of the exclave Russian populations under one banner. Dr. Sumantra Maitra’s The Sources of Russian Aggression: Is Russia a Realist Power? offers better causal explanations than allowing politicians to relive fantasies of  WWII.  

In the weeks following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Biden declared, “For God’s sake [Putin] cannot remain in power.” There is a certain comfort in believing that Russian foreign policy is predicated on the psychology of one individual. No doubt Putin has immense control over foreign policy, but to suggest that a different Russian leader would change Russian key strategic interests is contradicted by history. In 2008, diplomat William Burns, in an email to Condoleezza Rice, stated that “Ukraine in NATO remains the ‘brightest of all red lines.’” Despite the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations throughout the 2010s, Ukraine’s entrance into NATO was still being promoted, even as pressure built. Ten years later, hundreds of thousands are dead, millions more have been displaced, and the threat of nuclear war grows with each new expansion of the war in Ukraine. 

Maitra’s book challenges analyses that explain Russian behavior by infantilizing the Russian people and ignoring the concerns of successive occupants of the Kremlin. His balanced and compelling look into recent Russian history investigates when aggression is used by Russia, under which circumstances, and to what ends.

Much analysis of the origins of the Ukraine War boils down to optimism about international law as a tool for peace. In this view, Russia has nothing to fear from the Western liberal world order and hence should not worry about NATO and the European Union expansion on its doorstep. Maitra takes a more pessimistic view of the international world order. Realists argue that the world is devoid of order, and military power establishes the only genuine guarantee of present and future security. The Sources of Russian Aggression demonstrates that Russia’s behavior is explained by Russia’s national interests. However, the fantasy of Vladimir Putin as a senseless madman leader seems to be an intoxicating trope that the mainstream media will not abandon. 

Even critics of the mainstream media, like Tucker Carlson, fall into this trap. His interview with the Russian potentate ended up dwelling on Putin’s thoughts about 8th-century Slavic history. Such statements reinforce the case that Putin cannot be reasoned with. Realists don’t conduct foreign policy by psychological profile. Realists understand that Russia cannot afford to take NATO’s “defensive mandate” at face value. Realists understand that Russia, like the United States and every other country, faces an anarchic world devoid of overarching authority.

The 2014 annexation of Crimea instilled a sense of dread and fear in a world that believed history had ended with the Cold War. Russia took Crimea with barely a shot fired and forced Ukraine into a perpetual counterinsurgency operation in the Donbas. Russia’s inability to force Ukraine to the negotiating table in February of 2022 was a blow to its image as a military superpower. Russia has had to recalibrate its strategy and is now geared up for the long haul. As Barack Obama famously said, Russia possesses “escalation dominance” in the region. Now that the wheels are in motion, we see just how far Russia is willing to go to secure its interests. Russia’s desire to double down in Ukraine rather than retreat despite high casualty rates shows that its interest in this region vastly exceeds America’s own.  

Maitra makes an important case about Russian intentions through a rigorous analysis of its aggression in Ukraine in 2014 and Georgia in 2008. Maitra rejects attempts to explain these events in terms of Putin’s domestic popularity as some scholars attempt to propagate. He points out that there is no reliable correlation between falling poll numbers and an increase in Russian aggression. Putin did not need Crimea to help win an election or “shore up” support at home.   

Realists argue that motivations are external to states, not internal. The Sources of Russian Aggression supports the superior explanation that the path to the current war is better explained through the timeline of America’s insistence that Ukraine will someday join NATO. At the 2008 NATO summit, leaders presented Georgia and Ukraine’s accession as inevitable. At the time, Russia relied on an increasingly reluctant Ukraine for cooperation on their lease of the naval base at Sevastopol. If Kyiv were admitted into NATO, the vital Black Sea Fleet would assuredly be sent packing. Taking this off the geopolitical chessboard would have disastrous consequences for Russian interests not only in the Black Sea but also in the Middle East and beyond. 

Georgia is where the dynamic of overt power-balancing is even more apparent. One of the pervasive myths around Georgia in 2008 is that had it not been for U.S. threats, Putin would have gobbled up the whole country. However, as Maitra argues, from the beginning, it appears that Russia had neither the will nor the local firepower necessary for a full annexation. Russia gained de facto independence for Russian exclave regions and created a situation in which Georgia would be unable to join NATO. Russia gained what it wanted in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, leaving Georgia to contend with adversaries in its backyard and stunting NATO ambitions in the Caucasus region.  

Through the examples of 2008 in Georgia and 2014 in Ukraine, Maitra argues that Russia was deadly serious about threats tied to neighboring countries—a realist demand, not an ideological crusade. Georgian or Ukrainian accession into NATO would strain Russia’s military posture across the entire Rostov Oblast, much in the same way that the Suwałski Gap puts NATO forces at a perceived disadvantage against the Russians.

However, one problem with the book that sticks out is how it deals with the counterarguments to Russian aggression. This is the common objection of whether a different leader in Russia would have reacted in the same way given U.S. actions in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, more broadly. This is a point of criticism that Maitra briefly touches on, but it would have been helpful to give it more space, as it is one of the primary objections to the realist framing of this conflict. Maitra doesn’t address this because it falls under a disagreement on first principles. Realists do not put much weight on the contingencies and personalities of leadership in foreign policy.  

Maitra’s book shows that Russia’s actions on the world stage, much like some of America’s own, have motives extending from rational calculations of interest. Analysts of Russia need not conjure up the specter of World War II but rather that of nineteenth-century Europe. Then, the central concern was balancing the strategic interests of the great powers in Europe. To any reader who wants to get a deeper understanding of Russian aggression, its causes, and its consequences, this is the place to start.

Matthew Bryant graduated with a B.A. in Global Affairs from George Mason University. He has also studied as a joint Graduate student at the University of Trento & the Higher School of Economics. He researches and writes about the post-Soviet area as well as United States-Russia relations. He has been published in Law and Liberty, The National Interest, and The Realist Review. Follow him on X @Realmofmatt. 

Image: Shutterstock.com

Summary and Key Points: The F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) was developed by Boeing as a stealthier upgrade to the fourth-generation F-15, intended to compete with the more advanced and expensive fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II.

-First flown in 2010, the F-15SE featured conformal weapons bays, radar-absorbing materials, and reconfigured stabilizers to enhance stealth and extend range.

-Despite its innovative design and potential for cost savings, the Silent Eagle failed to attract buyers, with South Korea and Saudi Arabia opting for other aircraft. Consequently, the F-15SE was never produced, leaving its potential untapped.

F-15SE Silent Eagle: A Missed Opportunity for Cost-Effective Stealth

Stealth is the name of the modern air warfare game. The harder a bird is for enemy radar systems to detect, the better. 

The F-15SE, aka the Silent Eagle, was the Air Force’s quiet acknowledgement that its ubiquitous fourth-generation F-15 would need greater stealth capabilities to keep pace in the increasingly contested modern era. 

First flown in 2010, Boeing developed this upgraded fourth-generation warplane to better compete with Lockheed Martin’s pricier fifth-generation warplane, the F-35 Lightning II. 

The F-35 is not only a U.S. military warplane. It is one of Lockheed’s most important export systems as well. Boeing hoped to cut into that business by producing a stealthier variant of the F-15 that was highly effective, stealthy like the F-35, but far more affordable than the Lightning II. 

Interesting Features of the Silent Eagle

One of the most interesting upgrades for the Silent Eagle over its predecessors was its conformal weapons bays. These not only made the plane stealthier, but also meant that the bird could carry more missiles. 

All these increased capabilities helped to ensure the Silent Eagle’s excellence in the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses operations that have come to define much of the F-15’s post-Cold War existence. 

Engineers on the Silent Eagle project made some adjustments to the F-15’s body as well. One thing they did was move the twin vertical stabilizers around so they were canted outward by 15 degrees. This modest change added nearly 100 miles to the F-15SE’s range. The Silent Eagle was coated in Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM), and this is where the aircraft was most innovative – and most interesting. 

The reason for the RAM coating was to help reduce the radar cross section of areas of the plane that were simply not stealthy. Remember, despite all the upgrades and changes to assorted F-15 variants, at its core the basic airframe remains the same. There are certain unchangeable features of the bird. 

The F-15 was not originally designed to be stealthy. It was designed for speed. But the RAM, while not making the Silent Eagle completely stealthy, certainly helped cut down on its visibility to enemy radar systems.

The F-15 Silent Eagle Isn’t Wanted

Sadly for Boeing, this sweet new F-15 variant was never purchased. Initially, the bird was developed as part of a larger deal with South Korea’s air force, but Seoul later opted for the F-35. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia expressed an initial interest in the Silent Eagle, but Riyadh chose to purchase F-15C and D variants. 

So neither the U.S. Air Force nor any of America’s major partners wanted to purchase this stealthier variant of the F-15. It died in the womb. It would have been interesting to have seen a small grouping of these warbirds purchased, if not by a foreign military, then by the United States, to see if they were worth greater investment. 

Certainly, they are not as advanced as the F-35 or F-22. But the F-15 Silent Eagle might have helped keep costs down while maintaining key capabilities for the Air Force. Alas, we will never know. 

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The sequence of catastrophic accidents aboard U.S. Navy aircraft carriers in the 1960s, culminating in the devastating fire on the USS Enterprise in 1969, underscores the painful process of learning and implementing safety reforms in high-stakes environments.

-The Enterprise fire, triggered by the heat from a huffer unit that accidentally ignited a Zuni rocket, led to a chain reaction of explosions and fires that claimed 28 lives and injured 314 crew members.

-Despite the tragedy, the incident ultimately drove the Navy to critically reassess and improve its safety protocols, training, and equipment—changes that have helped prevent similar disasters in subsequent decades.

Lessons in Blood: The Tragic Fire Aboard USS Enterprise and the Evolution of Navy Safety

A series of collisions involving U.S. Navy destroyers in 2016 and 2017—including two incidents this summer that left sixteen sailors dead—have raised questions as to why the maritime fighting branch appears to be suffering the same accident again and again.

However, it can take time for organizations to learn from mistakes and implement solutions to deal with them. This fact was illustrated when it took no less than three catastrophic fires on U.S. aircraft carriers between 1966 and 1969 that killed more than 200 sailors before major reforms decisively improved safety onboard the giant flat tops. This final article in a three-part series looks at the last incident which occurred on the USS Enterprise.

All three of the disasters were triggered in part by rocket munitions. In 1966, a magnesium flare tossed into an ammunition locker caused rockets to detonate aboard the USS Oriskany, killing forty-four. Then in 1967, a Zuni rocket mounted on a fighter onboard the USS Forrestal accidentally launched due to a power surge, blasting into the side of an A-4 attack jet. This began a chain-reaction of detonating bombs and jet fuel that threatened to consume the conventionally-powered supercarrier.

However, these last two incidents occurred while the crew were undergoing the stress of launching dozens of jet aircraft a day into combat over Vietnam. Such was not the case for the USS Enterprise as she cruised seventy miles southwest of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on in January 1969. The 1,100-foot long Enterprise was the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Escorted by the destroyer USS Rodgers and the missile cruiser USS Bainbridge, the supercarrier was undergoing flight drills in preparation for another deployment to Vietnam.

At 6:45 AM on January 14 the carrier began launching a mix of F-4J Phantom fighters, A-6 and A-7 attack planes, and E-2 and KA-3 support aircraft. By 8:15 AM there were a total of fifteen aircraft prepping for launch on the flight deck. These included Phantom fighter 405 which was loaded with six 500-pound Mark 82 bombs and two LAU-10 rocket-launching pods, each containing four unguided five-inch Zuni rockets. As usual, an MD-3A huffer—a tractor-mobile heating unit used to warm up jet-engines—was positioned on the starboard side of the fighter, ready to prepare for it takeoff.

However, several crewmen noticed that the exhaust from the huffer was gusting onto one of the Phantom’s rocket pods only two feet away. At that distance, the heat would have amounted to more than 320 degrees while Fahrenheit the huffer was idling. The crew were not trained to know the cook-off temperature of the weapons they were handling, but several mentioned their concern to a nearby ordnance chief and other personnel. However, they were either preoccupied with fusing bombs in time for launch, or he couldn’t hear what was being said over the noise of nearby jet engines. Despite four different surviving crewmen admitting afterwards that they were aware of the unsafe positioning of the huffer, nobody acted on the situation in time.

The Zuni rocket employed a Composition B warhead, composed of 60 percent RDX and 40 percent TNT mixed with wax that was prone to cooking off when exposed to roughly 350 degrees of heat. M65 bombs made of Composition B had inflicted the lion’s share of the damage in the Forrestal fire, and the navy was then in the process of converting to more stable Composition H6 munitions.

At 8:18 the exhaust heat triggered the fifteen-pound warhead of one of the Zuni rockets. The resulting blast ruptured the Phantom’s fuel tank, which poured burning JP-5 jet fuel onto the deck, catching three more Phantoms on fire. Amongst the first victims of the conflagration were two operators of the huffer unit and the F-4 pilot.

A horrible chain reaction unfolded, similar to that which had occurred on the USS Forrestal. The heat from the burning fuel caused three more Zuni rockets to explode after two minutes, blasting a hole into the aircraft hangar below—allowing burning jet fuel to pour in.

The devastation had only just begun. The growing blaze then caused a 500 pound bomb mounted on the Phantom to detonate, gouging an eight-foot diameter hole into the deck, setting off secondary fires three decks below.

In his definitive book on the incident, Enterprise crewman Michael Carlin recalled the moment:

Everyone was stunned by the explosion and the shrapnel that hit all about the island…. Both twin agent units [full of flame-retardant foam] were knocked out. Hoses flopped about wildly, geysering spumes of foam and salt water. Men were on fire, the wounded moved feebly, the dead were still.

As ordnance detonations rippled across the ship, a rack of three Mark 82 bombs detonated all at once, blowing out a giant eighteen by twenty-two foot hole in the deck and causing a large KA-3 tanker to ignite with thousands of gallons of fuel onboard, sending a massive fireball scything into damage control crews.

More than eighteen explosions would tear open the Enterprise’s deck in eight places. Fortunately, her crew reacted efficiently to combat the blaze. Her skipper, Captain Kent Lee, turned the ship portside into the wind to blow away smoke, while sailors rushed forwards to combat the fire despite the detonating munitions, managing to roll the remaining bombs off the deck into the ocean before they could catch fire. The destroyer Rodgers put herself at risk by slewing in closely beside the Enterprise in order to spray her down with fire hoses. The efforts paid off—despite suffering a total of eighteen ordnance detonations, the crew brought the fire under control after forty minutes, and extinguished it entirely by noon.

The raging blaze had injured 314 crewmen and killed twenty-eight. Fortunately, this was significantly lower number of fatalities than had occurred on the Oriskany and Forrestal. Indeed, Captain Lee attributed the lower death toll to firefighting lessons learned from the earlier catastrophes.

Twisted and scarred by the blaze, with fifteen of her jets reduced to smoldering wrecks, the Enterprise limped back into Pearl Harbor, where she underwent fifty-one days of repairs costing $126 million ($866 million in 2017 dollars). The venerable carrier went on to serve forty-three more years before being retired in 2012. As for Captain Kent Lee, he would play an important role in the development of the FA-18 Hornet fighter jet. He passed away this August of 2017.

The painfully won experience from the Enterprise fire inspired a final round of introspection from the navy, which you can read in the mandatory JAG investigation here. Prior to the fire, sailors were already aware of the danger posed by the huffer heating units to aircraft weapons, due to earlier, nonlethal incidents. The crew of the USS Constellation had even devised longer huffer hoses for safer use. However, this awareness did not lead to navy-wide policies which could have prevented the accident, and the ordnance crew on the Enterprise’s deck failed to react promptly to a deadly threat to their safety despite spotting it in advance.

The succession of devastating accidents in the 1960s cost hundreds of lives. However, they did have one positive aftereffect: they confronted the navy with major deficiencies with its safety culture, and forced it to implement serious reforms to training and upgrades to its equipment, including the installation of flight deck “wash down” systems and employing more stable munitions. While carrier operations remain an inherently dangerous business, there have so far not been any catastrophic accidents on the scale of those that occurred in the 1960s. Tragically, those lessons were paid for in blood before their importance was fully realized.

About the Author

Sébastien Roblin holds a master’s degree in conflict resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Jey Points: In August, Ukraine took a bold step by invading Russia's Kursk Oblast, catching Moscow off guard. Ukrainian forces have made significant gains, threatening key areas, including a major nuclear power plant.

-Despite these advances, Ukraine faces challenges such as high attrition rates and a shortage of munitions, particularly in artillery, air defense, and long-range strike capabilities.

-U.S. military aid, resumed after a prolonged freeze, is arriving gradually, but Ukraine struggles to match Russia's overwhelming artillery firepower.

Pentagon Assesses Ukraine’s Kursk Offensive: Operational Gains, But Attrition Woes Continue

The invasion of Kursk is seen as a strategic move to draw Russian forces away from other fronts, giving Ukraine the operational initiative in the region. However, the conflict remains a battle of attrition, with Russia maintaining sufficient reserves to hold captured Ukrainian territory but unable to advance further.

In August, the Ukrainian military seized the initiative and invaded Russia’s Kursk Oblast. Moscow was caught off guard, thinking it was the only side that could invade other countries. In more than two weeks of fighting, Ukrainian forces have made significant gains, capturing several settlements and even threatening a major nuclear power plant. 

Military Aid, Artillery, and Operational Initiative in the Ukraine War

Despite its advance into Russia, the Ukrainian military faces important challenges, including attrition and lack of munitions. 

The Pentagon’s Inspector General's Office published a series of assessments on the course of the war by the Defense Intelligence Agency. 

“The UAF continued to suffer heavy attrition rates and lack sufficient capabilities and munitions—particularly artillery, air defense, and long-range strike capabilities—to overcome Russia’s air and ground advantages,” the DIA assessed.

A fierce domestic political debate in Congress froze security aid to Ukraine for over a year. In April, Congress passed a bill approving military assistance to Kyiv worth over $60 billion. Kyiv won’t receive this sum all at once. Rather, it will get periodic packages of security aid according to its needs. Weapons systems and munitions didn’t begin to arrive in Ukraine until early June. 

And yet the Russian forces continue to enjoy fire superiority. Despite resumed military aid from the U.S. and a steady influx of weapons and munitions from other countries, the Ukrainian military can’t match the Russian forces’ daily rate of approximately 10,000 rounds of artillery fire. As we have discussed here at The National Interest, artillery remains the king of the battle. As many as 90% of casualties on both sides have been caused by artillery fire. As such, gaining artillery superiority is key to winning the war. 

The DIA assessed that “Ukraine probably remains capable of continuing defensive operations but not conducting large-scale counteroffensives for at least the next 6 months, according to the DIA.” 

Clearly, the Pentagon doesn’t consider the invasion of Kursk Oblast to be a large-scale operation. And indeed the Ukrainians don’t consider it as such. According to Ukrainian defense officials, the main goal of the foray into Russia is to draw Russian units from other parts of the contact line, thus lessening the pressure on Ukrainian defenders, but also creating the conditions for future Ukrainian counteroffensives. 

By invading Kursk Oblast, the Ukrainian military seized the operational initiative in that part of the contact line and is now dictating the course of the battle. 

According to the DIA, the Russian military retains sufficient reserves to maintain the buffer zone it has created by capturing large swaths of Ukrainian territory, but not enough forces to advance deeper into Ukraine. 

“Russia is deliberately exploiting its quantitative advantage to exhaust Ukraine. Russia’s current pace of offensives is designed to seize additional Ukrainian territory, especially in Donetsk, albeit at high personnel and equipment costs,” the DIA assessed. 

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 and/or Shutterstock.

A few wedge issues could help determine who ends up in the White House.

Aujourd’hui, Abdelhak Saihi, ministre de la Santé, a souligné l’urgence de réguler l’usage des antibiotiques en raison de leur utilisation abusive. Il a insisté sur […]

L’article Santé : les antibiotiques bientôt interdits à la vente sans ordonnance est apparu en premier sur .

« Les Américains sont essorés par les grandes banques et les élites financières depuis trop longtemps », a écrit ce jeudi le candidat républicain à l'élection présidentielle américaine sur X et son réseau social Truth Social. « Il est temps que nous résistions, ensemble », a-t-il ajouté.

Ce mercredi, l’artiste de renommée franco-algérien DJ Snake a manifesté sa contrariété après que l’une de ses chansons, « Turn Down for What », ait été utilisée lors […]

L’article Présidentielles US : l’artiste algérien DJ Snake critique l’utilisation non autorisée de sa musique est apparu en premier sur .

C'est le président Nicolas Maduro lui-même qui avait saisi début août le Tribunal supérieur de justice (TSJ) pour faire valider sa victoire. L'opposition, qui revendique la victoire, avait déclaré « nulle et non avenue » toute décision de la haute juridiction sur le sujet

Picking Tim Walz as her running mate signals that Kamala Harris is all-in on the post-neoliberal shift.

Summary and Key Points: The Sukhoi Su-35 "Flanker," designed as an advanced multirole fighter for air superiority and precise ground strike missions, has faced significant challenges in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

-Despite its advanced technology and capabilities, including enhanced maneuverability, improved radar systems, and powerful engines, the Su-35 has struggled to establish air superiority over Ukraine.

-Recent reports highlight the downing of multiple Su-35s, with Russian forces suffering heavy losses in the conflict. The aircraft's performance issues underscore the broader difficulties facing Russia's military efforts in Ukraine.

Su-35 Fighter Jet Struggles in Ukraine: Advanced Russian Aircraft Fails to Dominate the Skies

The Sukhoi Su-35 “Flanker” was designed to serve as an advanced multirole fighter that could establish air superiority and execute precise ground strike missions.

Yet, over the skies of Ukraine, the Su-35 has struggled to survive.

Failing to establish air superiority

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has made Russian President Vladimir Putin and his regime the pariahs of the international community. Simultaneously, the invasion, which has dragged on ineffectively for over two years, has invited scrutiny of Russia’s military machine.

The fact is that the invasion did not go as planned or expected for Russian forces; Russia was supposed to be able to make significant territorial gains and secure airspace over the warzone. Yet, as the conflict enters its third year, neither objective has been accomplished.

Russia’s inability to win the airspace over Ukraine is one of the ingredients that has led to a war of attrition, stagnant and viscously fought, where both sides have suffered immense casualties. Russia especially has endured heavy losses with respect to its tanks, troops, and aircraft. One of the aircraft that Russia has had trouble keeping airborne against the pesky Ukrainians is the Su-35.

Derived from the Su-27

The Su-35 is derived from the Su-27. Yet, the Su-35 is visually discernible from its predecessor thanks to canards placed forward of the wings on the fuselage. The Su-35’s canards, plus a reshaped wing leading-edge extension, allow for the redirection of airflow—which has solved a buffeting problem that plagued the Su-27 during flight at high angles of attack.

The Su-35 can sustain flight at up to 10gs with the updated flight surfaces. Its flight surfaces, along with a sophisticated fly-by-wire system, allow the jet to achieve enhanced maneuverability over its predecessor.

Additional upgrades include a new weapons-control system featuring a phase-arrayed radar with pulse-Doppler tracking, known as the N011 Bars. The new N011 Bars allows the Su-35 to track targets below the horizon—which enhances the Su-35’s ability to interact with ground-based targets. Indeed, the N011 offers a significant upgrade over the N001 Myech radar found on the Su-27. Whereas the N001 could only track ten targets and fire two missiles simultaneously, the N011 can track fifteen targets and fire six missiles simultaneously.

With two Saturn Al-41F1S turbofan engines providing 30,900 pounds of thrust each (with afterburner engaged), the Su-35 can reach a top speed of Mach 2.25.

The Su-35 Fighter Is in Trouble over Ukraine While the Su-35 has an impressive array of technological features, the jet has none the less struggled to survive during the Russia-Ukraine war. In the last few months, multiple Su-35s have been shot down, one of which was off the coast of Sevastopol, Crimea.

“Footage online showed a jet on fire, spiraling into the sea and exploding,” reported The Guardian. “The Russian-installed governor of the illegally occupied region, Mikhail Razvoshayev, said on Thursday the pilot ejected and was picked up by rescuers but have no details as to the cause of the crash.”

While the exact cause of the Sevastopol crash may not be clear, the incident is hardly isolated. In February alone, Ukrainian forces downed thirteen Russian aircraft—two of which were the Su-35. “The Russian air force has lost 95 jets since February 2022,” Forbes reported. “That’s four per month.” Yet, in February 2024, “the air force has written off warplanes at a rate of 60 per month.”

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.

Image Credit: Shutterstock and Creative Commons. 

Recent events in Bangladesh show how the Hindu nationalist project has harmed India’s regional interests.

DÉCRYPTAGE - Le président de la République croit encore possible de dégager une coalition, six semaines après des législatives anticipées perdues par son camp.

DÉCRYPTAGE - Ce mercredi, l’ancienne première ministre a annoncé vouloir briguer la direction du parti présidentiel, également visée par Gabriel Attal.