Feed aggregator

Summer is the main fighting season in Ukraine, and as it slowly wanes, it is worth doing a tour of the battlefield to assess the situation.

Overall, the situation remains relatively the same. The Russian forces continue to be on the offensive, but they lack the requisite combat power to breach the Ukrainian defenses and achieve an operational breakthrough. On the other end, the Ukrainians are holding fast across the contact line, building their combat capability for a future large-scale counteroffensive.

A Tour of the Battlefield

In the east, the situation remains largely stagnant, with small-scale action on both sides.

“Positional engagements continued in northern Kharkiv Oblast on August 5, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline,” the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assessed in its latest operational estimate.

There is active fighting north and northeast of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city in eastern Ukraine. The Russian forces maintain two pockets in the area, but they don’t present a serious threat to Kharkiv.

In May, the Russian forces tried to capture the city, launching a large-scale offensive. However, the Ukrainian defenses held, and the Russian forces lost much of their tactical gains to subsequent Ukrainian counterattacks. Moreover, the Russian military lost over 40,000 men in the operation.

The Donbas remains the center of fighting.

“Russian forces continued ground attacks along the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line on August 5 but did not make any confirmed advances. A Russian military blogger claimed that Russian forces seized several Ukrainian strongholds along the Berestove-Pishchane line (southeast of Kupyansk), although ISW has not observed visual confirmation of this claim,” the Institute for the Study of War stated.

The Russian forces continued with their small-scale offensive operations in the direction of Siversk and Chasiv Yar but without any significant success or confirmed advances.

However, in the direction of Toretsk in the southern part of the Donbas, the Russian forces have had more success, making significant tactical advances.

“Russian forces reportedly continue to advance east of Pokrovsk on August 5, and Russian sources claimed that Russian forces are closer to completing a tactical encirclement of Ukrainian forces near the T-0511 (O-054) road southeast of Pokrovsk,” the Institute for the Study of War estimated.

The Ukrainian forces usually won’t retreat until they have to, falling back to better-defended positions.

In the southern part of Ukraine, the Russian forces have made some small gains around Robotyne, in the western part of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Last year, the Ukrainian military launched its promising large-scale counteroffensive in the area. However, the Russian forces were well-entrenched and managed to absorb most of the Ukrainian offensive push.

Russian Casualties in Ukraine: An Update 

Meanwhile, the Russian forces continue to take serious losses on a daily basis. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, over the past twenty-four hours, the Kremlin lost approximately 1,050 men killed, wounded, or captured, as well as fifty-four tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, thirty-nine artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems, thirty-six unmanned aerial systems, eight infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, six cruise missiles, four main battle tanks, and one piece of special equipment.

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 Johns Hopkins University and an MA from 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. 

En raison de la haute qualité d’image et de la capacité à stocker les détails complexes qu’ils offrent, les fichiers TIFF sont couramment utilisés par […]

L’article Convertir des TIFF en PDF pour les architectes et designers est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: The arrival of American-made F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine is seen as a significant boost to the country's air defense and support capabilities. However, while these jets offer advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry, including the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, their impact on the war is likely to be limited by their numbers and lack of stealth capabilities.

-Ukraine's F-16s, while a valuable addition, face significant risks from Russian air defenses and will not single-handedly change the course of the conflict.

The Great F-16 Debate: Will They Help Ukraine or Not? 

More than two years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, F-16 Fighting Falcons have officially begun arriving in the country, marking what many hope will be a shift in the embattled nation’s air defense and air support capabilities. These Western fighters represent what promises to be a significant increase in combat capability for the Ukrainian Air Force, but despite the potential these aircraft have to tip the balance toward Ukraine’s favor, it’s also important to keep in mind that the war for Ukraine’s future is far too large to be decided by any single platform or weapon system.

“F-16s in Ukraine. We ensured this. I am proud of all our guys who are skillfully mastering these aircraft and have already started using them for our country. I thank our team for this result. I thank all the partners who are truly helping with the F-16s, and the first countries that accepted our request for aircraft – Denmark, the Netherlands, the United States, – and all our partners, – we value your support,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a ceremony at an undisclosed location. “I wish our Air Force and all our warriors to feel the pride of Ukrainians in our combat aviation and to bring Ukraine the combat results that will bring our victory closer – our just peace for Ukraine.

But while we need to keep our expectations for these aircraft grounded in reality, these images of Ukraine’s first operational F-16s do offer us a promising glimpse at how these aircraft will be employed (at least early on) and, in turn, how they might affect the fight moving forward.

What types of air-to-air weapons are Ukraine’s F-16s carrying?

In images and video released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, these F-16s were armed with air-to-air focused load-outs comprised of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air missiles (AMRAAMs) and AIM-9M Sidewinder infrared-guided air-to-air missiles.

The AIM-120, which serves as America’s primary beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air weapon, comes in multiple forms, including the AIM-120C, which is optimized for internal carriage in stealth fighters like the F-35, and the AIM-120D — which is among the most capable iterations of the missile ever to reach service. The AIM-120D boasts GPS guidance, anti-jam capabilities, and a maximum engagement range that extends out beyond 110 miles. It isn’t entirely clear which version of the AMRAAM these aircraft are carrying, but previous statements from Ukrainian officials suggest it likely is the AIM-120D.

The AIM-120D is capable of hitting targets further out than the radar on Ukraine’s F-16s could likely identify them, and the weapon itself is network capable, meaning it could get target data from other assets in the battlespace, but it remains unclear as to whether Ukrainian forces will be able to leverage that capability at this point. This also points to the possibility that Ukrainian officials being quoted about the range of the weapons they were receiving could simply have been mistaken, and Ukraine may actually be receiving a less advanced (and long-ranged) iteration of the AMRAAM.

Regardless of which AMRAAM Ukraine’s F-16s fly with, it will represent a significant improvement over the R-27 semi-active radar-guided air-to-air missiles employed by Ukrainian fighter jets today. The R-27 has a maximum range of better than 60 miles, but is much more difficult to employ against enemy fighters due to its lack of onboard radar guidance. Unlike the AMRAAM, which can transition to its own onboard radar seeker as it approaches its target to close the remaining distance unassisted, Ukraine’s R-27s require continued guidance from the fighter’s onboard radar. This means Ukrainian pilots attempting long-range engagements need to chase the missiles they launch, maintaining a lock on their targets until the missiles make impact.

“After all, these aircraft have powerful airborne radars, technological equipment and, most importantly, missiles with active homing heads,” Col. Yuri Bulavka, a Ukrainian Su-27 pilot, said in April when asked why Ukraine needs Western fighters to say viable in the air war.

Russian forces have been attempting extremely long-range engagements against Ukrainian fighters using R-37M radar-guided missiles launched at high altitude by MiG-31BMs, which have a claimed maximum range of around 250 miles — though in practice, Russian aircraft have primarily been employing these missiles from inside of 80 miles — outside the reach of Ukraine’s R-27s, but well within the reach of AIM-120Ds if Ukraine’s F-16s are indeed carrying them.

The AIM-9M Sidewinder seen in these pictures is not quite as advanced and capable as the latest variants of the AIM-9X in use for the U.S. but is nonetheless seen as an extremely potent short-range weapon. The AIM-9M uses a traditional infrared seeker and control surfaces and is limited to engaging targets within the pilot’s forward field of view (as opposed to the AIM-9X’s high off-boresight targeting capability). Like much of the technology found within the F-16AMs being employed by Ukraine, the AIM-9M was cutting-edge in the early 1990s — being credited with at least 10 air-to-air kills in Operation Desert Storm alone.

However, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal, Ukraine will indeed be receiving AIM-9X variants of the Sidewinder missile, which will further increase the close-quarters combat capabilities of these F-16s. The AIM-9X not only boasts a significantly improved guidance system to better see through the tricks of common missile countermeasures like flares, but it also offers a massive increase in aerobatic maneuverability. The AIM-9X is famously so maneuverable, thanks to its thrust-vectoring rocket nozzle, that it can even engage enemy aircraft flying behind the launching aircraft — targetable through the helmet-cued targeting system Ukrainian pilots have already been seen training on.

Both the AMRAAM and the Sidewinder (in various iterations for each) will prove valuable not just for air-to-air combat, however — they’ll also be essential for expanding Ukraine’s air defense capabilities. Both AMRAAMs and Sidewinders are capable of downing long-range subsonic cruise missiles like Russia’s air-launched Kh-101, and the Sidewinder is a relatively low-cost option for engaging larger enemy drones than Patriot interceptors.

What types of air-to-ground weapons will these F-16s fly with?

One of the most important air-to-ground munitions these F-16s will leverage is America’s AGM-88 HARM, or High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile.

Ukrainian forces have already been using the HARM since August of 2022 or earlier, but because these weapons were being launched by dated Soviet jets that were never intended to use them, their utility has been dramatically limited.

Anti-radiation missiles like the HARM work by honing on the electromagnetic radiation broadcast by radar arrays – in other words, radar waves – making them uniquely suited for the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) role. American Wild Weasel pilots often fly their aircraft into contested airspace, waiting for enemy air defense systems to power up in an attempt to target them or their wingmen. Once the air defense systems are broadcasting radar waves, Wild Weasel pilots launch their HARM missiles to hone in on those radar waves and destroy the air defense equipment.

Ukraine’s Soviet-era fighters are only able to leverage the HARM missile in what many call the “pre-briefed” mode. In effect, the missile is pre-programmed with a target area and then launched by an aircraft, often at a fairly long distance. The missile flies toward its intended target area, using its seeker to look for any air defense systems powering up and broadcasting radar waves for it to then close with and destroy.

This method can be very effective, especially when launching these missiles in volume, as even if they don’t ultimately destroy enemy radar sites, their presence alone will often prompt air defense crews to power down their arrays. This effectively amounts to suppression of air defenses, as those powered-down arrays allow aircraft to operate inside the contested area for a short time, but of course, once the HARM threat has passed, these arrays can power back up and begin hunting for Ukrainian jets all over again.

However, if operated by an aircraft carrying NATO-standard busses, like Ukraine’s new F-16s, pilots can leverage the HARM’s full capability set, including two more operational modes that can be very handy in a fight: “Self-protect” mode and “target of opportunity” mode.

In self-protect mode, the aircraft’s onboard radar warning receiver identifies an enemy radar array that’s broadcasting. It then passes that target data over to the HARM, which can hone in on either the broadcasting radar or the specific location that waves were coming from in the event the enemy powers the system down. The target of opportunity mode is similar but allows the AGM-88’s onboard seeker to spot enemy radar arrays powering up, which then alerts the pilot to launch the weapon.

Another very important weapon system we can expect to see these F-16s leverage is the extender range iteration of America’s long-serving Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM. JDAM kits are, effectively, guidance systems that can be installed on conventional “dumb bombs” to turn them into GPS-guided precision munitions, usually capable of engaging targets from ranges of 15 miles or so. In February 2023, however, the U.S. announced its plans to equip Ukraine with the JDAM-ER, which adds a deployable set of wings to the system to triple its engagement range out to 45 miles or better. Russian forces have seen a great deal of success in recent months using a very similar glide-bomb system, meaning Ukraine should soon be able to give them a taste of their own medicine in that regard.

How do Ukraine’s F-16s compare to those operated by the US?

Ukraine’s new (old) fighters are being transferred from the inventories of Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Norway — and while these aircraft do share the same design as America’s in-service F-16s, the hardware and software found onboard is often quite a bit more dated. These F-16AMs were built and delivered in the 1970s, before undergoing what’s called a “Mid Life Update” (MLU) in the early 2000s to bring them more-or-less on par with the Block 50/52 F-16Cs and Ds operated by the United States during Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s.

One of the most important elements of this update was the inclusion of the Texas Instruments Modular Mission Computer (MMC), which in conjunction with a cockpit refresh helped to bring these 1970s hotrods into the digital age, making it possible to leverage a breadth of new weapons and auxiliary systems through an improved pilot interface.

While Ukraine’s F-16s do lack the Active Electronically Scanned Array radar found in many American F-16s, they do carry the updated AN/APG-66(V2) Fire Control Radar, which is a medium-range pulse-doppler planar array said to offer a 25% improvement in detection range over the aircraft’s original array. This system is capable of tracking up to ten targets simultaneously while scanning the area and offers what’s commonly called a “six on six” AMRAAM capability — which means the radar can support long-range engagements of up to six targets at once using an onboard complement of AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles.

The original AN/APG-66 was said to have a target detection range out beyond 90 miles (150 km) and the ability to track fighter-sized targets at ranges of roughly 35+ miles (60 km), but the APG-66v2 found in Ukraine’s new F-16s is said to boast a roughly 25% improvement in detection and tracking performance. That pushes those ranges out to roughly 110+ miles for detection and a bit north of 43 miles for targeting fighters, though it should be noted that these are unclassified figures and should be taken with a hearty helping of salt.

As first reported by The Warzone, Ukraine’s F-16s shown in recent images and videos seem to be equipped with Denmark’s Pylon Integrated Dispensing System Plus (PIDS+) and possibly with the Electronic Combat Integrated Pylon System Plus (ECIPS+). These systems, which you can see in the images look sort of like weapon pylons with optical sensors, include integrated radar-warning receivers to notify the pilot of nearby threats and missile approach warning sensors (MAWS) to let them know when trouble’s coming. This will be of particular value in attack and air defense suppression missions, as the Su-25s employed by Ukraine to date don’t even have radar-warning receivers onboard to speak of.

“Our jets don’t have a system to warn about [Russian rocket] launches,” said a Ukranian Su-25 pilot with the call sign Pumba. “It’s all visual-based. If you see them, then you just try to escape by firing off heat traps and maneuvering.”

Depending on the system in use, these integrated systems can either provide additional flares and chaff to confuse inbound missiles or more advanced Northrop Grumman-sourced electronic warfare capabilities.

Be prepared: F-16s will be shot down

Put simply, these are fairly modern F-16s with all the bells and whistles you might expect to find in such a fighter operated by nations without top-tier funding for the latest and greatest gadgets, making them a significant threat to Russian aviators, but not necessarily the technological overmatch one might expect in an engagement between American F-16s and Russian fighters. In practical terms, Ukraine will soon be operating between 60 and 80 total F-16s, which is certainly a significant development but is far from enough to offset the numerical advantage represented by Russia’s fighter fleets.

The F-16 is a highly survivable fighter, as demonstrated by its performance in conflicts like Operation Desert Storm, where one F-16 managed to dodge six incoming surface-to-air missiles in rapid succession without the use of countermeasures at one point — but it’s important to remember that Russia’s S-300 and S-400 air defense systems are the most advanced these fighters have ever squared off against in modern warfare. The F-16 is not a stealth fighter, and as such, is still very vulnerable to being detected and targeted by Russian air defenses, just as the rest of Ukraine’s fighters have been throughout this conflict. But more than that, Russia will be making it their business to engage and destroy as many F-16s as they can as quickly as they can to limit the positive effect these fighters can have on Ukrainian morale and Western support.

Russia’s emphasis on managing the perceptions of the world at large through concerted disinformation campaigns tightly interwoven with real and manufactured news out of the battlefield is sure to be working overtime to find ways to portray these F-16s as ineffectual or highly vulnerable, and that will almost certainly will come with a heavy allocation of resources meant to down these jets for the sake of that narrative (and of course, to minimize their actual strategic impact). These fighters are most vulnerable on the ground, meaning Russian airstrikes will be placing a large emphasis on not just destroying the jets, but runways and support facilities required to operate them.

To put it simply, these aircraft will be operating with a big target on their back, and the nature of warfare all but assures that some of them will go down fighting or likely, be destroyed on their runways. These losses will be framed in the media as a significant development — for the sake of driving clicks in the West, and for the sake of driving narrative out of Russia — but losing aircraft is just what happens in the war-fighting business.

F-16s will not win this war for Ukraine, but they could play a vital part in a broader strategy aimed at doing so — and to use them effectively to that end, risk will be an inherent part of the job. So, as these jets slowly start getting into the fight, it’s important to maintain a realistic perspective about what they are and what they can do… But just as importantly, what they can’t. F-16s are incredible jets that can do some positively mind-bending things, but at the end of the day, they’re not invulnerable, especially when sitting on the tarmac.

Of course, there will be some pro-Russian commenters who will pretend this sort of pragmatic realism is a new development, as Western analysts try to hide their fear that NATO’s super fighters might not be as invincible as we once claimed… But let’s not fall for that tired old narrative either, folks. There’s no such thing as an invincible fighter, tank, or anything else for that matter. There are only tools, strategies, and incredibly brave men and women tasked with employing the first for the sake of the second.

Warfare is a dirty business, and while the F-16 won’t end that for Ukraine, it will equip them to fight just a little bit dirtier than ever before.

And that’s really what transferring these jets has always been about.

About the Author: Alex Hollings 

Alex Hollings is a writer, dad, and Marine veteran.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's investment in Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) like the HELIOS laser system reflects its urgent need for advanced defense against evolving threats such as hypersonic missiles and drone swarms.

-Despite decades of research and significant funding, these systems are still under development, with the Navy facing challenges in integrating DEWs into existing platforms like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

-Waiting for the DDG(X) warships to be built for DEW deployment could be a strategic error, and the Navy should focus on integrating these technologies into current systems and unmanned platforms.

The U.S. Navy's Laser Drama Show 

For almost 20 years, the U.S. Navy (as well as the Air Force) has worked on various concepts for directed energy weapons (DEW), or lasers. 

Gobs of U.S. tax dollars have been spent on the technology, and many promises have been made by the military. And, as U.S. Navy Adm. Fred Pyle told reporters earlier this summer, “Sometimes [the Navy has] a tendency to over promise and under deliver.”

That is an understatement. 

To be clear: The U.S. military needs to possess a reliable and robust DEW capability. The reason it has lacked this capacity is not because the technology is not there yet. It surely is. But there has been a lack of direction, funding, and initiative over the course of many decades on this technology. 

As Adm. Pyle had to admit, the Navy needs these weapons more now than ever. 

China is ascendant. Russia is resurgent. Iran appears poised to upend the U.S.-led Mideast order. Latin America is aflame as Venezuela implodes. And North Korea is, well, who really knows these days? 

The Flaws of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)

Pyle wants the Navy to concentrate on developing DEW for surface warfare purposes. He’s right to fixate on that like a laser. That’s because America’s enemies are overcoming the strategic advantages that ballistic missile defense (BMD) and other missile defense systems have conferred upon the countries employing these capabilities. Israel’s Iron Dome, for example, has allowed for that country to mitigate what could be catastrophic damage from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rockets fired at the country. 

Similarly, U.S. Navy warships employ a coterie of systems meant to defend against incoming missiles. This allows for those Navy warships to operate with relative impunity near enemy shores while knocking those enemies around with their offensive systems. 

But these times, they are a-changin’, as Dylan warned us so long ago. 

Ultimately, conventional ballistic missile defenses run out of ammunition with which to fire at incoming rockets and missiles. These systems can be overwhelmed by swarming tactics that fast-moving drones and modern anti-ship ballistic missiles employ. 

What’s more, hypersonic weapons completely circumvent the ability of conventional missile defenses to protect the ship or territory they are charged with defending. 

So a U.S. aircraft carrier and its attendant battle group could soon be in the unenviable position of its defensive systems either being totally overwhelmed in the early phase of a conflict – or they will be rendered obsolete with a small batch of hypersonic weapons systems. Sure, the Americans are always building better systems. The Pentagon is supposedly prioritizing the creation of hypersonic weapons of their own, as well as defenses against them. 

Sadly, for now, China and Russia have the Americans beat in this domain.

Making DEW or Lasers Work 

That leaves the U.S. military with a limited set of options in the near term. That’s where DEW comes. If the American military can make DEW work reliably – and scale it up – it’s an additional layer of defense for U.S. surface warships or bases that could overwhelm the swarming tactics that America’s enemies are preparing to deploy against U.S. assets in war. 

There are two DEW systems the Navy is investing in. The first is the High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-Dazzler and Surveillance system (HELIOS). Navy leaders claim that the system can “blast more than 60 kilowatts of directed energy at targets up to five miles away,” and these systems were being tested on Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

As if trying to justify the cost of such systems, the Navy is trying to marry these new innovations to a platform that has yet to materialize: the replacement for the Navy’s Ticonderoga-class destroyers, the mythical DDG(X) warship. Whatever the Navy says about the timelines for the DDG(X), it is all up in the air, as the US economy struggles, politicians are distracted, and America’s industrial base is all but broken. 

The Navy Should Not Hold Out for the DDG(X) Program

Hoping and waiting for the DDG(X) to be delivered in any meaningful numbers so that they can utilize the Navy’s lasers is strategic malpractice on the part of American war planners. 

Of course, the Navy needs DEW to ensure its surface fleet is not a total wasting asset in the age of A2/AD. Thus far, however, the Navy has failed to accomplish even its baseline goals for achieving real DEW capabilities and then having a platform that can deploy them in combat. The Navy should rededicate its resources toward building its lasers. But it must merge these systems with existing platforms. 

UUVs and Subs: Where DEWs Should Be Deployed 

As for platforms that are still being built, it would be wiser to place such weapons on large unmanned undersea vehicles.

Wasting time and money trying to do everything at once, as the Navy is currently doing, will ensure nothing is done on time or properly. Without the DEW capability, Navy warships risk being destroyed, or at least forced to stay out of any fight with an A2/AD-wielding enemy.

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. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

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?)

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

The first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump resulted in a media blitzkrieg of hysteria about Biden’s performance, which continued through the Republican convention and led to Biden’s eventual withdrawal from the race. The New York Times editorial board and other prestige media sites, supported by some leading Democratic fundraisers and politicians, including from the Democratic Senate and House leaders, called for Biden to withdraw from the race for the White House. It’s understandable to some extent that the media, whose professional obsession is with communication, and the many Democratic members of the House and Senate, who are concerned about their own elections, would declare Biden’s performance a disaster. On the other hand, with respect to the substance of policy, as opposed to the optics of stage performance, the debate was one blip in a journey that will require more months of campaigning and electioneering between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris to sort out.

Of particular importance in this regard are the candidates’ and parties’ respective positions on foreign policy and U.S. military strategy. The world is transforming an immediate post-Cold War euphoria of American triumphalism and liberal democratic hubris to a more complicated picture. The return of wars and other conflicts among major powers, especially with respect to the rising capabilities and aspirations of China and Russia, creates uncertainty about the United States’ political objectives and military readiness in Europe and Asia. In addition, unprecedented challenges in climate change and pandemics; efforts to dethrone the dollar as the benchmark currency for international transactions; mass migration in unprecedented numbers; and new technologies for cyberwar, artificial intelligence, and the military uses of space all contribute to a possible bow wave of political regime destabilization and military planning vexation. Today’s certainties for politicians and their military advisors are tomorrow’s guesswork. 

Therefore, in choosing among competing presidential candidates, we need to understand their perspectives on this international environment of political complexity and military uncertainty. No country has unlimited resources, and even the United States, facing a cumulative deficit of more than $35 trillion, cannot continue unrestrained binge spending on domestic and foreign policy priorities. What, going forward, is America’s preferred geopolitical orientation or grand strategy? What military commitments and obligations derive from that grand strategy? And third, what assumptions should drive military preparedness for deterring wars and, if necessary, for fighting them?

Broadly speaking, the options for U.S. grand strategy include: (1) Godzilla Rex, or what has sometimes been termed “liberal hegemony”; (2) offshore balancing; (3) globalization unlimited; and (4) selective engagement and enlargement. Isolationism is eliminated as an option because, in today’s world of complex interdependence and media saturation, it would not be possible, even if deemed desirable by some.

Godzilla Rex was the U.S. position in the 1990s following the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union. An end to history and the perpetual triumph of liberal democracy was assumed by optimists about the post-Soviet world. The United States was a singular global superpower with no serious military rival. However, President Clinton reduced national focus on security and defense, including intelligence, which came back to haunt us after the attacks on 9/11. Nonetheless, the United States invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban in 2001 and struck down the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003. A Global War on Terror was declared, and both conflicts became “forever wars” that lasted well into the second decade of the present century. 

Offshore balancing was an alternative grand strategy favored by some academics and prominent policy analysts. From this perspective, the United States should limit large-scale military intervention to threats by a hostile power to dominate an essential region in ways inimical to U.S. and allied vital interests. Regional rivals would include a resurgent Russia in Europe, a rising China in Asia, and lesser but still dangerous disruptors in Asia (North Korea) or the Middle East (Iran). Under this approach, the United States would first seek to rely on regional allies to take the lead if they were prepared to do so, although the United States would otherwise act if our vital interests were threatened.

A third grand strategy, favored by many postmodern politicians and a worldwide community of activists, would emphasize transnational challenges over national rivalries and argue for moving issues such as climate change, poverty, migration, urbanization, pandemics, and disarmament to the front end of national policy agendas. From this perspective, great power rivalries and wars for hegemony are outdated relics of hyper-nationalism and excessive military influence over policy. Resources spent on defense and war-fighting should be diverted to international scientific collaboration and peacekeeping overseen by the United Nations or other international bodies. 

A fourth grand strategy is selective engagement and enlargement. This approach was supported by some in the Bill Clinton administration and emphasized economic growth through international cooperation and investment. Although there was broad agreement among Democrats and Republicans in the 1990s that liberalized free trade would be a rising tide that lifted all boats, it eventually became clear that some states would benefit much more directly than others. Military interventions were undertaken in the wake of a famine in Somalia in order to curb the power of warlords, resulting in the “Blackhawk Down” episode that led to a U.S. military withdrawal from that failed state. Elsewhere, the United States and NATO intervened to restore order in Bosnia in 1995 and waged war against Serbia in 1999 in order to prevent ethnic cleansing and sectarian strife in Europe. NATO’s attacks on Serbia in 1999 enraged the Russian government and its otherwise U.S.-friendly President Boris Yeltsin, a precursor of later objections to NATO enlargement by his successor, Vladimir Putin.

Among these competing grand strategies, the foreign and defense policies of the Biden administration have included some elements from each of the first three options. A Harris administration would most likely expand them. Growing defense budgets and robust U.S. and NATO military support for Ukraine against Russian invasion show that Godzilla Rex remains aspirational among both Democrats and many Republicans in Washington. U.S. support for Israel in the Middle East is close to offshore balancing against dangerous regional rivals (Iran and its proxies). Also, it reflects the historical American commitment to defending Israeli sovereignty against regional enemies. 

But so-called progressives in the Biden administration, including globalists as described above, have objected to Israel’s military tactics in the war against Hamas in Gaza. With regard to China, the Biden policy has been divided between options one and two: emphasizing a U.S. defense buildup and greater preparedness for an attempted Chinese military takeover of Taiwan or seeing China as more of an economic and informational competitor than an immediate military threat—although China’s growing capabilities for cyberwar and in space are admittedly of major concern. Still, others see China’s rise as a science and technology challenge that does not have to evolve into an arms race or war, which is more like option three. 

Where would a second Trump administration place itself in selecting among these grand strategies (or others)? It’s unknowable at the moment because Trump relies on his personal ability to engage with other heads of state in order to resolve international disputes. Some of his comments seem to endorse option one, Godzilla Rex. Still, he also prizes his ability to woo hostile leaders into more favorable alignments by grand summitry and selective engagement. Trump promises to crack down on illegal migration and on trade deals that disadvantage U.S. producers and manufacturers. 

In this respect, he combines old-style nationalism with an aggressive globalism turned upside down. He claimed credit for keeping the United States out of major wars during his administration, although he did authorize selective strikes against terrorists and rogue regimes. In public events during this year, he asserted that he would end the war in Ukraine between the time of his election in November 2024 and his inauguration in January 2025. Whether Ukrainian president Zelensky and Russian president Putin are on board with this timetable remains to be seen. In addition, during his term in the White House, some members of Congress and other commentators worried about Trump’s finger on the nuclear button should a Cold War-style nuclear crisis present itself. However, others noted that the U.S. decision-making process has safeguards against any presidential impetuosity.

Stephen Cimbala is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Penn State Brandywine and the author of numerous books and articles on international security issues. 

Lawrence Korb, a retired Navy Captain, has held national security positions at several think tanks and served in the Pentagon in the Reagan administration.

Image: GreenOak / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The railgun, an advanced artillery system using electromagnetic force to launch projectiles at high velocities, has faced significant challenges, leading to the U.S. Navy canceling its program in 2021.

-The main issues included durability, integration with ship power systems, and underperformance in tests. Despite this, China claims to be advancing its railgun technology, potentially incorporating it into their naval forces.

-While some analysts believe China may be bluffing to provoke U.S. spending, others worry about China's genuine progress in this field.

The Great Railgun Debate

When the catapult was introduced into warfare, it changed history forever. Empires were built or destroyed by this ingenious weapon. They seem antiquated today, but the concept of taking an object and hurling it at enemy formation or fortification keeps its appeal. 

We are obviously well beyond the era of catapults. But the U.S. military and others have toyed with a more high-tech version of this artillery piece: the railgun.

What is the Railgun?

Basically, a railgun uses electromagnetic force to propel an object toward a target at an extremely high velocity. The innovation is that the railgun uses electricity rather than chemicals to give the projectiles their speed.

The speed we are talking about leaves little time to react. There is in theory little defense against this type of attack. 

But while this technology was the great dream of many U.S. military engineers, it never came to fruition. 

What Happened to This Weapon?

According to ExecutiveGov, the Navy canceled the program because “the rails could easily experience wear and tear from firing multiple projectiles, resulting in a very high surface temperature, which can magnify durability issues even more.” 

Further, these weapons are power hogs, and their inability to integrate into the warship’s electrical grid made them useless as weapons. 

Finally, when railguns were tested at the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in the Utah desert, they didn’t hit the range their designers had promised. 

All of this left the Navy with nothing to show for over a decade of work and hundreds of millions of dollars invested. In 2021, the Navy canceled the program and redirected its resources to more conventional defenses as well as its hypersonic weapons program.

The Navy couldn’t make it work, and we were told that it wasn’t that big of a deal. If the Navy couldn’t do it, certainly no one else, especially a foreign power, could ever attain this radical technology.

China Enters the Chat

But China claims it is proving these Western leaders wrong. 

With China becoming a wealthy and modernizing nation-state, it is inevitable that they would enhance their military capabilities. As part of the effort, China is working on some radical, advanced new military technologies. One such new capability, they claim, is the railgun. 

Beijing announced the existence of their program just two years after the Pentagon abandoned theirs. 

Some in Washington, such as the analysts at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), don’t think that the Chinese have the railgun. They believe China is bluffing on the topic. They see a sort of reverse-Reagan approach to handling the U.S. threat to China. U.S. President Ronald Reagan got the USSR to spend itself into oblivion partly by lying about what new systems the Americans were building, and China is doing that to the U.S. today.

But after every Chinese advance, the Western press enters the scene to downplay the threat and disparage anyone who would believe such sophistry. Beijing is undoubtedly turning some variation of the Reagan plan against the U.S. Yet China is also truly developing some advanced – and fearsome – technologies to combat the Americans.

Enter the Chinese railgun. They purportedly have a rudimentary version of the one the Americans had been developing. Chinese strategists also claim that the new railguns are being easily incorporated into their warships to give their naval force added protection and power-projection capabilities. 

The United States military, meanwhile, is struggling with all these problems. If China can build a railgun when the U.S. cannot, that is good reason to worry. 

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.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

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?)

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Eliminé dès l’entame aux Jeux Olympique de Paris, le 27 juillet dernier par l'Israélien Yam Wolczac chez moins de -60kg, Arnold Kisoka, judoka congolais affirme affuter ses armes pour les Jeux Olympiques de 2028, prévus à Los Angeles (Etats-Unis d’Amérique).

Cet athlète congolais de 23 ans a annoncé ces ambitions au cours du magazine Okapi Sport du dimanche 4 aout 2024.

Joint depuis le village olympique à Paris, Kisoka assure avoir acquis de l’expérience du très haut niveau.

Auf der Weltgesundheitsversammlung im Mai 2024 wurde beschlossen, die Verhandlungen über ein internationales Pandemieabkommen zu ver­längern. Gleichzeitig wurden die Internationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften von 2005 umfassend reformiert. Ziel beider Instrumente ist es, bei Gesundheitsnotfällen und Pandemien eine bessere Verteilungsgerechtigkeit medi­zinischer Güter zu gewährleisten. In beiden Instrumenten steht diese »Equity« im Mittelpunkt. Dieses Ele­ment ist für mehrere Länder des globalen Südens nicht verhandelbar. Für die Wirksamkeit beider Instrumente ist es nötig, dass die Länder des globalen Südens ihnen beitreten – dies ist unerlässlich für eine bessere Prävention, Vorsorge und Bekämpfung zukünftiger Pandemien. Da Deutschland und die EU das Pandemieabkommen und die Inter­nationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften unterstützen und werden umsetzen müssen, sollten sie Equity als Leitprinzip vorantreiben. Dies sollte sowohl Garantien für einen gerechteren Zugang zu Arzneimitteln bei künftigen Pandemien beinhalten als auch Finanzinstrumente zur Stärkung der Gesundheitssysteme. Bestehende rechtliche Hindernisse für eine schnellere Verteilung pan­demie­bezogener Produkte lassen sich überwinden. Ein gesetzlich ver­ankertes System des Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing kann im Ergebnis dazu führen, dass Hersteller einen bestimmten Prozentsatz ihrer Echtzeitproduktion pandemiebezogener Güter der Weltgesundheits­organisation zur Verfügung stellen, die diese dann weltweit verteilt. In der aktuellen Fassung des Pandemieabkommens wird bestätigt, dass die Weltgesundheitsorganisation keine weiteren Befugnisse erhalten wird, die nationale gesundheitspolitische Gesetz­gebung zu steuern. Bei der Formulierung anderer neuer völkerrechtlicher Verpflichtungen zur Gesundheitspolitik bei Pandemien sollten diese Vorrechte der nationalen Behörden ebenfalls anerkannt werden.

Le chef de l’Etat Félix Tshisekedi a accusé, mardi 6 août, son prédécesseur, Joseph Kabila d’alimenter la crise sécuritaire dans l’Est de la RDC par le soutien qu’il apporterait à l’Alliance du Fleuve Congo (AFC).

Il l’a dit dans un entretien accordé à la Radio Top Congo, depuis Bruxelles (Belgique) où il séjourne pour des raisons de santé.

Summary and Key Points: China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is reportedly developing a "jam-resistant" Yu-10 torpedo, designed to effectively strike moving targets with high accuracy. This torpedo, launched from a Type-039B submarine, was demonstrated in a test that reportedly sunk a retired landing vessel.

-The Yu-10's capabilities are seen as a significant threat to large naval targets, including aircraft carriers.

-The ongoing development of such advanced torpedoes highlights China's efforts to enhance its submarine warfare capabilities, posing a growing challenge to U.S. naval forces.

China Developed Jam-Resistant Torpedo

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has repeatedly touted the capabilities of its DF-21D and DF-26B "carrier killer" missiles that can be fired by land-based mobile launchers. Beijing's deployment of such weapons could deny access to a potential adversary in the East and South China Seas, but now it seems that the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) could have in its arsenal a weapon that could be employed anywhere its submarines can travel.

China state media broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) highlighted the capabilities of what was believed to be the PLAN's Yu-10 torpedo. In a video presented on the media outlet last month to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the PLAN's submarine, a Type-039B diesel-electric submarine (NATO reporting name Yuan class) fired the torpedo at a Type 074 amphibious landing vessel.

"Its stern was lifted out of the water by the explosion shock wave, accompanied by a column of water nearly 100 meters (328 feet) high," reported The South China Morning Post, adding that the Yu-10 is believed to have entered service around 2015, quoting an article in the Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Chinese military magazine.

"From the CCTV video, the power of this torpedo means even an aircraft carrier could hardly escape the fate of sinking, let alone destroyers or landing docks. Even if not sunk, they would be essentially out of operation," the Chinese military publication had stated. "This technology uses the wake generated by the target vessel to correct the torpedo’s orientation to better track and effectively strike moving targets, which greatly improves the responsiveness and accuracy of the torpedo, making it more resistant to jamming."

Though the report from The China Morning Post claimed the Yu-10 has an estimated range of fifty km (thirty miles), which is comparable to the U.S. Navy's MK-48 Mod 7, the exact specifications of the Yu-10 torpedo have not been published, nor has its use in sinking the amphibious landing vessel been independently verified.

Chinese SINKEX – Response to U.S. RIMPAC?

The apparent sinking of a retired Type 074 amphibious landing vessel was likely conducted in response to a pair of Sinking Excercise (SINKEX) drills carried out during the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024 multinational exercises, and follows a similar event in June in which the amphibious transport dock ex-USS Cleveland (LPD-7) was sunk during the Valiant Shield (VS) 2024.

The Austin-class amphibious transport dock – the third ship of the U.S. Navy to be named for the Ohio city – had been maintained at the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, since November 2017. The retired vessel was sunk as a target on June 17, during a naval-fire exercise.

During RIMPAC 2024, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber successfully sank the ex-USS Dubuque (LPD-8) – another Austin-class amphibious transport dock – with a GPS-guided bomb. Even more impressively, the decommissioned U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa (LHA-1) was sunk after being hit by a Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet.

That Sinking Feeling

These recent U.S. and Chinese exercises highlight that sinking a warship may be the easy part, at least with the right ordnance. The trick would be getting through the vast screen of guided-missile destroyers and other defenses.

The danger for the U.S. Navy is that submarines like the PLAN's Type 039B are noted for employing an air-independent power (AIP) system that can allow them to remain submerged for long periods, operating quietly and stealthily.

As previously reported, several U.S. carriers have been notionally "sunk" in exercises by similar submarines, raising concerns about the safety of the floating air bases against such threats. Coupled with a "jam-resistant" submarine could make for a dangerous threat indeed.

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 and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points - F/A-18 Fighters for Ukraine?: While Ukraine's receipt of F-16 fighter jets is seen as a significant boost, the limited number of these non-stealth aircraft may restrict their impact in the ongoing conflict.

-The F/A-18 Super Hornet, though versatile and capable, would face similar challenges, such as detectability by advanced Russian air defenses.

-Both aircraft would likely be used defensively, offering improvements but not dramatically altering the conflict's course. The war is expected to continue as it has for nearly three years.

Would the F/A-18 Super Hornet Better Serve Ukraine’s Defense?

Would the Ukrainians benefit from the gifting of Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet?

The Ukrainians are celebrating the arrival of the F-16 fighter jet – a gift from the Americans that has been billed as a potential game changer in the two-and-a-half-year-old conflict. But does the F-16 provide the Ukrainians with game-changing capabilities? And was the F-16 the best airframe for the Ukrainians?

What can the F-16 offer?

Despite making its first flight fifty years ago in 1974, the F-16 is still a reliable and capable fighter. This single-engine fighter is equipped to operate in all weather conditions and a variety of different roles, making the F-16 well-suited for the volatile conditions of conflict. The F-16 is distinct for its frameless bubble canopy, which permits the pilot an exceptional, unobstructed field of vision. In production (almost) continuously since 1973, the F-16 is numerous, with 4,604 airframes built.

Yet only a handful of the F-16s have been sent to Ukraine, where officials believe at least 130 F-16s will be needed to neutralize Russian air power. The Ukrainians have not disclosed exactly how many F-16s they received, but it has been estimated that the number does not come close to approaching 130, meaning the effectiveness of the F-16 will be limited – in large part because the jet will be used conservatively in account of how finite the resource is.

Also limiting the effectiveness of the F-16 is the lack of stealth capabilities. Whereas modern fighters have minuscule radar cross sections, which permit operations in contested air space, the F-16 was designed before such stealth technology had been developed, and thus is easily detectable with modern air defense systems. The result is a jet that would have limited use in the conflict’s front lines. Instead, the F-16 would likely be used primarily in defensive situations.

Would the F/A-18 Have Been a Better Option?

As the F/A designation suggests, the F/A-18 is a versatile aircraft, offering impressive capabilities in both offensive and defensive situations. And while the F/A-18 is commonly associated with carrier operations, the jet is of course capable of operating from land, as well.

The F/A-18 has been built in far fewer quantities (1.480) than the F-16 and has been distributed far less (just three countries operate the F/A-18, whereas about twenty-five operate the F-16), meaning the Ukrainians are not going to receive the F/A-18 in quantities exceeding that of the F-16.

The F/A-18, also designed in the 1970s, is equally lacking in stealth technology. The result would be similar: the F/A-18 would struggle to survive against Russia’s advanced air defense systems and would likely be confined to a purely defensive role.

To be clear, the Ukrainian’s circumstances will be improved with the addition of the F-16 – and would be improved with the addition of the F/A-18; both airframes offer a quantity and quality increase over the existing Ukrainian inventory. But the improvements yielded won’t be sufficient to expel the Russian invaders, or to force Putin into some sort of peace agreement, or capitulation. The war will likely persist in much the same way it has persisted for nearly three years.

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: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

After experiencing regular power cuts for 17 years there are signs things are now working properly.

Les pays baltes, dans le nord de l’Europe, se trouvent être la cible de campagnes de désinformation, principalement orchestrées par la Russie, voisine immédiate. Quel est le contenu de ces campagnes ? Comment est-il produit ? Notre correspondante à Vilnius nous livre quelques pistes de réponses.

Summary and Key Points: The delivery of American-made F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine is a significant development, but their impact on the war might be limited. Ukraine needs around 130 F-16s to neutralize Russian air power, but the number received is much lower. The F-16, like the JAS 39 Gripen, is non-stealth, making it vulnerable to Russian air defenses.

-While both aircraft could be valuable in defensive roles, neither is likely to change the conflict's dynamics significantly without more substantial numbers and capabilities.

JAS 39 Gripen: The Fighter Jet Ukraine Needs? 

The big news out of Ukraine is the delivery of American-made F-16 fighter jets to Kyiv’s forces. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spent months lobbying for the fourth-generation fighters. Now the jets are finally ready for deployment against Russian aggressors.

“F-16s are in Ukraine. We did it. I am proud of our guys who are mastering these jets and have already started using them for our country,” Zelenskyy said. “These jets are in our sky and today you see them. It’s good that they are here and that we can put them to use.”

But the F-16 is unlikely to impact the war as much as Zelenskyy has advertised. Ukrainian officials have said Ukraine would need 130 F-16s just to neutralize Russia’s existing air assets. While the precise number of F-16s delivered to Ukraine has not been disclosed, we can be fairly certain that number is not 130. The result will be an F-16 force that is vulnerable to Russia’s air defense systems. 

Would another jet be more effective? Could Ukraine add something else in the NATO inventory, like the JAS 39 Gripen?

What About the JAS 39?

The F-16 has two shortcomings in Ukraine. First, the jet has not been supplied in numbers sufficient to tip the balance. Second, the F-16 is not a stealth aircraft. 

Let’s consider the supply issue first. To date, 4,604 F-16s have been built. They are in service with the United States and 25 other operating entities. The jet is prolific. The JAS 39, meanwhile, has been produced less than 300 times and is in service with just four air forces, two of them from NATO member-states. Ukraine could not turn to the JAS 39 to find the 130 airframes needed to neutralize Russian air power. That number would constitute nearly 50% of the type ever made and would need to come exclusively from Hungary and Sweden. That won’t happen. 

The F-16 is numerous and has long since proliferated throughout the NATO air force network, and Ukraine is still nowhere close to procuring the amount of F-16s needed to really make a difference against Russian air power. If Ukraine were to inherit the JAS 39, the limited numbers procured would make it a precious commodity, inspiring the kind of cautious use that would limit the jet’s impact on the outcome of the conflict.  

The second problem is that the JAS 39, like the F-16, is a non-stealth fighter. The Russian military has many deficiencies, but air defense does not seem to be one of them. Non-stealth fighters would not be survivable against Russian air defenses, meaning the JAS 39 would need to avoid frontline and behind-frontline operations. 

The JAS 39, like the F-16, would be limited to a more defensive role. This is valuable, of course, but unlikely to lead Russian forces to abandon Ukrainian territory.

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

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: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

La Direction générale du trésor et de la comptabilité publique (DGTCP) a lancé officiellement les activités de la Banque des dépôts du trésor (BDT), ce vendredi 2 août 2024 à Ouagadougou. Sylvestre Ouédraogo, enseignant-chercheur à l'Université Thomas Sankara, dans cette analyse, nous dit ce qu'est cette nouvelle institution financière ; et ce qu'elle n'est pas.

La BDT apparait en septembre 2022 au nombre des directions de la DGTCP et a pour mission d'assurer la fonction bancaire du Trésor public au profit de sa clientèle. Elle offre une gamme complète de services bancaires, notamment l'ouverture de comptes, la collecte et la gestion des ressources, l'exécution des opérations. Elle met à la disposition de ses clients des moyens de paiements digitaux et promeut le développement des services bancaires innovants. Elle est ouverte aux institutions publiques, sociétés d'État, établissements publics de l'État, projets et programmes, collectivités territoriales, organismes internationaux, entreprises privées, associations, ONG et particuliers.

La BDT vient élargir l'écosystème financier au Burkina Faso dominé par les banques privées et les institutions financières nationales et internationales.

A la date de fin décembre 2023, la BCEAO comptait 160 établissements financiers dont 21 % au Sénégal, 20 % en Côte d'Ivoire, 13 % au Burkina Faso, 13 % au Niger, 11 % au Mali, 11 % au Togo, 9 % au Bénin et 4 % an Guinée Bissau. Bien sûr que cet indicateur est simple. Ce qui compte c'est le volume des transactions par institution financière et non l'aspect numérique.

Quelle différence entre un établissement financier et une banque ?
La banque peut mobiliser l'épargne contrairement aux établissements financiers qui sont limités au service de crédit et autres tel que défini par la loi.

La BDT, une nécessité pour l'État Burkinabè en quête de performance

Il faut dire que la création de la BDT était une nécessité pour l'État et il manquait ce dispositif et des travaux ont été engagés depuis des années pour sa mise en place. Le Burkina Faso avait commencé la centralisation des comptes publics (institutions de l'État, collectivités publiques et privées, etc…) et le projet était en cours.

Par exemple, la Côte d'Ivoire possède sa BDT depuis les années 2000, soit près de 25 ans et est devenue le laboratoire pour les autres pays de la sous-région. En effet, on constate des visites fréquentes des autres TRÉSORS publics en Côte d'Ivoire : Sénégal en 2023 et Togo en 2022 pour la création de leur BDT…). Sur le site web de la BDT de la Côte d'Ivoire, il est dit que Le Trésor Public ivoirien est devenu un passage obligé pour la plupart des pays africains engagés sur la voie des réformes dans la gestion des finances publiques. Les avancées notables enregistrées par cette administration financière font d'elle une école de formation à laquelle tous viennent prendre les enseignements.

La BDT du Burkina Faso est une institution financière qui viendra faciliter les opérations financières de l'État en la simplifiant et en générant en plus des revenus substantiels qui pourront être réinvestis dans l'économie.

Concurrence Banques privées et BDT ???

Pour beaucoup de citoyens, cette nouvelle banque va faire de l'ombrage aux banques privées en leur faisant une concurrence déloyale.
Non, à mon sens ; c'est au contraire une bonne chose pour les banques privées parce que la BDT peut jouer grâce à sa notoriété et à la confiance de l'État un puissant levier de mobilisation de l'épargne publique et privée. Le Trésor est bien représenté au Burkina et comme l'État ne fait jamais faillite, la population déposera son argent dans cette banque. Le taux de thésaurisation est encore fort dans nos pays à cause du manque de confiance aux institutions bancaires classiques. Le taux de bancarisation au Burkina Faso est de 21% environ et les taux d'utilisation des services de microfinance et global sont respectivement de 20% et de 41,29% (https://africanscientificjournal.com/index.php/AfricanScientificJournal/article/view/578).

Si on s'en tient aux termes clés utilisés, la BDT est une banque de dépôt et non une banque d'investissement, les banques commerciales pourront toujours jouer leurs rôles de financer les investissements privés de la population. En passant donc par la BDT, les actifs seront plus solides ; ce qui garantira une meilleure santé aux banques privées.
Il faut savoir que l'État possède des actions dans les banques privées et n'a aucun intérêt à ce que ces dernières aient des problèmes.

CDC, CDI et enfin la BDT ?

Ces dernières années, nous avons connu la création d'autres institutions financières comme la Caisse des dépôts et consignations du Burkina Faso (CDC-BF) qui a fait long feu à cause de son mauvais montage juridique et institutionnel.
La Caisse des dépôts et Consignations (qui existe d'ailleurs dans plusieurs pays africains comme au Sénégal) devrait servir à mobiliser les ressources publiques et des institutions nationales afin de pouvoir mieux gérer et les faire fructifier.
Nous avons vu la décision de la CDC qui a été dissoute pour faire place à la CDI :
Depuis le 9 mai 2017, jour du vote de la loi n°023-2017/AN portant décision d'un établissement public dénommé Caisse des dépôts et consignations du Burkina Faso (CDC-BF), le travail sur le terrain se faisait toujours attendre. En sa séance du 17 août 2022, le Conseil des ministres a décidé de sa dissolution. Cette décision faisait suite à plusieurs difficultés qui n'ont pas permis l'opérationnalisation de la CDC-BF.( Cf.journal l'Évènement).

Après la CDC, la CDI

Créée par la loi n°039-2023/ALT du 05 octobre 2023 portant création, organisation, attributions et fonctionnement de la CDI BF, promulguée par le décret N° 2023-1335/PRES-TRANS du 17 octobre 2023, la Caisse des Dépôts et d'Investissements du Burkina Faso est une institution financière publique à caractère spécial, doté de la personnalité juridique et de l'autonomie financière.
La CDI-BF a pour mission de collecter, de recevoir ou de conserver les fonds publics et privés mis à sa disposition en sa qualité de tiers de confiance et les gérer à travers des placements sécurisés et rentables.
Elle est investie d'une mission d'intérêt général de développement structurant en tant qu'investisseur institutionnel de long terme, agissant en complémentarité des autres acteurs du secteur financier.
Nous pouvons dire que la différence entre la défunte CDC-BF et la CDI tient essentiellement au montage juridique qui ne permettait pas à la CDI d'aller recupérer les ressources de la CNSS, CARFO, La Poste et autres.

Pour la différence entre la CDI BF et la BDT, la BDT s'occupe des placements à court terme et la CDI, les placements à long terme, notamment les investissements structurants dans le pays. La BDT va se concentrer sur les ressources de projets et programmes et des institutions et le reste sera géré par la CDI-BF. On verra si le volume sera suffisant ou si c'est le leadership des dirigeants qui va jouer dans les faits.

Toute cette dynamique n'est pas nouvelle au Burkina. En visitant le site web de la Société Générale des Banques, on voit qu'elle vient de loin et sa genèse est éloquente :
Septembre 1973 : Création de la Caisse Nationale des Dépôts et des Investissements (CNDI).
Août 1984 : Création de l'Union Révolutionnaire de Banques (UREBA).
Juin 1986 : Création de la Caisse Autonome d'Investissements (CAI).
Août 1986 : Transformation de la CNDI en banque commerciale sous la forme d'une société d'économie mixte.
Décembre 1987 : Changement de dénomination de la Caisse Nationale des Dépôts et des Investissements (CNDI) en Banque pour le Financement du Commerce et des Investissements au Burkina (BFCI-B).
Février 1991 à Décembre 1996 : Mise sous administration provisoire du Groupe BFCI-B/UREBA /CAI. Fusion-absorption de l'UREBA et de la CAI par la BFCI-B en mai 1995.
Février 1997 : Cession par l'Etat de 34% du capital à des privés nationaux.
Mai 1998 : Cession par l'Etat de 51% du capital à des partenaires étrangers. La BFCI-B devient la Société Générale de Banques au Burkina (SGBB).
14 Janvier 2012 : Déploiement de la nouvelle signature du groupe Société Générale : « Développons ensemble l'esprit d'équipe ».
08 février 2013 : Changement de dénomination sociale : Société Générale de Banques au Burkina devient Société Générale Burkina Faso.
12 novembre 2018 : Déploiement de la nouvelle signature du groupe Société Générale : « C'est Vous L'avenir » https://societegenerale.bf/fr/votre-banque/presentation/notre-histoire/ .
L'histoire de la SGBF montre que le Burkina Faso était en avance dans le domaine financier mais l'Etat a été incapable de gérer les ressources financières et a préféré laisser le privé s'en occuper. Cette expérience devra être capitalisée pour ne plus retomber dans les mêmes erreurs.

La BDT peut-elle s'insérer dans l'UEMOA ?

Bien sur, elle respecte les textes et les problèmes ne se posent pas. Elle fonctionnait même avant la lettre et cela se passe bien.

Les fonctionnaires, devront-il obligatoirement ouvrir des comptes ?

Un proverbe en mooré dit que l'intérieur du ventre de la grenouille et elle-même appartiennent au serpent.
Pour le moment rien n'est précisé mais c'est quelque chose qui devra être progressif du moment où beaucoup de travailleurs ont des engagements au niveau des banques de second rang ( banques commerciales). Une obligation d'ouvrir des comptes de tous les travailleurs à la BDT est possible, mais le virement de tous les salaires posera des problèmes à court terme. Une solution peut être trouvée facilement en termes d'interopérabilité pour que toutes les banques acceptent les cartes de la BDT. Les encours dans les banques privées prendront un coup si on commence à virer d'un coup les salaires des travailleurs à la BDT. Très peu de travailleurs iront verser leurs dus dans les banques concernées.

Faire de la BDT un véritable instrument de développement du Burkina

Pour que la BDT soit un véritable levier de développement du Burkina, il faut trois chosesc :

1. Une stabilité politique du moins une stabilité des orientations afin d'éviter des guerres entre les structures nouvellement créées et les anciennes.
C'est cette union qui permettra aux institutions de fonctionner normalement au lieu de faire des guerres de chapelle. Cette stabilité permettra d'instaurer la confiance et aux éventuels investisseurs d'y déposer leurs ressources. Ces dernières années, nous avons vu des bouleversements comme la naissance de la CDC et sa fermeture suivie de la création de la Banque Postale, de la CDI et enfin de la BDT. C'est vrai que ce sont des structures différentes mais cela montre une certaine émulation dans le système étatique. Pour le grand public, c'est presque pareil.

Il faut donc une confiance en ces institutions pour que le système fonctionne. Le passé du Burkina est jalonné d'initiatives qui n'ont pas fait leurs preuves parce que beaucoup d'opérateurs se sont servis dans les caisses sans avoir à rembourser. Nous pouvons citer entre autres la BND, UREBA, la CNDI, la FIB etc… qui n'ont pas résisté aux injonctions des politiques en accordant des crédits douteux ; ce qui a occasionné la fermeture de toutes ces banques. Comment demander à un opérateur privé aujourd'hui à qui l'Etat doit des ressources d'aller ouvrir son compte à la BDT ? Et pourtant ils devront y aller parce que cela pourra faciliter les paiements.

Une simple analyse de la genèse de la SGBF, ex SGBB montre que l'Etat rencontre souvent des difficultés en matière de gestion financière à cause du manque du sérieux dans les octrois de crédit. Si le sérieux n'est pas instauré, l'objectif premier de la BDT sera faussé parce que l'on pense que le fait de déposer des ressources publiques dans des banques privées occasionne des mauvais usages.

Nous retombons à la case départ : que ce soit la CDI ou la BDT, les ressources déposées doivent travailler pour créer de la valeur. Soit la CDI et la BDT donnent ces ressources au privé qui va gérer, soit elles risquent de tomber dans les mêmes abimes. Le fait d'avoir des portefeuilles fragiles ou à l'amiable créeront les mêmes problèmes que les autres structures. C'est mathématique. Tant que les effets bancaires ne sont pas solides, le risque devient élevé et la catastrophe va s'en suivre.
En attendant, l'Etat doit honorer dans des délais courts ses engagements vis-à-vis des opérateurs privés pour leur permettre de bien fonctionner et créer plus d'emplois et de la valeur.

2. Le besoin de renforcer l'éducation financière à la population parce que comme je disais plus haut, le taux de thésaurisation est encore élevé dans nos pays.
Avec l'association Yam Pukri, Nous avons expérimenté avec une organisation de micro finance de la place qui a assuré le travail de formation sur l'éducation financière et la distribution de micro-crédits avec la collaboration du Fonds national de solidarité et de résilience sociale et le soutien financier de ECOBANK Burkina sur un groupe de PDI dont personne ne pensait qu'il était possible de travailler sur l'inclusion financière avec eux. A notre grande surprise, le taux de remboursement des crédits fut appréciable et avoisine même les crédits classiques.

Cette éducation financière doit être faite à tous les niveaux (écoles, centres de formation, universités et même au niveau des administrations publiques). Beaucoup pensent que ce sont les riches qui doivent épargner et investir alors que tout le monde doit le faire, les petits montants ont de la valeur dans le système financier. Combien de travailleurs arrivent à la retraite et se souviennent qu'ils auraient pu mettre de côté 5000 FCFA par mois pour préparer un projet à leur retraite ? La plupart pense que c'est négligeable et pense qu'ils feront une grosse affaire qui va les sauver, en se référant aux 0,0001 personnes qui a eu de la chance. La différence entre le capital et la marge bénéficiaire est parfois difficile pour beaucoup de personnes qui se laissent prendre au piège

3. Oser voir grand.
Je pense que la BDT doit aller vers une création de monnaie locale. Elle peut commencer par un système de règlement et de compensation inter institutions publiques en utilisant une unité monétaire propre qui sera un papier de monnaie (FCFA, dollar, euros, etc.). Cette monnaie qui va ressembler au DTS ( droits de tirages spéciaux du FMI), si elle montre des signes de solidité, pourra évoluer vers des échanges avec les particuliers.
Ce qui fait la force d'une monnaie, c'est la confiance de pouvoir l'utiliser partout sans inquiétudes. Pour garantir cette confiance, les autorités doivent travailler sérieusement et éviter de jouer avec la monnaie.
Il faut que les Burkinabès sachent qu'en Occident, ils utilisent plusieurs monnaies simultanément et que cela ne pose pas de problèmes. C'est la solidité d'une monnaie et sa capacité à faciliter des échanges avec d'autres partenaires qui va assurer sa crédibilité.

Pour conclure, le sérieux et la confiance du système permettront aux nouveaux acteurs financiers de jouer pleinement leurs rôles dans le paysage économique du Burkina Faso déjà riche en initiatives locales (systèmes financiers décentralisés et Banques appartenant à des Burkinabè).

N.B : Merci au Pr Seglaro Abel SOME, Ancien Ministre des Finances du Burkina Faso et enseignant-chercheur à UTS pour la lecture et commentaires et d'autres collègues pour les échanges sur le sujet, ; bien que nous ne soyons pas d'accord sur certains points.

Par Sylvestre Ouédraogo
Enseignant-chercheur à l'Université Thomas Sankara
Directeur Régional Institut Panafricain pour le Développement Afrique de l'Ouest et du Sahel (IPD-AOS)

Le commissaire divisionnaire de police, Mahamoudou Sana a été officiellement installé dans sa fonction de ministre de la sécurité par le secrétaire général du gouvernement, Mathias Traoré. Son prédécesseur, le ministre Émile Zerbo était également présent à cette occasion. La cérémonie d'installation a eu lieu ce 6 Août 2024, à Ouagadougou.

Précédemment ministre délégué chargé de la sécurité auprès du ministre de l'administration territoriale, de la décentralisation et de la sécurité, Mahamoudou Sana prend les rênes du ministère de la Sécurité, "détaché" de l'administration territoriale et érigé en "ministère plein" à la suite du remaniement ministériel. Il remplace Émile Zerbo qui est désormais le ministre de l'administration territoriale et de la mobilité.

Le ministre entrant (à droite) a remercié son prédécesseur (à gauche) pour les « sages conseils »

« En un moment où les défis dans le domaine de la sécurité sont toujours prégnants, je mesure, à sa juste valeur, le poids de la responsabilité qui pèse désormais sur mes épaules. Je voudrais, conformément à la vision du chef de l'État, dire ceci : préparons-nous à la guerre de haute intensité. Cela exige de tous que nous ayons l'intelligence de situation et que nous soyons des hommes d'action, ingénieux, pragmatique, mais surtout convaincus de notre appartenance à une seule nation. Ayez comme boussole ces milliers de Burkinabè des villes et des campagnes qui rêvent d'un Burkina meilleur. Gardez en mémoire ces vaillantes forces de défense et de sécurité et ces volontaires pour la défense de la patrie qui consentent le sacrifice suprême, pour que reste debout, le Burkina Faso. Je voudrais également solliciter de tous, votre accompagnement, pour qu'ensemble nous relevions les défis de la sécurisation de nos campagnes et villes, et partant de cela, de la reconquête de l'intégralité et de l'intégrité territoriale », a déclaré dans son allocution, à l'endroit de ses collaborateurs, Mahamoudou Sana.

Les parties prenantes à la cérémonie d'installation

⁠Il a fait comprendre qu'il compte poursuivre les différents chantiers déjà entamés dans le secteur de la sécurité, tout en mettant l'accent entre autres sur l'amélioration des conditions de vies et de travail des forces combattantes et la gouvernance dans le domaine de la sécurité. Aussi, l'opérationnalisation de la stratégie de sécurité nationale en vue de l'atteinte des objectifs du pilier N°1 du plan d'action pour la stabilisation et le développement de la transition.

En outre, le renforcement de la coordination et de la collaboration entre les différentes forces de sécurité intérieure. Puis, la mise en œuvre de politiques de prévention efficaces. Enfin, les actions de coopération déjà entamées dans le domaine de la sécurité.

SB
Lefaso.net

When Donald Trump picked JD Vance as his running mate, he whiffed. Overconfident in victory, he doubled down on the MAGA base. Has Kamala Harris now made the same mistake in choosing the sixty-year-old Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a hero to the progressive wing of the Democratic party who popularized the term “weird” to describe Trump and co.?

Pundits such as Jonathan Chait are fretting that Harris missed an opportunity to move to the center. “What the selection does,” he wrote, “is forfeit her best opportunity to send a message that she is a moderate.” But there are good reasons to suspect that Walz, whose hard-hitting, no-nonsense, straight-talking speaking style has turned him into a social media sensation, might be able to compensate for some of Harris’ weaknesses in attracting voters in the Midwest.

Walz, who was born in 1964, grew up in Nebraska. After moving to Minnesota in the 1990s, he taught social studies at Mankato West High School and coached the football team, which won several championships. Walz has served in the National Guard for several decades and went on to push for veterans’ benefits. He has also served multiple terms in Congress, where he voted against intervening in Syria in 2013. He has also called for a “working” ceasefire in the Gaza war and should be able to bring many of those who voted “uncommitted” back into the Democratic fold. Choosing Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, by contrast, would have ensured that Harris had inflamed the disputes among Democrats surrounding Israel and the Gaza war.

Walz can speak effectively about the social issues that are proving to be an albatross around the Trump campaign’s neck—specifically, the issue of IVF. As Vance’s unbridled statements about women are being unearthed on what seems like almost a daily basis, Walz will surely focus on his own family’s experiences. He and his wife, Gwen, tried to have a child for seven years before fertility treatments finally succeeded. “It’s not by chance that we named our daughter Hope,” Walz has said. Vance voted against a Senate bill to protect IVF, prompting Walz to declare on MSNBC, “I don’t need him to tell me about my family. I don’t need him to tell me about my wife’s healthcare and her reproductive rights.” The only thing he and Vance apparently have in common is a taste for Diet Mountain Dew. Perhaps the loser of the election can send the winner a case of it.

No doubt Walz will be pummeled for the rioting that took place in May 2020 in the Twin Cities after the murder of George Floyd. The Trump campaign is licking its chops at the thought of depicting Harris and Walz as radicals who are unfit, if not incapable, of governing America. The rap on Walz is that when the Black Lives Matter riots took place, he froze, failing to send in the National Guard in a timely fashion to end the looting and violence. Walz needs to provide a clear and compelling account of why he waited three days to dispatch the National Guard—the best way to do that is probably by highlighting his own service in it. If he debates JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, this episode is sure to be a major line of attack.

Still, even as Walz and Vance joust, it’s reasonable to wonder whether any of it will really matter. Speaking at the National Association of Black Journalists convention last week, Trump himself responded to a question about Vance by observing, “Historically, the vice-president—in terms of the election—does not have any impact. I mean, virtually no impact.” It’s not clear that it will be any different in 2024 than in the past.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image: Rebekah Zemansky / Shutterstock.com.

Le ministre des sports, de la jeunesse et de l'emploi, Boubakar Savadogo, a procédé ce 6 août 2024, au lancement des épreuves théoriques pour l'obtention du Brevet professionnel de technicien (BPT), au centre de formation professionnelle et de référence de Ziniaré. Les épreuves vont se dérouler du 6 au 13 août 2024, dans deux chefs-lieux de régions que sont Bobo-Dioulasso et Ziniaré. Pour la session 2024, ce sont au total 780 candidats qui ont été enregistrés.

Il est environ 7h, lorsque le ministre des sports, de la jeunesse et de l'emploi, Boubakar Savadogo, déchire l'enveloppe contenant le premier sujet auquel seront soumis les 38 candidats du jury 1, qui composent pour le BPT du métier de pâtissier. L'épreuve à traiter sur deux heures, porte sur les sciences appliquées à l'hygiène, à l'alimentation et aux équipements. Après avoir dispatché les sujets aux candidats, Boubakar Savadogo leur a souhaité bonne chance, tout en les exhortant à la concentration dans le traitement du sujet.

Boubakar Savadogo a distribué les épreuves aux candidats

Les candidats qui, pour la plupart, affichaient une certaine sérénité, se disent confiants quant à l'issue des épreuves. Jean Kagambega, candidat, confie avoir trouvé le premier sujet à sa portée. « Tout se passe bien dans l'ensemble, nous avons appris nos leçons et nous espérons des résultats positifs. Nous avons déjà franchi la phase pratique au cours de laquelle nous avons appris à faire des cakes, des génoises, des langues de chat, etc. La matière que nous venons de découvrir, nous pouvons dire qu'elle est abordable et nous espérons vraiment sortir gagnants », a-t-il laissé entendre.

Le ministre des sports, de la jeunesse et de l'emploi, a prodigué des conseils aux candidats avant le début de la composition

Le lancement de cette épreuve par le premier responsable du département de la jeunesse et de l'emploi, marque le top départ de la composition des épreuves théoriques pour l'obtention du Brevet professionnel de technicien. Il faut noter que les épreuves pratiques ont déjà été administrées. Les 780 candidats sont répartis dans douze jurys, pour la certification dans treize métiers. Ce sont agent de ligne télécom, électromécanicien, chef de chantier, câbleur des installations domestiques et industrielles, développeur d'application, électronicien de maintenance, technicien de maintenance automobile, métreur vérificateur, monteur/dépanneur des équipements de froid industriel et climatisation centralisée, technicien en réseau et maintenance informatique, installateur des systèmes solaires photovoltaïques, pâtissier et opérateur de machines-outils.

Jean Kagambega, candidat, espère tirer son épingle du jeu

A en croire le ministre Boubakar Savadogo, ces examens sont organisés pour non seulement mettre l'accent sur l'apprentissage des métiers mais aussi pour permettre à l'économie nationale de disposer de main d'œuvre qualifiée. « Beaucoup de jeunes ont des diplômes mais ont des difficultés à s'insérer professionnellement. Pourtant, notre économie a besoin de beaucoup de main d'œuvre qualifiée pour pouvoir prendre son envol. C'est dans ce cadre que ces certifications sont organisées », a-t-il expliqué.

Ils sont au total 38 candidats à la quête du brevet professionnel de technicien du métier de pâtissier au jury 1

Boubakar Savadogo a laissé entendre que son département ministériel va s'atteler à faire évoluer le nombre de métiers disposant de certification. « Nous avons déjà entamé un répertoire de métiers dans différents secteurs économiques. Nous avons pu identifier 15 secteurs économiques prioritaires et nous sommes en train d'élaborer ce répertoire. Dans le secteur de l'artisanat par exemple, ce sont plus de 300 métiers qui ont été répertoriés et le décret va bientôt passer avec notre collègue du ministère de l'Artisanat. Il y a également les métiers du sport qui sont presque finalisés. Nous allons ensuite nous intéresser aux métiers de la télécommunication, du numérique, de l'agriculture, de l'élevage et ainsi de suite », a-t-il fait savoir. Le but de la manœuvre, est de permettre aux jeunes d'apprendre et d'exercer des métiers, et non d'engranger seulement des diplômes.

La proclamation des résultats du BPT est prévue pour le 13 août 2024.

Armelle Ouédraogo
Lefaso.net

Ce mardi 6 août 2024 se tient à Ouagadougou, un forum national sur la santé sexuelle et reproductive des adolescent-e-s et des jeunes sous le thème : « Enjeux de l'éducation à la vie familiale et les croyances, les pratiques socioculturelles et les tabous qui affectent la santé sexuelle et reproductive des adolescent-e-s et des jeunes ». Ce forum se tient dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des projets « Ado Avance Ensemble » et Stream 2 : « Youth in Action »

Selon l'enquête démographique et de santé de l'année 2020, 12% des adolescentes de 15 à 19 ans sont déjà mères ou enceintes de leur premier enfant. Le taux de prévalence contraceptive moderne chez les jeunes femmes de 15 à 24 ans n'est que de 21%. Et selon une enquête menée au cours de l'année 2021 par l'ABBEF, seulement 30% des adolescent-e-s et jeunes de 15 à 24 ans ont des connaissances adéquates en matière de santé sexuelle et reproductive et le taux de prévalence des infections sexuellement transmissibles chez les jeunes de 15 à 24 ans atteint 6%.

Le forum réunit aussi bien des jeunes, que des leaders coutumiers et religieux, des responsables d'organisations de jeunes, des leaders d'opinions et des représentants des ministères concernés par la question de la santé sexuelle et reproductive des jeunes.

Ces chiffres comme le souligne Saïbou Kaboré, président du Conseil d'administration de l'ABBEF, « témoignent de l'urgence d'une action collective et concertée pour améliorer l'éducation à la vie familiale et l'accès des jeunes aux services de santé sexuelle et reproductive ». Et c'est ce à quoi répond ce forum organisé par l'ABBEF dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des activités des projets Ado Avance Ensemble et Youth in Action financés par l'Union européenne à travers Rutgers International et IPPF. L'objectif du projet Ado Avance Ensemble est de permettre aux adolescent-e-s vulnérables (10-19 ans) d'exercer pleinement leurs droits sexuels et reproductifs dans des sociétés qui répondent mieux à leurs besoins en la matière. Le programme Stream 2 : Youth in Action, est lui, destiné à accroître la participation et la collaboration d'organisations et de réseaux progressistes de la jeunesse, ainsi que de représentants de jeunes dans toute leur diversité, en particulier ceux en marge de la société.

Saïbou Kaboré, président du Conseil d'administration de l'ABBEF souligne que ce forum est l'occasion de discuter du faible accès aux services de santé sexuelle et reproductive, des croyances, pratiques culturelles et tabous qui affectent la santé sexuelle des adolescent-e-s et des jeunes.

Ce forum qui réunit des jeunes, des leaders d'opinion, des leaders coutumiers et religieux, des parents, des représentants des ministères de la Santé, de la Jeunesse, de l'Education, de l'Action humanitaire, sera l'occasion de discuter du faible accès aux services de santé sexuelle et reproductive, des croyances, pratiques culturelles et tabous qui affectent la santé sexuelle des adolescent-e-s et des jeunes. « Les tabous sont pesants sur la santé sexuelle et reproductive des jeunes. Nous savons tous qu'il y a des pratiques qui freinent l'épanouissement des jeunes, il y a l'information qui est souvent difficile à donner suivant les cultures, d'autres ne sont souvent pas vérifiées, ce sont des préjugés. Et comme on le dit, les préjugés, il faut les déconstruire », a laissé entendre le président du Conseil d'administration de l'ABBEF, Saïbou Kaboré.

Photo de famille.

Le forum sera donc le lieu d'identifier les pratiques socioculturelles qui affectent la santé des adolescent-e-s ainsi que leurs comportements et prise de décision en matière de santé sexuelle et reproductive, de susciter le débat autour de ces questions et de proposer des pistes de solutions. Le forum permettra également d'identifier les préoccupations et les besoins spécifiques des adolescent-e-s et jeunes en matière de santé sexuelle et reproductive, de faire l'état des lieux de l'Éducation à la vie familiale (EVF) au Burkina Faso, d'identifier les obstacles liés à la dissémination de l'EVF, de faire un aperçu de l'impact de l'EVF au niveau éducatif et au niveau communautaire et de faire un plaidoyer national pour l'insertion des thématiques de l'EVF dans les curricula. « Nous ouvrirons des débats constructifs, identifierons les besoins spécifiques des jeunes et travaillerons ensemble pour déterminer le rôle de chaque acteur dans l'amélioration de la santé sexuelle et reproductive des adolescent-e-s et des jeunes. Notre objectif est de garantir à chaque jeune l'accès à une éducation à la vie familiale et à des services de santé adaptés à leurs besoins », déclaré M. Kaboré.

Dr Albert Hien souhaite l'insertion du module sur l'éducation à la vie familiale dans les curricula nationaux afin de donner aux jeunes, les connaissances et les outils nécessaires pour prendre des décisions éclairées et responsables concernant leur santé et leur vie.

Dr Albert Hien, représentant la directrice de la santé de la famille, a salué la tenue de ce forum sur la santé sexuelle et reproductive des jeunes. Il a indiqué que ce forum se veut une plateforme pour plaider en faveur de l'intégration ou de l'insertion des thématiques de l'éducation à la vie familiale dans les curricula nationaux. Une telle intégration, dit-il, « permettra de sensibiliser et d'éduquer les adolescents et les jeunes dès le jeune âge, leur offrant ainsi les connaissances et les outils nécessaires pour prendre des décisions éclairées et responsables concernant leur santé et leur vie ».

Justine Bonkoungou
Lefaso.net

(Ouagadougou, 6 août 2024). Le Président du Faso, le Capitaine Ibrahim TRAORE a présidé ce mardi matin, la cérémonie de montée des couleurs au palais présidentiel de Koulouba. A l'occasion, il a invité le personnel de la Présidence du Faso à s'investir davantage et à œuvrer, chacun dans son domaine, pour l'avènement d'une indépendance réelle de notre pays.

Cette montée des couleurs intervient deux jours après la célébration de l'avènement de la Révolution d'août 1983 qui a permis, aux fils et filles du Burkina Faso, d'amorcer la marche vers une indépendance réelle. Pour le Chef de l'Etat, les changements notables intervenus le 4 août 1984 (changements du nom du pays de Haute-Volta à Burkina Faso, de l'hymne national, du drapeau et des armoiries) ont été un signal fort de la quête d'une souveraineté totale. « C'était un espoir de pouvoir donner un souffle nouveau à notre pays », a souligné le Chef de l'Etat.

Evoquant le 5 août 1960, date de la proclamation de l'indépendance de notre pays, le Président du Faso a exhorté le personnel de l'Institution et l'ensemble des Burkinabè à contribuer à l'avènement d'un Burkina Faso réellement indépendant. « Je souhaite que chacun puisse travailler et faire en sorte que l'année prochaine à cette même période, nous puissions célébrer l'indépendance réelle que nous sommes en train de nous battre aujourd'hui pour acquérir », a-t-il indiqué. Pour y parvenir, le Capitaine Ibrahim TRAORE invite à plus d'engagement et de sacrifice car, dit-il, « l'indépendance ne se donne pas, ça s'arrache ».

Le Chef de l'Etat s'est également exprimé sur les rumeurs de tentatives de déstabilisation véhiculées depuis quelques semaines. « Les informations sont réelles », a confirmé le Président du Faso qui dit être bien conscient que de tels projets ne cesseront pas au regard de la lutte actuelle menée pour la libération du pays. Ces projets de déstabilisation procèdent non seulement d'une guerre communicationnelle alimentée par la désinformation mais aussi d'une guerre économique en passant par des plans d'assassinats ciblés et d'attaques lâches au sein des FDS et des acteurs de la veille citoyenne.

« Nous avons suivi effectivement le déroulement de leur plan et l'assaut final devrait avoir lieu à travers un recrutement d'agents à l'intérieur de nos rangs. Nous avons contenu la situation », a soutenu le Capitaine Ibrahim TRAORE. Selon lui, certaines personnes ont été arrêtées dans cette affaire de subversion et de projets d'attaques. Parmi elles se trouvent des FDS en complicité avérée avec des terroristes et des officiers qui manipulent depuis l'extérieur.

Mettant en garde les auteurs et commanditaires de ces projets de déstabilisation, le Capitaine Ibrahim TRAORE a invité le peuple burkinabè à la sérénité. « Nous maîtrisons la situation. Nous n'allons pas hésiter un seul instant à agir comme il le faut pour l'intérêt supérieur du Burkina Faso », a-t-il martelé.

Direction de la Communication de la Présidence du Faso