Agrégateur de flux

A 2,492-carat stone has been unearthed, in the biggest find since the Cullinan diamond in 1905.

Nigeria striker Victor Boniface is eager to help Bayer Leverkusen reach new heights after going unbeaten to win a domestic double last season.

Summary and Key Points: The MiG-35 Fulcrum, Russia's 4.5-generation multirole fighter jet developed by Mikoyan, has failed to live up to its anticipated legacy. Despite being an upgrade to the MiG-29 series and boasting advanced radar capabilities, the MiG-35 has seen limited production and no combat testing, even amidst Russia's ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

The aircraft has struggled to attract foreign buyers, likely due to a lack of operational use and the impact of international sanctions. The MiG-35's challenges highlight the difficulties Russia faces in maintaining its position in the global defense market.

MiG-35 Fulcrum: The Russian Fighter Jet That Failed to Impress

Russian aerospace giant Mikoyan has produced some of the world’s most capable aircraft. 

The Kremlin and Mikoyan would claim that the MiG-35 Fulcrum is a worthy continuation of a Russian air combat legacy stretching back to World War Two. But facts beg to differ. 

The MiG-35 Fulcrum Fighter Jet

A 4.5-generation multirole fighter jet, the MiG-35 is an upgrade to the MiG-29M/M2 and MiG-29K/KUB fighter jets. Its NATO designation is “Fulcrum-F.”

The MiG-29M is the advanced multirole version of the aircraft with a new airframe, a fly-by-wire system, and new, more powerful engines. The M2 is the two-seat version of the MiG-29M, with almost identical capabilities to the one-seater. 

The MiG-29K is the naval version of the aircraft and sports folding wings, arrestor gear, and a reinforced landing gear so the fighter jet can operate from aircraft carriers. The aircraft also has some low observability features – not amounting to full stealth – mainly radar-absorbing paint coatings. The KUB is the two-seat version of the MiG-29K with identical performance to the one-seater. 

The MiG-35 was first presented in 2017 during an international air show in Moscow. Since then, there has been little to show for all the marketing behind the aircraft. Although the MiG-35 entered operational service in 2019, Mikoyan has produced only a few of these fighter jets.  

According to Russian defense officials, the MiG-35 fighter jet sports advanced radar capabilities and an overall superior performance compared to its predecessors. They claim its capabilities can even match the U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter. As is often the case with Russian assertions, these claims are very likely inaccurate, or gross exaggerations. 

MiG-35: Operationally Untested, Internationally Unmarketable 

To begin with, the MiG-35 is completely untested. The likely limited operational fleet of MiG-35 fighter jets hasn’t seen any combat to test its capabilities, unlike the F-35. Despite more than 900 days of fighting in Ukraine, the Russian Aerospace Forces have yet to deploy the new fighter jet in the conflict. And it is not like the Russian military can’t use the help. 

Although air combat is relatively rare in the war due to the prevalence of strong air defense weapon systems on both sides, the Ukrainian Air Force has been using fighter jets equipped with long-range munitions to take out key Russian logistical functions. Right now, for example, Ukrainian fighter jets are destroying bridges in the Kursk Oblast to trap Russian units and prevent an influx of reinforcements. Russian fighter jets, however, are largely absent. 

The MiG-35 was developed with an eye toward foreign exports, but it hasn’t attracted as much interest from foreign buyers as the Kremlin would like. This is likely the result of a lack of operational testimonials combined with international sanctions on Russia. Russian foreign military exports have dropped significantly since the war began, and the poor performance of Russian weapon systems and munitions in the fighting has reduced the overall marketability of Moscow’s military wares. 

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. 

Herbert Raymond McMaster affirme dans ses mémoires que le président russe manipulait l’ego de l’ancien président américain en s’appuyant sur ses failles. Le Guardian s’est procuré une copie du livre, qui paraîtra le 27 août.

Summary and Key Points: China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has reportedly launched its most advanced diesel-electric submarine, sparking interest and concern among naval analysts. Though details are scarce, satellite images suggest the new submarine could be a variant of the Type 039A-C, featuring advanced technologies like a Vertical Launch System (VLS).

-If confirmed, the VLS would significantly enhance the submarine's capabilities, allowing it to carry a variety of missiles, including land attack and anti-ship ballistic missiles.

-This development reflects China's continued expansion and modernization of its submarine fleet, raising questions about the strategic implications for regional and global security.

China Has a New Submarine – Should We Worry?

Earlier this year, China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) reportedly launched its most advanced diesel-electric submarine to date. The boat was floated out in April, but few details about the submarine are actually known. China, unlike most nations, launches its submarines with little to no fanfare. Beijing has made no official announcement about the submarine, and details are sparse.

Spotted by Satellite 

The submarine was first spotted in satellite photos taken soon after it was launched. It could be a new variant of the Type 039A-C.

Tom Shugart, a former U.S. Navy submariner and naval analyst, noted the presence of the boat in July, and posted on X: "I recently acquired this interesting image of the shipyard from 26 April 2024. On the left, you can see what appears to be a freshly-launched Hangor II-class submarine, the 1st of 8 being built for Pakistan. You can also see the other, possibly new class of boat."

The PLAN continues to expand its fleet of non-nuclear-powered submarines. Newsweek cited U.S. Department of Defense estimates that 25 or more Yuan-class submarines could be produced by the end of 2025, while Beijing could operate as many as 80 submarines by the mid-2030s.

Naval analyst H I Sutton, writing for Naval News on Wednesday, further reported that, "The new boat is larger than existing ones and is the first in the country to feature X-form rudders. There are indications that it may have a vertical launch system (VLS)."

Sutton indicated the newly launched boat "has similar proportions to its forward section as the Yuan." That could suggest that the submarine's forward hull, where the sonar and torpedo room are located, would also be similar. But the hull section behind the sub's sail was "significantly longer," which could suggest the presence of a VLS, something that certainly wasn't present on existing variants of the PLAN's Yuan class.

Vertical Launch Systems Would Enhance the Boat's Capabilities 

A VLS is common on surface ships – such as the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers – and on nuclear-powered submarines. Many of America’s and Russia's nuclear-powered submarines are equipped with VLS.

The presence of a VLS is far less common on diesel-electric boats, which are smaller. Introducing a VLS onto a conventionally powered boat would add to the types of armament the attack submarines carry. These could include land attack missiles too large to launch through a boat's torpedo tubes, as well as anti-ship ballistic missiles.

"The trend in non-nuclear submarines has been set by the South Korean KSS-III and Israeli Drakon Class. If this new submarine does have a VLS behind the sail it can likely accommodate between four and eight missiles, depending on their diameter," wrote Sutton. "China has been experimenting with VLS on submarines since the introduction of the Type-032 Qing class test boat. This has four small diameter VLS tubes forward of the sail. These were recently modified with a raised deck over them, suggesting a new missile is being tested."

No doubt the U.S. Navy – and likely other powers – will be watching closely, trying to glean any additional insight on this new PLAN submarine.

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: DoD Image of older Chinese Kilo-Class Submarine. 

Avec le réchauffement climatique, un nombre croissant de personnes, surtout parmi les plus pauvres, souffrent de la chaleur chez elles. Une situation encore négligée par les pouvoirs publics, dénonce la Fondation abbé Pierre.

Breznóbánya terén nemrég egy páncéltörő ágyút helyeztek el, amely mellett egy fotókiállítást is nyitottak az 1938 és 1945 közötti időszak eseményeiről.

The Spanish government could face instability after the Catalonian pro-independence ERC party warned that it could block the national budget for 2025 if Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez fails to clarify provisions for a Catalan tax agency in a recently signed pact.

Au début du mois d’août, les Alliés sont toujours sur le front normand, la résistance intérieure n’attend pas, elle lance l’appel à l’insurrection nationale. Récit de cette semaine cruciale, durant laquelle le peuple dresse les barricades et mène d’intenses combats pour libérer la capitale.

INFOGRAPHIE - Comme René Coty et Vincent Auriol avant lui, Emmanuel Macron prolonge artificiellement la durée de vie du gouvernement. Le précédent le plus long, en 1953, n’avait pas excédé 38 jours.

DÉCRYPTAGE - Alors que son parti est sorti très affaibli des européennes (5,5 %), la secrétaire nationale des Écologistes a réussi à s’imposer comme une des incarnations du Nouveau Front populaire. Et a fait taire la contestation interne.

Court, moyen, long terme… Pour accéder au pouvoir, le Nouveau Front populaire a de nombreux et vastes chantiers devant lui. À l’occasion de la rentrée politique de ses différentes formations, ce week-end, l’Humanité en a sélectionné 12.

Summary and Key Points: The United States and the United Kingdom continue to invest heavily in advanced military technologies, such as the sixth-generation warplane programs NGAD and FCAS.

However, the staggering costs and practical challenges of these "wonder weapons" have led to growing concerns about their viability.

U.S. Air Force leaders are now considering a more adaptable and affordable approach, possibly introducing a "Light Fighter" concept.

NGAD: U.S. Air Force Reassesses Costly Sixth-Gen Warplane Plans

As Western defense industries face budget constraints and inefficiencies, there is a pressing need to focus on more practical, cost-effective systems that address immediate threats rather than long-term, high-cost projects.

The United States and its Western allies, notably the United Kingdom, remain deeply ensconced in the cult of the wonder weapon. Western militaries will splurge on highly complex systems that promise to do it all but are so expensive they rarely deliver what they advertise. 

As the West enters what can only be described as a protracted debt crisis, even the insulated defense chiefs of Washington and London are starting to realize they may have run up against the law of diminishing returns. 

The System of Systems and Light Fighter

A recent meeting of British and American defense chiefs at the UK Air and Space Power Association in late July shows Western leaders running up against the limits of what their governments can do in terms of funding the two countries’ sixth-generation warplane programs.

In the United States, the Pentagon refers to their program as the lofty sounding Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD. It is billed as a family of systems, and the Brits have something similar known as the Future Combat Air System.

The costs are obscene. The American sixth-generation bird is going to cost an astonishing $300 million per plane, and the Pentagon wants hundreds of them. Each of the manned sixth-generation warplanes will be augmented by a fleet of next-generation drones, as well as the most advanced artificial intelligence capabilities, cloud computing, and other next-generation technologies. 

Again, the problem is cost and practicality. One can put anything down on paper. Bringing it to life is quite a different matter. 

To overcome practicality and cost concerns, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, along with other defense leaders involved in the NGAD program, admitted that they were kicking around the concept of a sixth-generation “Light Fighter.”

According to The Aviationist, U.S. officials at the UK’s Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference in July were “hoping for more ‘adaptable’ platforms that can be easily modified and upgraded.” Describing their new idea as a “notional” concept, Air Force leadership spoke about the need to move away from the “built to last philosophy to [the] built to adapt” model.

Affordability and other constraints on the defense-industrial base are forcing the Air Force to reassess its procurement model for new warplanes – however slowly that reassessment is happening. 

Just a few weeks ago, the Air Force did place their sixth-generation warplane acquisition plans on hold as they sought out a contractor who could meet the frankly insane requirements of these obscenely expensive experimental warplanes. 

What Decadence 

In today’s age, what’s needed is less a warplane that can do it all – and remain in service for decades – and more a system relevant to the threat environment of the next 10-15 years.  

Given the crisis in Western defense-industrial capabilities, the preference for more complex, expensive systems is misplaced. America needs cheaper, more adaptable, and disposable systems. Ditto for the British, whose defense industry is an even messier swamp of inefficiency, corruption, and decadence.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

A totalitárius rezsimek bűneire és áldozataira való emlékezés fontosságára hívta fel a figyelmet Didier Reynders, az Európai Bizottság igazságügyekért, Vera Jourová, az értékekért és átláthatóságért, illetve Helena Dalli egyenlőségért felelős tagja csütörtökön, egy nappal a totalitárius diktatúrák áldozatainak európai emléknapja előtt.

Outgoing Czech Minister of Industry and Trade Jozef Síkela has the right CV be the EU’s next Energy Commissioner, but he also has a few important political cards up his sleeve.

Outre le cuivre, le cobalt, le nickel et le lithium, le passage du moteur thermique au moteur électrique sera gourmand en métaux et autres matières issues de ce que l’on nomme les « terres rares ». Elles entrent notamment dans la production des aimants et leurs noms sont peu connus. En font partie le lanthane, le cérium, le néodyme, le samarium, le dysprosium et quelques autres.

For over seventy-five years, American leadership has brought an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, and stability across the globe. When looking back on these decades, many point to our military strength, our great economic dynamism, and our technological innovations as the sources of America’s national power. These observations are true, but they miss what underpins these pillars.

Military, economic, and technological prowess are not generated out of nothing. They come from something deeper, something that we are at risk of losing: our industrial capacity. U.S. industrialization in the twentieth century is what enabled such a colossal rise in the military, economic, and technological spheres. Just after World War II, the United States made up half of the global GDP, and over a quarter of the U.S. GDP was from the manufacturing sector at the time.

Much has changed since our post-war industrial boom. China has surpassed the United States as the world’s manufacturing superpower, accounting for almost 29 percent of global manufacturing output, while the United States lags at just under 17 percent. America’s manufacturing decline is a consequence of decades of outsourcing our capacity. We naively believed that if we ceded our industrial capabilities to China, that nation would democratize and become more like us. American politicians from both parties were wrong to assume this outcome.

China’s manufacturing rise is not just about cheap toys and clothing and clothing to fill our big-box stores. It includes critical technologies that impact our economic, national, and personal security, like electric vehicles (EVs), robotics, artificial intelligence, solar technology, pharmaceuticals, drones, batteries, and ships.

In some of these industries, such as EVs and shipbuilding, China has not only surpassed America’s industrial capacity but has also left us behind.

China is the largest producer of EVs, making up 57 percent of the world’s production. China is the world’s largest shipbuilder, with a capacity that exceeds that of the United States by over 230 times. Allowing these situations to occur was a strategic blunder that will degrade America’s national power over time.

A robust manufacturing industry fit for the twenty-first century requires more than forging and engineering. Our industries need critical components, like engines, computers, microchips, complex alloys, and countless other critical technologies with fragile supply chains. China has, in fact, managed to insert itself into dominant positions in many of these supply chains. For example, in the steel sector, China now produces about half the world’s output, with a commanding position in the global market. China’s supply chain dominance renders our economic security more vulnerable in the event of a conflict between our nations.

A U.S. manufacturing revival requires an environment that supports thousands of small and medium enterprises as the backbone of the industry. This is critical to prevent over-consolidation of smaller businesses—which are important drivers of innovation and employment. We need a strategy that integrates all of our capacity from big factories to small machine shops into a rebuilt industrial base.

Overregulation is stifling our manufacturing companies. Government mandates must be utilized surgically to foster economic growth, not hamstring the economy unnecessarily. High corporate taxes are closely connected to overregulation and will, with certainty, drive our best entrepreneurs to seek less burdensome taxation abroad.

Public-private partnerships that combine the resources and capital of the government and private sector can also, in targeted settings, help facilitate our industrial transition and let us catch up in industries essential to our future. The CHIPS Act needs some retooling but may prove to be a useful precedent in this area.

New factories will need skilled blue-collar workers to weld, install HVAC systems, fit pipes, and fulfill scores of high-paying jobs in the trades. The federal government has been far too silent on the importance of strengthening the industrial manufacturing workforce as well as expanding vocational schools and apprentice programs. We need young people who want to work on factory floors. Young foreign scientists and engineers who graduate from our universities and who share our values should be allowed to stay rather than be pushed out to apply their U.S. education to the benefit of our competitors.

We must also harden America’s industrial infrastructure and our power grids to make them more resilient in the face of increased cyberattacks. The thousands of daily cyber intrusions, hacks, and probes we see now are but a mere foreshadowing of what we can expect from thousands of Chinese hackers if war ever comes.

Private sector R&D investment ensures that America remains at the cutting edge of technological advancements. It is our companies that will keep us ahead in the tech race with China in the key areas of AI and Quantum computing. The government must stop beating up our tech companies with outdated anti-trust lawsuits and consumer investigations and allowing our allies, especially the EU, to do the same. 

The United States holds a key position in the manufacturing sector, which no other industrial country, especially China, has—abundant North American energy. Factories require energy, and the high-tech plants of the future will require lots of it. The United States already produces over 12 million barrels of oil a day. That number could go millions of barrels a day higher with more energy-friendly policies. Finishing the last few miles of the Keystone XL pipeline would bring an additional 900,000 barrels of Canadian crude to our refineries in Texas. Oil and gas are just the start.

An “all of the above” energy policy that would entice manufacturers to make long-term bets on America will also focus on alternative sources. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and hydropower all have their places in diverse regions of this country. America should regain its leadership in these green energy fields from China. The energy sources of the future—nuclear (ready today) and fusion—will also play significant roles in powering industry.

America’s strength has always come from our ability to outproduce the world. Our industrial might is what sustains our military superiority, economic might, and technological prowess. This country has all the ingredients, from its people to its bountiful natural resources, to get back on top of manufacturing. To do so, the United States must reindustrialize decisively and with dispatch. Maintaining our peace and prosperity depends on such action.

About the Authors:

Robert C. O’Brien (ret.) is Chairman of American Global Strategies. He served as the twenty-seventh United States National Security Advisor from 2019–2021. 

Henrietta Fore is Chairman of Holsman International. She served as the fifteenth Administrator of USAID from 2007–2009. O’Brien and Fore are Carnegie Distinguished Fellows at Columbia University’s Institute of Global Politics.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Over the past two weeks, Ukraine has taken its fight with the Kremlin onto Russian soil. Kyiv’s offensive consisted of a daring raid into Russia’s Kursk region designed to bring the fight to Russian forces and draw the Kremlin’s combat troops away from its own territory. 

Aside from a few headlines, though, Ukraine’s bold strategic gamble has gone largely unnoticed. That’s a shame because Kyiv’s initiative—and Moscow’s response to it—has made clear that persistent Western fears of Russian brinkmanship are overblown. 

Up until now, both U.S. and European policies have been defined by caution and fear of Russian risk-taking. While President Biden has pledged to back Kyiv’s fight for “as long as it takes,” in practice, his administration has been slow to provide Ukraine with the weaponry it needs to win the fight decisively. And even when it has, that aid has been accompanied by onerous restrictions that have had the effect of limiting Ukraine’s fighting potential. European nations, meanwhile, have taken their cues from Washington and settled in for a long campaign of incremental assistance to Ukraine. The result has been a situation that—at least until recently—had settled into a strategic stalemate and positional warfare. 

That’s the equation Ukraine’s push into Russia is attempting to alter. In the process, however, it has also laid bare the hollowness of Moscow’s threats of strategic escalation in response to battlefield setbacks.

Ever since the current conflict broke out in February 2022, the West has been concerned that “poking the bear” could prompt Russia to use nuclear weapons and escalate the war into a full-blown showdown with NATO. But Ukraine’s push north, through which it has managed to seize over 480 square miles of Russia’s Kursk Oblast, hasn’t elicited much of a response from Russia. To be sure, the Kremlin has mobilized in response, declaring a federal emergency in the region and redeploying troops, tanks, and artillery from the Ukraine front to (so far unsuccessfully) beat back the invaders. However, what Russia has not done is retaliate against Ukraine or its partners with any significant escalatory measures.

President Vladimir Putin has not ramped up the conflict in conventional terms. Nor has he used nuclear weapons against Russia’s western neighbor, as Russian officials have threatened in the past. Indeed, even with Ukrainian troops now entrenched in Russian territory, the Kremlin hasn’t made any maneuvers that could threaten to escalate the conflict further.

Part of the reason for Russia’s restraint is no doubt practical. Simply put, Moscow is already using pretty much all the military resources at its disposal in its attempts to subjugate Ukraine. As such, Russia is unlikely to make moves so provocative that they might prompt the direct involvement of NATO. Indeed, there does not seem to be much that Russia might be able to do to turn the tables on Kyiv without risking the alliance entering the conflict.

The lesson is worth heeding. As dominant as Russia’s strongman wants to appear, his government is in a far more precarious position than the West originally believed. Putin’s bluff has always been that he would be more willing to turn up the heat if the war doesn’t go his way. But the reality is that he cannot. All of Russia’s tanks, artillery, aircraft, missiles, and ships are as committed as they can be without exposing Russia to other attacks. And because they are, there are real-world limits to what Russia can realistically do to punish the West. 

Ukraine’s daring offensive, in other words, has laid bare a couple of critical truths. The first is that Russia is weak and constrained by the same sort of real-world limitations that afflict other powers. The second is that Ukraine, though embattled, can still find ways to break the stalemate and win this war. 

About the Author: 

Elliot Petroff is a researcher at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC.

Image: Shutterstock.com.

Il s'agit de démontrer les possibilités de ce qui était alors un nouveau champ en médecine... mais qui était une locomotive scientifique.

Mia le Roux is the first deaf woman to be crowned Miss South Africa.