Current Global Events
Below are weekly readings to keep informed about global events. Numerous websites and journals have been sourced to provide opinions and perspectives.
November 25, 2024
China is Using an "Anaconda Strategy" to Squeeze Taiwan. Taiwan's Navy Commander Warns that his Forces are Increasingly Strained:
China’s military pressure on Taiwan is intensifying as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) expands its air and naval presence around the island. Since President Lai Ching-te’s election, China has accused him of being a confrontational separatist, but it is Beijing’s actions that are raising the likelihood of conflict. The PLA has significantly increased air incursions and naval patrols near Taiwan, with the number of air crossings into Taiwan’s airspace jumping fivefold from January to August 2023 and naval vessel deployments doubling in the same period. These ships are now operating closer to Taiwan’s shores and for longer durations than before.
This escalation marks a strategic shift. Historically, the PLA concentrated on Taiwan’s south and west. However, after Nancy Pelosi’s controversial 2022 visit to Taiwan, China expanded operations to the island’s previously secure eastern coast, conducting mock blockades and encircling the island with regular air and sea patrols. Taiwan’s defense forces have since faced increasing strain, often deploying up to half of their naval fleet to counter China’s superior numbers. Maintenance backlogs have also hampered Taiwan’s warships, underscoring the challenges of matching China’s military pressure.
Despite these provocations, Taiwan is focused on avoiding direct confrontation. Its military leaders have introduced rules of engagement to prevent escalation, recognizing that China may be seeking an excuse to initiate a blockade. At the same time, Taiwan is collaborating with international allies, including Japan, Australia, and the United States, to ensure sea lanes remain open and to assert the Taiwan Strait as international waters. These efforts send a strong message to Beijing but have yet to loosen its tightening grip on Taiwan. - The Economist
China Is Studying Russia’s Sanctions Evasion to Prepare for Taiwan Conflict:
China has been supporting Russia’s economy during the Ukraine war by purchasing its oil and supplying various goods while using the situation to study how to navigate Western sanctions. Through an interagency group established after the invasion, China has analyzed Russia’s strategies for mitigating sanctions, preparing for potential economic penalties if tensions over Taiwan escalate. The lessons learned focus on protecting China’s $3.3 trillion in foreign reserves, diversifying away from dollar assets, and strengthening its domestic financial systems.
Russia’s economy has shown resilience due to oil exports and Chinese collaboration, though recent sanctions have caused strain. Beijing has treated the Russia case as a “sandbox,” observing how Moscow has handled sanctions by redirecting trade, forming alliances, and finding alternative supply routes. China sees the importance of preemptive measures, including financial and trade diversification, but recognizes the vulnerabilities of being deeply connected to global supply chains.
While China has significantly benefited from the relationship, Russia’s support to China would be limited if the roles were reversed. This imbalance has led Xi Jinping to push for deeper economic ties with Russia to make the partnership more reciprocal. The broader implications for China are stark: a Taiwan-related crisis could bring a far more severe economic confrontation with the West, disrupting trade and financial flows on a massive scale. By studying Russia, Beijing aims to better prepare for such challenges, blending economic strategy with geopolitical objectives in a new era of economic warfare. - The Wall Street Journal
Syria's Bashar al-Assad is in Mortal Danger:
Whether he survives may depend not on his allies but on his one-time foes
The Syrian rebels' recent offensive has significantly shifted the dynamics of the decade-long conflict. In late November, rebels captured Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, and advanced southward, taking Hama. Led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), the rebels have shown improved capabilities, utilizing drones and special forces effectively. Their advance threatens to cut off key supply routes to Damascus, potentially crippling Bashar al-Assad's regime.
HTS, which has distanced itself from its jihadist origins, and the SNA, notorious for criminal behavior, have complicated relations with other groups like the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). While HTS has sought to ease tensions, the SNA has clashed with the SDF, reflecting underlying fractures. Despite initial success, fears persist about the rebels' governance. HTS, increasingly authoritarian and plagued by corruption, faces distrust, while the SNA’s reputation is even worse. Residents of Aleppo fear reprisals from the regime or misrule under HTS. Assad’s position has weakened dramatically. His military is demoralized, his economy in shambles, and his foreign allies—Russia and Iran—stretched thin. While Russia provides limited air support, its focus on Ukraine has diminished its involvement in Syria. Iran, battling Israeli strikes and regional pressures, cannot offer the same support as before.
Turkey, seizing the opportunity, may push for a deal with Assad to repatriate Syrian refugees and secure a buffer zone along its border. Assad’s refusal to compromise has previously stalled negotiations, but his deteriorating situation might force concessions. The conflict remains deeply complex, with local and international actors locked in a shifting and fragile balance. - The Economist
Terms of Proposed Lebanon Cease-Fire Begin to Take Shape, Officials Say:
After weeks of intense conflict between Israeli forces and Hezbollah, a possible cease-fire agreement is emerging, involving a 60-day truce. Key points include Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's retreat north of the Litani River, and increased deployment of Lebanese and U.N. peacekeeping forces in the border zone. A U.S.-led oversight committee would monitor compliance, though critical details remain unresolved.
Hezbollah, weakened by Israeli airstrikes and leadership losses, appears willing to negotiate under conditions stopping Israeli attacks and preserving Lebanese sovereignty. On Israel’s side, pressure to allow northern evacuees to return and maintain military achievements without prolonged ground operations drives interest in a truce.
The U.S. is mediating indirectly, as it considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The agreement could be based on a 2006 U.N. resolution that previously failed to prevent Hezbollah’s military buildup. Both sides appear motivated: Israel seeks an end to rocket attacks, and Hezbollah wants to prevent further losses. If successful, the truce might pave the way for a permanent resolution. - The New York Times
What Putin’s Nuclear-Capable Oreshnik Missile Means for NATO Security:
Russia’s launch of the Oreshnik missile, capable of striking European capitals within minutes, has escalated tensions and raised fears of a new arms race in Europe. President Vladimir Putin has hailed the missile as unstoppable by NATO defenses, warning it could target European military facilities aiding Ukraine. Although the Oreshnik is currently armed with conventional warheads, its nuclear capability deepens its threat. Putin’s recent shift in nuclear doctrine now allows nuclear strikes against non-nuclear nations using allied weapons, further increasing uncertainty.
The missile, likely a modified version of a previously shelved design, is seen as a psychological weapon to fracture NATO unity and deter European support for Ukraine. Analysts view this as part of Putin’s broader strategy to weaken NATO, drive a wedge between Europe and the United States, and redefine the continent’s security framework to favor Russia. While some European nations are beginning to invest in long-range missile programs, experts warn an arms race could span decades and cost billions.
Western leaders have dismissed Putin’s rhetoric as saber-rattling, yet his moves have intensified European insecurity, especially given uncertainties surrounding U.S. commitment to NATO amid political changes. Despite Moscow’s apparent intent to avoid nuclear war, its strategy leverages fear and psychological pressure to delay Western military support for Ukraine. Analysts suggest Putin’s ultimate goal is not just victory in Ukraine but a restructuring of global power dynamics, creating a sphere of influence free from Western interference.
This shift comes as Europe acknowledges the need to bolster its defenses, yet it remains behind Russia in missile and security capabilities. With Russia dedicating much of its economy to weapons production, analysts argue that Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own security while confronting the reality of a prolonged and costly arms race. - The Washington Post
Trump Wants a Deal on Ukraine. But a Bad Deal is Worse than None:
The bloody conflict between Russia and Ukraine, now over 1,000 days long, has intensified as both sides aim to secure strategic advantages before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Russia seeks to expel Ukrainian forces from its Kursk region and capture as much Ukrainian territory as possible, while Ukraine fights to preserve its sovereignty and regain lost land. This escalation has resulted in devastating casualties, with over a million estimated victims.
Recent developments include Russia inviting North Korean troops to support its overstretched military, Ukraine striking Russian targets with Western-supplied missiles, and Russia firing a hypersonic ballistic missile into Ukraine, though it was not armed with nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has controversially provided Ukraine with antipersonnel land mines to help repel Russian and North Korean infantry assaults. The urgency of these actions stems from expectations that Trump, who has signaled a willingness to broker a swift peace deal, might push for a settlement unfavorable to Ukraine.
Ukraine’s supporters in Europe show signs of fatigue, potentially softening their stance on a resolution. However, a rushed deal under Trump risks leaving Ukraine dismembered, which could embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin and signal weakness to authoritarian regimes worldwide. A retreat from Ukraine might inspire Chinese aggression toward Taiwan or further provocations by North Korea.
While Ukraine has received significant Western military aid, it has often been delayed, arriving only after key opportunities for decisive impact had passed. U.S. reluctance to supply critical weapons, such as tanks, fighter jets, and long-range missiles, has forced Ukraine to fight with limited resources, aimed more at preventing outright loss than securing victory.
A compromised Ukraine would mark a failure for both Kyiv and the West, undermining nearly three years of unified resistance against Russian aggression. Should Trump negotiate a settlement that leaves Ukraine fragmented, it could signal to the world that Western commitment to defending democracy is fleeting, with profound implications for global security and U.S. credibility. - The Washington Post Editorial Board
U.K. Spy Chief Urges U.S. Not to Abandon Ukraine:
Richard Moore, head of the U.K.'s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), has issued a stark warning about the global repercussions of allowing Russia to succeed in Ukraine. Speaking in Paris, Moore emphasized that a Russian victory would embolden authoritarian regimes such as China, North Korea, and Iran, endangering trans-Atlantic security. His public remarks, an unusual move for a spy chief, reflect growing European alarm over the potential shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine under President-elect Donald Trump, who has pledged to end the war but has not specified how.
Moore argued that the cost of supporting Ukraine, while significant, is far less than the long-term risks of failing to prevent Russian aggression. He highlighted the danger of Trump imposing a peace settlement unfavorable to Ukraine, potentially forcing it into a vulnerable position reliant on Moscow. European leaders fear such an approach could fracture Western unity, weaken Ukraine’s defenses, and embolden Putin to further aggression, with global implications for territorial disputes.
Russia’s invasion has already claimed 20% of Ukraine’s territory, with hybrid warfare tactics such as sabotage in Europe and nuclear threats adding to the danger. Moore pointed to the heavy toll on Russia’s future from its military campaign but warned that Putin shows no signs of engaging in diplomacy in good faith. The concern is that a poorly negotiated cease-fire would allow Russia to regroup and attack again.
Moore also raised alarms about broader security threats, including an increasingly assertive China, North Korea’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict, and Iran’s continued nuclear ambitions. He criticized Russia’s reckless sabotage campaigns in Europe and highlighted the importance of continued Western cooperation to counter these threats.
European leaders worry not just about the U.S. pulling military aid but also about a potential refusal to sell weapons to Ukraine or share intelligence, which would leave Ukraine isolated. Some European nations are preparing contingency plans to independently support Ukraine, but they recognize the critical role of U.S. backing in maintaining Kyiv’s resistance. - The Wall Street Journal
November 18, 2024
Vladimir Putin Fires a New Missile to Amplify his Nuclear Threats:. The Attack on Ukraine is Part of a New Era of Missile Warfare:
On November 21st, Russian missiles, including a new weapon called Oreshnik, hit Dnipro, Ukraine. Russia claimed Oreshnik, an intermediate-range hypersonic missile, was a response to Ukraine’s use of Western missiles. President Vladimir Putin claimed it traveled at over ten times the speed of sound and was unstoppable, though experts doubt its revolutionary nature.
Oreshnik, derived from the older RS-26 missile, is significant as it bridges nuclear and conventional warfare. Its use highlights Russia’s nuclear posturing, with updated doctrines suggesting nuclear responses to non-nuclear threats backed by nuclear states. Despite warnings, analysts believe Putin aims to intimidate without triggering direct NATO confrontation, as NATO retaliation would invoke Article Five.
The missile, likely intended for nuclear payloads, used dummy warheads for the strike, demonstrating its potential kinetic force. The attack and Russia’s nuclear signaling are meant to deter deeper Western support for Ukraine. The broader context underscores a new era of missile warfare, with countries like Iran, India, and the U.S. advancing missile capabilities. Oreshnik’s use, as the first intermediate-range missile with multiple warheads in combat, may signal more to come. - The Economist
Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia With Long-Range U.S. Missiles:
President Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, known as ATACMS, for strikes on Russian soil, a significant departure from previous U.S. policy. This decision comes as Russia deploys North Korean troops to support its military efforts against Ukraine, particularly in the Kursk region. The move aims to bolster Ukraine’s defense and send a warning to North Korea about the costs of its involvement.
Biden’s decision reflects increasing concern over Ukraine’s ability to resist escalating Russian offensives. The ATACMS will enable Ukraine to target key military assets like troop concentrations, supply lines, and equipment deeper within Russia. This development follows previous restrictions that limited Ukraine’s use of U.S. weapons to defending its own territory.
The policy change has sparked debate within the U.S. government. Some officials worry about provoking retaliation from Russia, while others criticize the delay in providing Ukraine with the tools it has long requested. Supporters argue that the risks are outweighed by the benefits of empowering Ukraine to defend itself and weakening Russian and North Korean forces.
While unlikely to change the overall course of the war, the strikes could disrupt Russian operations and provide Ukraine with better leverage in future negotiations. However, the decision also raises the stakes, as Russian retaliation could extend to targeting U.S. or European assets. Biden’s authorization underscores the complexities of navigating international support for Ukraine while managing the risks of escalation.. - The New York Times
Putin Lowers Russia’s Threshold for Using Nuclear Arms:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree lowering the threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, aligning with a previously discussed revision of the country’s nuclear policy. This change coincided with President Biden’s authorization of Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles for strikes inside Russian territory. Ukraine has already utilized these missiles to target a Russian ammunition depot, escalating tensions between the nations.
The revised doctrine expands the scenarios in which Russia might use nuclear weapons. It now includes the possibility of targeting nuclear-armed states supporting non-nuclear attacks against Russia and lowers the threshold for nuclear retaliation to scenarios involving "critical threats" to Russia’s sovereignty, rather than threats to the state’s existence. Kremlin officials emphasized this shift as a response to Western support for Ukraine, particularly from the U.S.
The White House downplayed Russia’s move, dismissing it as familiar rhetoric and observing no changes in Russia’s nuclear posture. Meanwhile, the conflict continues with Russia gaining ground on the battlefield and strengthening its geopolitical position, including a renewed dialogue with Germany and the potential for a favorable resolution if Donald Trump returns to the U.S. presidency.
Despite these developments, analysts warn of heightened risks. Putin may escalate the conflict before a potential Trump administration to force a peace deal on his terms. However, others suggest Putin might avoid further escalation to retain a diplomatic advantage. The situation remains volatile, as both sides navigate the intensified conflict and the looming threat of nuclear engagement. - The New York Times
As Beijing Threatens, Taiwan Looks Nervously at Trump:
Donald Trump’s return to the political stage has created a mix of anxiety and optimism in Taiwan, as the island grapples with its precarious position between Beijing’s aggression and Washington’s demands. Trump’s campaign rhetoric has pressured Taiwan to significantly increase its defense spending, raising concerns in Taipei about the financial burden and its impact on domestic programs. His comments about Taiwan’s semiconductor industry and demands for higher military expenditures have added to these concerns, with defense spending currently at 2.45% of GDP, far below the levels Trump has suggested.
Despite this, Taiwan sees opportunities in Trump’s appointments of China hawks like Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz, who advocate for robust defense measures against Beijing. However, uncertainty looms over how China might respond to these developments, as Taiwan braces for increased intimidation and potential economic fallout from U.S.-China trade tensions.
Trump’s mixed signals on Taiwan’s security are another source of unease. While the U.S. has been a critical arms supplier under its policy of “strategic ambiguity,” Trump has suggested tariffs and severed trade ties rather than military intervention in the event of a Chinese invasion. This has left Taiwanese leaders questioning the reliability of U.S. protection.
President Lai Ching-te has sought to strengthen ties with Washington through diplomatic visits and defense collaborations, viewing U.S. support as essential for Taiwan’s survival. However, Taiwan’s limited legislative power and financial constraints make significant increases in military spending challenging. Meanwhile, Trump’s connections with figures like Elon Musk, whose business ties in China and controversial remarks on Taiwan have caused unease, further complicate the dynamic.
Taiwan remains cautiously optimistic, bolstered by increased U.S. support during Trump’s first term and the appointment of pro-Taiwan officials. However, the island must navigate a delicate balance between bolstering its defenses, managing its economy, and maintaining U.S. goodwill—all while countering growing pressure from Beijing. - The Wall Street Journal
U.S. Must Be Prepared to Expand Nuclear-Weapons Force, Biden Officials Say:
The U.S. faces an increasing nuclear threat from China, Russia, and North Korea, each of which is advancing its nuclear capabilities or resisting arms-control agreements. China is undergoing a significant nuclear buildup, projected to have over 1,000 warheads by 2030, while Russia has suspended its participation in key arms-control agreements, and North Korea continues to expand its arsenal. These developments are prompting a reevaluation of U.S. nuclear strategy.
The Biden administration has outlined a strategy that prioritizes advanced nonnuclear systems and stronger military cooperation with allies in Asia and Europe to counter these threats. A classified directive, known as the Nuclear Weapons Employment Planning Guidance, directs the Pentagon to prepare for the possibility of simultaneous conflicts with multiple nuclear adversaries. Recent steps include upgrading existing systems, such as developing a new variant of the B-61 gravity bomb and extending the service life of Ohio-class submarines.
If the trajectory of adversaries' nuclear programs continues to worsen, the U.S. may need to increase its deployed nuclear weapons, with potential measures like adding warheads to land-based Minuteman III missiles or deploying nuclear-armed cruise missiles on submarines. These decisions are expected to be made by the incoming Trump administration, which has previously supported major nuclear programs and introduced new systems.
Efforts to limit nuclear competition through arms control have faced significant setbacks. The New START Treaty with Russia, which limits strategic nuclear weapons, is set to expire in 2026, with no negotiations for a replacement currently underway. Meanwhile, attempts to engage China in arms-control talks have largely failed, despite a recent gesture of transparency from Beijing regarding a missile test.
Critics argue that focusing on conventional weapons rather than expanding nuclear capabilities would be a more efficient way to address security challenges. However, the Biden administration emphasizes the need to remain prepared to expand the nuclear arsenal if adversary actions make it necessary. For the first time in history, the U.S. must now consider how to deter two nuclear peers, China and Russia, while also managing North Korea’s growing arsenal. This evolving security landscape underscores the urgency of adapting the U.S. nuclear posture to meet future threats. - The Wall Street Journal
In Defense of Sanctions:
The European Union's top diplomat outlines the role of sanctions as a vital tool to uphold global peace and security, especially in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine. When diplomatic efforts fail, sanctions serve as a responsible last resort. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the EU has implemented 14 sanction packages targeting Moscow's aggression, imperialist actions, and violations of international law, such as the U.N. Charter. These measures aim to deter further imperialist wars and protect vulnerable nations worldwide.
Sanctions extend beyond Ukraine, addressing global threats like transborder terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and human rights violations. They help curb abuses in regions like Sudan, the Middle East, and Guatemala, where sanctions have bolstered democracy, countered terrorism, and defended human rights. Humanitarian exemptions are central to EU sanctions to avoid harming civilians or impeding critical aid.
Russia's attempts to undermine sanctions through misinformation and collaboration with states like Iran and North Korea have prompted stricter enforcement. The EU emphasizes that sanctions are guided by international law and undergo judicial review, contrasting with authoritarian states’ arbitrary actions. While not a standalone solution, sanctions have weakened Russia’s war efforts and highlighted the costs of undermining global peace. The EU remains committed to supporting the U.N. Charter’s principles, ensuring violators face consequences to safeguard an international order rooted in justice. - Foreign Policy
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Josep Borrell is the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy as well as the vice president of the European Commission.
Europe Has Run Out of Time:
Europe faces a critical moment in its security landscape as the long-standing reliance on the United States becomes increasingly fragile, especially with the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House. A significant reduction in U.S. military aid to Ukraine would leave Europe exposed to external threats, particularly Russian aggression, and could severely weaken NATO’s credibility. For decades, European nations have relied on American leadership in defense, but this option may soon vanish, forcing Europe to confront the pressing need to take charge of its own security.
The historical U.S. commitment to European security was rooted in shared democratic values and strategic interests, particularly during the Cold War. However, the post-Cold War era saw European countries reducing defense investments, assuming peace was permanent. Meanwhile, U.S. attention shifted toward other global priorities, leaving Europe unprepared for the resurgence of threats like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Calls for Europe to take on a greater share of the defense burden have grown louder, driven by both American political leaders and domestic frustrations with unbalanced contributions.
Europe has the economic strength to defend itself but has yet to demonstrate the political will to act. Military support for Ukraine remains insufficient compared to U.S. contributions, and the continent’s fragmented defense industry relies heavily on foreign suppliers. Domestic political instability in key nations like Germany and strained EU-UK relations have further hindered progress, even as countries like Poland and the Baltic states show a willingness to lead.
To secure peace and stability, Europe must significantly enhance military aid to Ukraine and overhaul its defense infrastructure. This requires immediate investments in weaponry, greater coordination among EU nations, and long-term efforts to build a self-sufficient defense industry. Moving beyond national interests to develop a unified European strategy is essential for meeting collective security needs.
Failure to act decisively risks leaving Europe vulnerable to continued Russian aggression and undermining transatlantic relations at a time when collaboration with the U.S. on broader global threats, including China and Iran, is critical. Europe must demonstrate its capability as a credible security actor to maintain peace on the continent. Without stronger defenses and proactive leadership, the stability Europe has enjoyed for decades could give way to a new era of conflict. - Foreign Affairs
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
NORBERT RÖTTGEN is a member of the German Bundestag and its Foreign Affairs Committee. He served as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee from 2014 to 2021 and was Federal Minister of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety from 2009 to 2012.
War and Peace in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. What It Will Mean for the World When Machines Shape Strategy and Statecraft:
Artificial intelligence is poised to reshape global power dynamics, becoming a crucial factor in both military strategy and diplomacy. While it offers the potential for objective decision-making, its integration must preserve the human perspective, which is essential for ethical uses of force. AI’s duality means it could both enhance warfare and foster peace, amplifying humanity’s most noble and destructive tendencies.
The race to dominate AI has created a tense and secretive global atmosphere, with nations and corporations vying for an edge in a high-stakes competition. This secrecy complicates transparency, as progress in AI is both unpredictable and difficult to measure. The result is a world driven by suspicion and paranoia, where countries prioritize speed and secrecy over safety, potentially accelerating the risks of conflict.
AI will fundamentally change warfare, introducing precise, autonomous weapons like drone swarms and advanced defensive systems. Battles may no longer center on human casualties but instead target technological infrastructure. Without human emotion to act as a constraint, AI-driven conflicts could lack the restraint needed to prevent escalation, raising questions about what will define victory or peace in an AI-powered war.
This technology could also disrupt the current geopolitical order. AI may shift dominance from nation-states to corporations or decentralized groups, challenging traditional concepts of citizenship, alliances, and governance. The new battleground might not be physical land but digital networks, forcing societies to rethink their structures of power and identity.
AI’s potential to solve complex global problems could simultaneously diminish human pride and agency. If machines succeed where humans have failed—by providing impartial and efficient solutions—it may highlight the limitations of human decision-making. While AI could act as a neutral mediator in conflicts, its unequal distribution risks creating destabilizing inequalities and unpredictable global dynamics.
The rise of AI presents both opportunities and existential challenges. It could lead to a more peaceful and cooperative world or exacerbate conflict and inequality, leaving humanity to grapple with its role in an era increasingly shaped by intelligent machines. - Foreign Affairs
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
HENRY A. KISSINGER served as U.S. Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977 and as U.S. National Security Adviser from 1969 to 1975.
ERIC SCHMIDT is Chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project and former CEO and Chair of Google.
CRAIG MUNDIE is the Co-Founder of Alliant Computing Systems and the former Senior Adviser to the CEO at Microsoft.
November 11, 2024
Ukraine Prioritizes Security, Not Territory, as Trump Pushes Truce Talks:
With President-elect Donald Trump pushing for quick peace negotiations, Ukraine is focusing on securing strong international guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression, even above holding specific territories. Ukrainian officials emphasize that while they remain firm on their 1991 borders, the current frontlines in the east, where Russian forces are advancing, may influence future boundary decisions. This strategic priority reflects skepticism about Russian commitment to peace, based on past failed ceasefires, and the recognition that lasting peace requires more than just territorial agreements.
Russia opposes Ukraine joining NATO, viewing it as a threat, and Trump’s approach—marked by skepticism toward prolonged U.S. support for Ukraine—signals a potential shift in American involvement. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Peace Formula demands Russian withdrawal, accountability, and reparations, though it faces resistance on some terms. With Ukrainian forces under pressure, officials are carefully balancing Ukraine's sovereignty and security needs against the changing landscape of international support and military realities. - New York Times
Israel Prepares Lebanon Cease-Fire Plan as ‘Gift’ to Trump, Officials Say:
Israeli officials, led by Minister Ron Dermer, met with President-elect Donald Trump and his adviser Jared Kushner to discuss an emerging cease-fire proposal with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel hopes to secure a cease-fire along the Lebanese border by January, potentially granting Trump an early foreign policy achievement. The proposed deal requires Hezbollah’s withdrawal beyond Lebanon’s Litani River and the Lebanese military’s temporary oversight of a buffer zone, backed by Western monitors.
The proposal is complex, involving a role for Russia in halting Hezbollah's rearmament through Syria, even as the Biden administration handles ongoing negotiations. Trump’s involvement signals a possible shift in U.S. support dynamics, with Israel closely aligning its strategy with Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, Israeli military preparations continue in case talks falter, with both Israel and Hezbollah ramping up activities along the Lebanese border. - Washington Post
Trump talked to Putin, told Russian Leader Not to Escalate in Ukraine:
President-elect Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, advising restraint in Ukraine and emphasizing the substantial U.S. military presence in Europe. According to sources familiar with the call, Trump expressed an interest in continuing discussions for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. During the conversation, Trump hinted at a possible deal in which Russia could retain some of the Ukrainian territories it has occupied, aligning with his campaign stance on seeking a swift end to the war.
The call comes amid increased tensions, with Ukraine launching a significant drone attack on Moscow and reports of North Korean forces aiding Russian efforts in contested regions. Trump's outreach to Putin underscores his foreign policy approach, which he promises will prioritize deal-making over prolonged military engagement. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who also spoke with Trump, faces concerns about the potential impact of Trump's policies on Ukraine's defense efforts, especially with U.S. financial and military aid in question. - Washington Post
Trump and Putin’s Avowed Personal Rapport Masks Deeper Tensions:
President-elect Donald Trump aims to use his self-styled negotiation skills and rapport with Russian President Vladimir Putin to broker an end to the Ukraine war. While he previously attempted to improve U.S.-Russia relations, challenges emerged, including the inability to secure agreements on key issues like arms control and Ukraine. Despite his often-friendly rhetoric toward Putin, Trump’s administration implemented significant measures against Russia, such as imposing sanctions and lifting an arms embargo on Ukraine. These actions underscored a tougher approach that contradicted his warm public stance, and relations between Washington and Moscow ultimately soured during his first term.
Now, as Trump prepares to re-enter office, the geopolitical landscape has only grown more complicated. Putin's advances in Ukraine and strategic partnerships with China, Iran, and North Korea have emboldened Russia’s position, leaving limited diplomatic room for concessions. Trump’s plans to boost U.S. oil production and support Ukraine with more advanced weaponry could increase pressure on Russia, but analysts warn that Putin is likely to maintain his hardline stance. While Trump envisions an achievable peace through direct engagement, experts caution that Putin may seek gains at Ukraine's expense, making substantive negotiations challenging without broader, bipartisan congressional support for easing sanctions on Russia. - Wall Street Journal
The Danger Zone Between Two Presidents:
The U.S. presidential transition period has always been a time of uncertainty, and the shift from President Joe Biden to Donald Trump carries particular risks, with ongoing conflicts and geopolitical tensions across the globe. A key moment that highlighted this tension occurred on November 5, 2024, when the U.S. conducted a missile test that likely sent a message to both Russia and China about America's readiness to defend its interests, regardless of who occupies the White House. This timing underscored the fraught nature of the transition, as the U.S. faces growing challenges, especially in Ukraine, where Russia’s aggressive actions continue despite American military aid. While Trump has promised to end the conflict swiftly, his approach remains unclear, with mixed signals about whether he would cut support to Ukraine or take a more conventional hardline stance.
In the Middle East, the situation is equally volatile, with ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran, and the broader risks of conflict involving Turkey, North Korea, and other regional players. Trump’s "maximum pressure" campaign on Iran could reignite hostilities, and his support for Israel, including a potential shift toward annexing more Palestinian territories, raises fears of further escalation. Meanwhile, China’s growing aggression toward Taiwan, as well as tensions over the South China Sea, add another layer of complexity. As Trump re-enters the global stage, uncertainty surrounds his policies, from his handling of Taiwan to his unpredictable approach to international trade. While some view his unpredictability as a form of deterrence, it also leaves allies anxious, particularly regarding his domestic policies and potential confrontations with adversaries. - The Economist
The U.S. Could Soon Face a Threat ‘More Powerful’ than Nuclear Weapons:
Researchers around the globe are tinkering with viruses far deadlier than Covid-19.
Ashish K. Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, was a White House covid-19 response coordinator in the Biden administration. Matt Pottinger, deputy national security adviser in the Trump administration, is chief executive of the geopolitical research firm Garnaut Global. Matthew McKnight is the head of biosecurity at Ginkgo Bioworks and a Belfer Center fellow at Harvard Kennedy School.
The threat of biological weapons, increasingly facilitated by advancements in synthetic biology, poses a significant and evolving risk that could surpass even nuclear weapons in terms of destructive potential. Biological agents, once weaponized, have the ability to cause mass casualties in ways that are difficult to trace and contain, especially with the growing accessibility of gene-editing technologies and artificial intelligence. Countries such as Russia and China have shown a growing interest in developing offensive biological capabilities, with the Chinese military even discussing the potential of using genetically targeted pathogens to attack specific ethnic groups. As such, the risks posed by bioweapons are compounded by the possibility of state and non-state actors gaining access to deadly engineered viruses that could spark pandemics with far greater impact than COVID-19.
To address these threats, experts argue that the U.S. must develop a comprehensive biological intelligence (BIOINT) system, drawing inspiration from Cold War-era nuclear intelligence programs. This would involve enhancing global surveillance, rapidly detecting and analyzing new pathogens, and improving forensic techniques to track the origin of biological agents. The goal is not just to detect bioweapons but to build a deterrence framework that shows the world the U.S. has the capability to trace and retaliate against those who use or develop such weapons. This, coupled with swift pandemic response strategies, would be essential in mitigating the consequences of a bioweapon attack. However, challenges remain, especially in terms of political resolve and funding, which could hamper the implementation of effective biosurveillance and deterrence systems. - Washington Post
War in Ukraine May Only Intensify Under Trump, says Dmytro Kuleba. The country's former foreign minister explains the powderkeg that is three leaders in a cannot-lose standoff:
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is rooted in more than just territorial disputes—it's fundamentally about Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent nation with sovereignty over its territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin sees this war as crucial to his legacy, similar to the historical actions of past Russian emperors. This makes any compromise or negotiation from Ukraine, such as territorial concessions, insufficient to bring lasting peace.
For real peace to occur, Russia must acknowledge Ukraine’s sovereignty, a goal that has consistently remained out of reach as long as Putin’s imperial ambitions continue. The situation is further complicated by external pressures, especially from leaders like former U.S. President Donald Trump, who may consider withdrawing support to force Ukraine into peace talks. However, cutting financial aid could destabilize Ukraine further, inadvertently aiding Russia’s goal of weakening the country. This dynamic makes any resolution that forces Ukraine to compromise both unfeasible and counterproductive in the long run.
Ultimately, peace will not come until Russia, under Putin’s leadership, is compelled to accept Ukraine as a free, democratic nation aligned with the West, rather than viewing the war as a personal and nationalistic endeavor. Without such a shift, temporary agreements are likely to only pause the conflict, not resolve it. - The Economist
Dmytro Kuleba is a former foreign minister and deputy prime minister of Ukraine.
October 25, 2024
G7 Finalizes $50 Billion Ukraine Loan Backed by Russian Assets: The economic lifeline is expected to be disbursed by the end of the year.
The Group of 7 (G7) nations have finalized a $50 billion loan for Ukraine, backed by interest from Russia’s frozen central bank assets, in a historic move to make Russia bear financial responsibility for the ongoing conflict. Expected to be distributed by year’s end, this loan—funded without additional taxpayer burden—will help Ukraine with defense and rebuilding as it heads into a difficult winter. The U.S. will contribute $20 billion, with the European Union, Britain, Canada, and Japan covering the remainder. Legal and technical debates, especially around EU sanctions, delayed the loan, but assurances were reached, allowing the interest on approximately $300 billion in Russian reserves to back the financing.
This initiative reflects a unified approach among Western nations to support Ukraine while penalizing Russia economically. Although Russia has criticized the freezing of its assets, G7 officials maintain that using the interest generated is lawful and a necessary measure to counteract aggression. This strategy sends a clear message: aggressors will bear financial consequences for damages they cause. - New York Times
Pentagon Chief, in Surprise Visit to Ukraine, Announces New Aid but Not Kyiv’s Main Asks:
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s surprise visit to Kyiv included a $400 million military aid package for Ukraine, with munitions and armored vehicles but excluded Kyiv’s key requests: permission to strike into Russia with U.S. weapons and support for NATO membership. Austin has been cautious, prioritizing Ukraine’s immediate needs like ammunition and air defense while avoiding actions that might escalate tensions with Russia. This approach has sparked debate, with some arguing that a more assertive response could have shifted the war in Ukraine's favor, while others support Austin's restrained strategy to avoid overstretching U.S. resources.
While the Biden administration’s approach has prevented Russia from achieving its full strategic objectives in Ukraine, critics argue it lacks the decisive support Ukraine needs to regain lost ground. Looking forward, U.S. support may hinge on political shifts after the 2024 election, which could impact funding and policy direction depending on who wins the White House and controls Congress. - Wall Street Journal
Russia Continues to Advance in Eastern Ukraine:
Russian forces are advancing in Eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas region, where Ukraine recently withdrew from Vuhledar to avoid encirclement. While Vuhledar holds limited strategic value, its loss reflects Ukraine’s tactic of preserving its troops by ceding ground in some areas. In Toretsk, close-quarters combat continues as Russian forces advance, using heavy artillery and glide bombs. Despite gains, Russian progress has slowed around key logistics hubs like Pokrovsk, with limited forces and logistical issues hindering decisive breakthroughs.
Ukraine is focused on inflicting heavy Russian losses while conserving its own forces, benefitting from improved ammunition supplies and successful strikes on Russian depots. Russia’s Soviet-era stockpile of armored vehicles is reportedly dwindling, making its troops vulnerable to Ukrainian drones. However, Russian glide bombs remain a significant threat. Analysts suggest that Russia’s information campaign, promoting a narrative of Ukrainian defeat, may be impacting Western support, with delays or reductions in military aid potentially affecting Ukraine’s defense capabilities. - The Economist
U.S. Strikes Target Houthi Weapons Stores in Yemen:
The U.S. conducted targeted airstrikes in Yemen against underground Houthi weapons storage sites, utilizing B-2 Spirit bombers to reach fortified locations. This escalation aims to prevent Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, as the Iran-backed group has been disrupting shipping routes and firing missiles toward Israel since the Gaza conflict began. The Pentagon seized the opportunity to deploy the bombers, already in the region for training, to show both the Houthis and Iran the U.S.'s capability to strike hard-to-reach targets.
These strikes reflect heightened U.S. efforts to curb Houthi aggression while signaling to Iran to avoid further escalation. Some regional allies have expressed concerns over being drawn into these conflicts, while Houthi leaders condemned the strikes, warning of prolonged resistance. This move is part of a broader U.S. strategy to safeguard shipping routes and deter regional provocations amid rising Middle Eastern tensions. - The Wall Street Journal
Russia Provided Targeting Data for Houthi Assault on Global Shipping:
Russia has reportedly supplied targeting data to Yemen’s Houthi rebels, enabling them to attack Western ships in the Red Sea. This escalation, facilitated through Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, disrupted a major global trade route, leading some vessels to reroute around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. In response, the U.S. launched a coalition to protect these waters, spending approximately $1 billion on countermeasures and deploying bombers to target Houthi arsenals.
The move reflects Russia’s strategic pivot in the Middle East, strengthening ties with Iran and increasing regional instability to divert Western focus from Ukraine. These Houthi attacks, partly motivated by the Gaza conflict, have significantly impacted oil transit through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a crucial passage for global energy supply - The Wall Street Journal
Yahya Sinwar, Leader of Hamas, Is Dead:
Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was killed by Israeli forces in southern Gaza, marking a significant turn in the ongoing conflict. Known for his brutal tactics and his role in planning the deadly October 7, 2023, assault on Israel, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis and the capture of 250 hostages, Sinwar had become a central figure on Israel's most-wanted list. Over the years, he developed Hamas into a formidable force against Israel, despite Gaza’s heavy blockade, and strengthened its ties with Iran. His strategic maneuvers, including an illusion of interest in limited cooperation with Israel, contributed to the intense impact of Hamas’s surprise assault.
Sinwar’s leadership left a complex legacy. While his strategies gained support among Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and elsewhere in the Arab world, Gazans bore the brunt of Israel’s retaliatory strikes, leaving thousands dead and much of Gaza devastated. His efforts brought the Palestinian plight back into international focus but did little to advance Palestinian autonomy. Celebrations in Gaza following his death highlighted resentment toward Sinwar, as many blamed him for exacerbating the region’s suffering. - The New York Times
Israel’s Limited Missile Strike on Iran May be the Start of a Wider Assault:
On October 26, Israel launched its first openly acknowledged attack on Iran, targeting military sites like air-defense installations and missile factories, avoiding nuclear or economic infrastructure. This restrained approach likely reflects U.S. pressure, as Israel seeks to avoid actions that could disrupt regional stability ahead of the U.S. presidential election. Israeli officials claim that the strike effectively degraded Iran’s air-defense capabilities, potentially setting the stage for future operations if tensions escalate.
Iran downplayed the damage but now faces a difficult choice: retaliation could invite severe counterattacks, while restraint risks appearing weak. Domestically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces criticism from political opponents for not striking more decisively, though his far-right allies may push for further military action in Gaza and Lebanon. Israel’s coordinated approach with the U.S. demonstrates Washington’s influence, aiming to avoid a broader conflict for now, though the risk of a more extensive assault remains. The Economist
Does China Welcome - or Dread an Iran-Israel War?
China faces a complex dilemma regarding potential conflict between Iran and Israel. While it shares strategic ties with Iran, bolstered by oil imports and political alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, China is wary of a direct confrontation that could destabilize the Middle East and disrupt its critical energy imports. China's energy needs make it cautious: Iranian oil is a major part of its supply, and conflict could drive prices up or jeopardize supply routes, potentially forcing China to rely on costlier alternatives like Saudi oil. Additionally, China has significant investments across the Middle East, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, which underscores its commitment to regional stability.
Politically, China balances support for Iran with efforts to maintain relations with Israel and other Gulf states, positioning itself as a neutral player rather than a partisan one. Although China sees American influence waning in the region, its attempts at diplomatic mediation, such as fostering agreements between Iran and Saudi Arabia and between Palestinian factions, have had limited success in curbing violence. Despite security ties with Iran, China’s military cooperation is minimal, and its caution reflects a reluctance to entangle itself in Middle Eastern conflicts. Ultimately, Beijing’s priority is to minimize disruptions that could impact its own economic and strategic interests while cautiously observing U.S. entanglements abroad, hoping that American focus on the Middle East might reduce its presence in areas critical to China, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea. - The Economist
Iran Has Every Reason Now to Go Nuclear:
Recent Middle Eastern conflicts have intensified debates within Iran's political circles about advancing its nuclear program toward weaponization. Historically, Iran's defense strategy has revolved around three main pillars: missile capabilities, alliances with regional militias, and a robust nuclear program. This approach sought to compensate for its weaker air force and deter adversaries like Israel and the United States. However, recent setbacks—such as Israel’s strikes on Hezbollah and attacks on Hamas leaders—have weakened Iran's regional influence. Additionally, the U.S. has fortified Israel’s defenses, deploying advanced anti-missile systems. This erosion of Iran’s traditional deterrents has heightened calls in Tehran for a nuclear deterrent to re-establish a power balance, similar to the nuclear postures of India and Pakistan.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are further reinforced by its perception that it has already endured heavy sanctions and isolation, especially after the U.S. withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal. With strained relations with the West and a declining likelihood of sanctions relief, Iran may feel that pursuing a nuclear capability could secure greater protection against external threats. Furthermore, shifting geopolitical dynamics, including possible support from Russia, have created an environment that Iran’s leaders may see as advantageous for advancing their nuclear agenda. However, Western powers argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could destabilize the Middle East, risk regional nuclear proliferation, and escalate conflicts. They advocate for renewed diplomacy, potentially involving a coalition of regional actors, as a strategy to avert Iran’s nuclear development and contain rising tensions. - Foreign Policy
Author: Ellie Geranmayeh is the deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Battles of Precise Mass Technology Is Remaking War—and America Must Adapt:
The concept of “precise mass” marks a significant shift in modern warfare, blending numerical force with advanced precision capabilities. Previously, victory in battle hinged on having the most troops and equipment, but with advances in technology, precision became paramount. This trend began in the late 20th century, especially with the U.S. military’s focus on accuracy over sheer numbers. However, today’s conflicts—such as in Ukraine and the Middle East—show that military power is no longer about choosing between precision and mass. Instead, inexpensive yet effective uncrewed systems (drones) and missiles allow countries and militant groups to deploy large quantities of affordable, accurate weapons, creating new dynamics on the battlefield. These systems, often guided by artificial intelligence and commercially available technology, are “attritable”—their low cost makes their loss less consequential, allowing them to be deployed en masse to overwhelm defenses.
This era of precise mass has prompted the U.S. and other nations to rethink their defense strategies. The U.S., aware of the growing military capabilities of China, Russia, and non-state actors, has started initiatives like the Replicator program, focusing on scalable, autonomous systems across air, sea, and land. These cheaper, versatile weapons complement traditional high-end systems, allowing for both immediate impact and long-term resilience in prolonged conflicts. However, defense against such massed attacks remains costly and complex, as seen in Israel’s high expenditure to fend off Iranian attacks. The future of warfare may increasingly rely on innovations such as directed-energy weapons, as global powers continue to adapt and expand their use of both high-tech and massed systems. The strategic accessibility of this technology will likely shape global military doctrines and investments, underscoring the importance of rapid adaptation to preserve military advantage.
Author: MICHAEL C. HOROWITZ is Richard Perry Professor and Director of Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania. From 2022 to 2024, he served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development and Emerging Capabilities. He is the author of The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics.
The US Risks Losing the Competition for ‘Innovation Power:
"Innovation Power," especially in areas like artificial intelligence and large-scale information platforms, is critical to U.S. economic strength and national security. Advanced commercial technology industries give the U.S. a unique edge in economic competitiveness and defense, enabling growth, improved health outcomes, and state-of-the-art defense capabilities like robotics and human-machine teaming. To harness these benefits fully, however, regulatory frameworks must keep pace with modern innovation; outdated, industrial-age regulations risk hampering progress and could weaken the U.S. in its competition with China, which is also rapidly advancing in digital and AI fields.
Scale is essential for achieving exponential technology growth, evident in the vast data resources and infrastructure driving AI and digital defense. Overly stringent regulations—such as breaking up major tech companies or imposing restrictive AI data-sharing rules—could disrupt this scale, hindering innovation. While concerns about AI risks are acknowledged, they are often seen as exaggerated and overlooking the strong Responsible AI frameworks already established. A careful, targeted regulatory approach, rather than broad restrictions, would support U.S. leadership in innovation, safeguarding national security and sustained economic prosperity amid a global race for technological supremacy.
Author: Lt. Gen. Groen served over 36 years in the U.S. military, culminating his career as the senior executive for AI in the Department. Groen also served in the National Security Agency overseeing Computer Network Operations, and as the Director of Joint Staff Intelligence, working closely with the Chairman and Senior Leaders across the Department.
September 30, 2024
Biden and Netanyahu Speak for the First Time in Months as Mideast Crisis Deepens:
In a tense moment for U.S.-Israel relations, President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke for the first time in months, focusing on how Israel might retaliate against Iran following an October 1 missile attack. The call came amid U.S. concerns that Israeli strikes on sensitive Iranian targets, such as nuclear or energy sites, could lead to uncontrollable escalation between the two nations. U.S. officials fear that aggressive Israeli action might trigger a broader regional conflict, though Israel's defense minister hinted at a potentially covert and surprising response. Despite the missile attack causing minimal damage, the shadow war between Israel and Iran has intensified, with recent direct missile strikes between the two marking a significant escalation.
The growing divide between the U.S. and Israel has been deepened by communication failures and disagreements over military strategy, with both countries attempting to avoid the security dilemma of unintended escalation. The U.S. is urging caution, preferring sabotage or limited strikes to prevent further conflict, but Israeli leaders seem poised for more significant action. Behind the scenes, U.S. officials have been frustrated by Israel’s lack of coordination, particularly in surprise attacks that risked American lives. Despite this, both nations aim to maintain strong ties while navigating the volatile Middle Eastern security landscape. - NYT
Washington Worries the Israelis Will Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Sites. But Can They?
Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated, with Israel preparing for a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israeli military exercises simulating long-range attacks signal their readiness to act alone, though success would be greater with U.S. support, especially given America’s arsenal of advanced bunker-busting bombs. Israeli leaders are debating whether to take this rare moment to disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While Israeli officials acknowledge doubts about their ability to destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites, hardliners, including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, are calling for immediate action, seeing this as an opportunity to cripple Iran’s nuclear program and its regional influence.
The U.S., however, has urged restraint. President Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin have cautioned Israel against a disproportionate strike, warning it could spark further escalation and draw the region into broader conflict. Iran’s nuclear capabilities have grown, with uranium enrichment reaching near weapons-grade levels, but converting that material into a functional nuclear weapon could still take months. Meanwhile, concerns are growing about Russia providing Iran with nuclear-related assistance, as well as the difficulty Israel would face in targeting Iran’s increasingly fortified and underground nuclear sites. With Hezbollah weakened, Israel faces a pressing choice: strike now or risk Iran’s nuclear program becoming even harder to neutralize in the future. - NYT
Iran’s Secret Warning to U.S. Allies. Don’t Help Israel, or You’re Next:
Tehran has issued warnings through secret diplomatic channels, threatening to target Arab Gulf states and other U.S. allies if their territories or airspace are used in any attack on Iran. This comes after Israel, retaliating to Iran's firing of ballistic missiles, hinted at potentially striking Iran’s nuclear or oil infrastructure. In response, Iran has warned that it would not only strike Israeli civilian targets but also retaliate against any Arab state that facilitates such attacks. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, which host U.S. troops, have expressed concerns to the U.S. and signaled they do not want their military assets used in any offensive actions against Iran. While these Arab states support the U.S.-Israel alliance, they fear retaliation and the broader consequences for the region.
The Persian Gulf states, heavily reliant on their oil facilities and the U.S. security umbrella, are particularly concerned about the risk to their energy infrastructure. With tensions escalating, there are fears that the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran could disrupt oil exports through the critical Strait of Hormuz, pushing global oil prices higher. The situation is further complicated by backchannel diplomacy efforts to de-escalate the conflict, which intensified after Israel's recent actions in Lebanon and Iran's missile response. The U.S. is bolstering its military presence to prevent a wider regional war, but concerns remain that miscalculations could lead to unintended escalations. - WSJ
Russia Continues To Advance In Eastern Ukraine:
Ukraine’s recent withdrawal from Vuhledar and ongoing defensive battles across the Donbas reflect the immense pressure it faces from Russia's larger forces and firepower. The retreat from Vuhledar was strategic, aimed at avoiding encirclement, though the area had already been devastated. Russian forces are also pushing towards Toretsk, using heavy bombardments, though progress remains slow in other key locations such as Pokrovsk, a logistical hub. Despite Russia’s advances, its efforts are not without significant losses. For instance, in the Pokrovsk region alone, Russia has reportedly lost five divisions' worth of armored vehicles, and its advantage in artillery has diminished due to depleted stockpiles and reliance on unreliable munitions from North Korea.
While Russia is making incremental gains, Ukraine has adopted a strategy of ceding some ground while maximizing Russian casualties and preserving its own forces. Ukraine has also seen improvements in ammunition supply and drone capabilities, further challenging Russian forces. However, the ongoing use of powerful Russian glide bombs launched from airspace within Russia remains a critical threat. Although there is pessimism about Ukraine’s prospects, Russia has yet to achieve its key objectives in the Donbas region. The growing perception that Ukraine cannot win may undermine Western support, as aid flows from the U.S. and other allies have slowed, raising concerns about Ukraine's ability to sustain its defense long-term. - The Economist
Putin’s ‘Merchant of Death’ Is Back in the Arms Business. This Time Selling to the Houthis:
Viktor Bout, the notorious Russian arms dealer known as the "Merchant of Death," was released from a U.S. prison nearly two years ago in a high-profile prisoner swap for basketball star Brittney Griner. Since then, Bout has re-entered the spotlight, allegedly brokering arms deals with Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militants. Despite claims that he had moved away from arms trafficking, Bout was reportedly involved in negotiating a $10 million deal to supply automatic weapons to the Houthis, according to sources familiar with the matter. While the deal hasn't been finalized, this development raises concerns in Washington, which opposes any arms transfers to the Houthis, a designated terrorist group. Although small arms like AK-74 rifles are reportedly part of the potential shipments, there is no evidence that Bout is facilitating the transfer of more advanced weapons such as missiles, which would significantly escalate the conflict.
Bout's post-release activities have drawn scrutiny as he has joined a pro-Kremlin party and gained a seat in local government while continuing to support Russia's geopolitical agenda. He has openly backed the invasion of Ukraine and frequently appears on Russian media criticizing the U.S. Despite these concerns, his attorney has downplayed his involvement in recent arms deals, calling allegations "unsubstantiated." While Russia strengthens ties with Tehran, supplying weapons to the Houthis could signal a shift in its Middle East strategy. Meanwhile, U.S. officials remain vigilant, noting that the arms trade continues to be a significant issue in Russia, regardless of Bout’s individual role. - WSJ
Wars Are Not Accidents. Managing Risk in the Face of Escalation:
Recent geopolitical events have heightened fears that long-standing tensions could escalate into broader conflicts. Key incidents, such as Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran, Ukraine's military actions against Russia, and increasingly assertive Chinese maneuvers in the South China Sea, have intensified concerns about military accidents and strategic miscalculations. Analysts emphasize that while these provocations can elevate tensions, truly unintended wars are uncommon; history shows that policymakers typically exercise restraint to avoid combat. Notable examples include the Cuban missile crisis, where U.S. leaders refrained from retaliatory strikes despite provocations, illustrating that states often find diplomatic off-ramps to de-escalate crises.
Rival nations engage in brinkmanship, balancing the need to exert pressure on adversaries with the necessity of avoiding overt provocations that could trigger conflict. Understanding the intricate dynamics of redlines—thresholds that can provoke a military response—is critical for leaders. These redlines can be influenced by geographic considerations, the nature of the target, or the scale of military action. Consequently, decision-makers must carefully calibrate their responses to maintain deterrence while allowing rivals the opportunity to de-escalate. Communication, whether direct or through intermediaries, plays a crucial role in preventing misunderstandings and miscalculations. Ultimately, the ability of leaders to manage the delicate interplay of pressure and restraint is essential in navigating crises and avoiding conflict. - Foreign Affairs
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Erik Lin-Greenberg is the Leo Marx Career Development Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Is Israeli Intelligence Back on Top? The devastation of Hezbollah and Hamas has wiped away some of the stain of Oct. 7 failures:
Prior to October 7, 2023, Israeli intelligence was revered for its remarkable operational successes and its ability to maintain security within the region. This reputation began to falter in light of the shocking failure to predict and thwart the Hamas assault on that date, which has been likened to the intelligence shortcomings leading up to the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. On October 7, Israel’s intelligence apparatus was criticized for ignoring warnings and failing to respond swiftly to threats, leading to significant casualties and a profound loss of public confidence. The situation reflected a broader issue within Israeli leadership that had misjudged Hamas's intentions, operating under the mistaken belief that the group would not escalate conflict. This miscalculation paralleled the previous reliance on a flawed understanding of enemy behavior, resulting in a strategic culture resistant to dissent and alternative viewpoints.
In the aftermath of the attack, Israel's intelligence agencies have launched a series of high-profile operations aimed at rebuilding their reputation. These operations have included targeted assassinations of senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders and the dismantling of their communication networks, demonstrating a level of operational creativity and effectiveness. Despite these tactical successes, the question remains whether Israeli intelligence is also providing strategic insights to guide national policy, rather than solely engaging in violent countermeasures. A comprehensive recovery for Israeli intelligence will require not only successful operations but also an introspective evaluation of its strategic culture, ensuring that lessons learned from past failures are fully integrated to enhance future intelligence assessments and statecraft. - Foreign Policy
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
David V. Gioe is a British Academy global professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He is the director of studies for the Cambridge Security Initiative and is co-convener of its international security and intelligence program. He is a former CIA analyst and operations officer and a US Navy veteran.
X: @GioeINT
Elena Grossfeld is a Ph.D. candidate in the war studies department at King’s College London and a member of the Centre for the Study of Intelligence. Her research interests include strategic culture of Russian/Soviet intelligence, the Cold War, cybersecurity, space, and information warfare. She is a principal partner at London Washington.
Marc Polymeropoulos worked for 26 years at the CIA before retiring in July 2019 at the Senior Intelligence Service level. He specialized in counterterrorism, the Middle East and South Asia, spending extensive time in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a national security and intelligence contributor for MSNBC, and a non resident senior fellow for the Atlantic Council.
America Needs Better Bombs:
‘Energetics’—chemicals that propel and explode—gave the U.S. a battlefield edge for decades, but that advantage is eroding. Maintaining a technological edge in military capabilities is crucial for the U.S. and its allies, particularly through advancements in energetic materials—substances that propel or explode. Historically, significant strides were made during World War II, notably with the development of Torpex, a powerful explosive that greatly contributed to military victories, such as the sinking of the German battleship Tirpitz. Despite these historical innovations, much of the current U.S. military arsenal still relies on materials developed during that time, indicating a stagnation in innovation. With adversaries like China and Russia making significant advancements in their research and development of energetic materials, the U.S. faces an urgent need to revitalize its capabilities in this area to avoid losing its competitive edge.
To address these challenges, initiatives are underway to enhance research and development of advanced energetic materials. For example, the establishment of a Joint Energetics Transition Office aims to streamline the transition from research to application of these materials in munitions. However, the current Pentagon procurement process presents significant hurdles, as it often prioritizes established materials over novel ones due to strict timelines and a complex acquisition system. This has created a disconnect between research and practical application, making it difficult to integrate new materials into military systems effectively. To leverage advancements in energetic materials, improving coordination between scientific research and munitions development is essential. Additionally, dedicated funding and incentives for private sector involvement are crucial for accelerating the deployment of promising technologies, ultimately enhancing the U.S. military's lethality and effectiveness on the battlefield. - WSJ
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr. Gallagher, a Journal contributor, is head of defense for Palantir Technologies and a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute. He represented Wisconsin’s Eighth Congressional District (2017-24) and was chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
The Framework That Ended Lebanon's War in 2006, Could End This One Too:
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah presents a critical opportunity for Lebanon to reestablish itself as a functional state. Currently, Lebanon is grappling with severe socio-economic challenges, including rampant food inflation and a significant portion of its population lacking access to basic necessities. UNICEF reports that approximately 90% of children do not receive regular meals, while electricity and water supply are available for only a few hours each day. The political landscape is equally dire, with Lebanon lacking a president and operating under a caretaker government, as corruption has eroded institutional integrity. Hizbullah, backed by Iran, has effectively established control over large parts of the country, using the weakened state of the central government and the military to solidify its influence. This dynamic reflects a broader trend in regions where Iranian proxies operate, often resulting in increased poverty and division.
To create a more stable future, the international community is encouraged to focus on eliminating Hizbullah's military power, which poses a significant threat to Israel and undermines Lebanese sovereignty. Support for Israel's military efforts could help dismantle Hizbullah's capabilities, fostering a safer environment for Lebanon to recover. Concurrently, substantial investments are necessary to rebuild the Lebanese military and reform the country's political structure. A newly structured Lebanese army, positioned strategically as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah, could be developed with training and financial backing from international allies. Moreover, an oversight committee involving diverse Lebanese communities could assist in establishing fiscal responsibility and anti-corruption measures while working toward the restoration of governance that prioritizes the needs of Lebanese citizens over militant interests. This multi-faceted approach could potentially pave the way for Lebanon to emerge from its current crisis and move toward a more stable and equitable future. - The Economist
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Yair Lapid was the 14th prime minister of Israel and is currently the leader of the opposition.
September 23
A New "Quartet of Chaos" Threatens America
The rulers of China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are growing worryingly close:
The growing cooperation between China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia poses a significant threat to the West, particularly the U.S.-led global order. These countries are deepening their military and industrial ties through strategic partnerships in weapons transfers, technology sharing, and industrial support, often motivated by mutual self-interest rather than ideological alignment. Iran and North Korea supply Russia with missiles, artillery shells, and drones for its war in Ukraine, while China provides dual-use components crucial to Russia's defense industry. This cooperation also extends to technological exchanges, with Russia sharing insights on electronic warfare and missile technology with Iran and North Korea, and China studying battlefield technologies for potential conflicts like one over Taiwan. Though these countries distrust each other and lack formal alliances, their shared hostility toward the West drives their collaboration. However, their differences and individual interests, especially China's cautious approach to avoid sanctions, may limit the depth of their coordination. Despite these constraints, the "quartet of chaos" presents increasing challenges to the West, particularly in the long-term exchange of military know-how and industrial capabilities, which could dilute the efficacy of Western defenses - The Economist
How Israel Killed Hezbollah's Leader in Underground Bunker
Operation was based on intelligence that Hassan Nasrallah would be gathering with other senior leaders:
In a targeted Israeli airstrike, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was killed while gathered with other senior leaders in a heavily fortified bunker beneath southern Beirut. The strike, which employed around 80 tons of bombs, was the result of months of Israeli planning and real-time intelligence, and aimed to eliminate Hezbollah leadership and disrupt Iran's influence in the region. Nasrallah’s death, along with many senior leaders, marks a significant blow to Hezbollah, which is one of the most heavily armed non state militias. The operation signals a new phase in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, where Israel is willing to take bold actions, risking civilian casualties, to neutralize threats. This attack, part of a larger Israeli campaign against Hezbollah, has further escalated tensions, displaced thousands of Lebanese, and left the group’s future uncertain - Wall Street Journal
As Putin’s military barbarism continues, U.S. credibility is at stake. Russia’s war against Ukraine could turn out to be a bloody prologue to a blood-soaked European aftermath:
The current global conflict in Ukraine represents a critical battle against barbarism, with Russia using brutal tactics to destroy Ukraine’s infrastructure, reminiscent of how it leveraged winter to repel past invaders like Napoleon and Hitler. Russia’s military, rife with corruption and centralization, has proven ineffective against a determined, well-armed Ukraine, yet Putin hopes for a winter advantage. U.S. support for Ukraine has been weak and cautious, despite minimal political risk. The success of Ukraine is crucial to U.S. credibility and global stability. If Putin succeeds, it could foreshadow future conflicts, akin to the Spanish Civil War’s prelude to World War II, and embolden adversaries like China, Iran, and North Korea. The thin line between civilization and barbarism is dangerously close to breaking. - Washington Post
The war is going badly. Ukraine and its allies must change course.
Time for credible war aims-and NATO membership:
Barbarism is a central issue in the current global conflict, particularly in Ukraine, where Russian aggression, led by Vladimir Putin, mirrors historic events where Russia used winter as a weapon against invaders like Napoleon and Hitler. Russia’s military, plagued by corruption and inefficiency, continues to degrade Ukraine’s essential infrastructure, causing widespread suffering. Meanwhile, U.S. policy toward Ukraine remains timid, with little political risk associated with supporting Ukraine’s fight for survival. The stakes are high, as U.S. credibility and global deterrence rest on Ukraine's success. If Ukraine fails, it could echo the Spanish Civil War as a precursor to greater global conflict, reinforcing contempt from adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. - The Economist
A Course Correction on National Security. The next president will need to embark on a radically different path from the past two administrations:
.
The next U.S. president will inherit a world far more precarious than the one faced by Joe Biden. The U.S. military is stretched thin supporting wars in Ukraine and Israel, while its defense industry struggles to meet the surging demand for weapons and equipment. China and Russia, emboldened by U.S. political dysfunction and growing isolationism, have strengthened their alliance, aiming to challenge American influence. China’s military is rapidly evolving, threatening Taiwan and the broader Indo-Pacific region, while Russia’s aggressive mobilization in Ukraine and willingness to accept heavy losses makes it a volatile force. With a coalition of authoritarian states—China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran—actively working together, the risk of small conflicts escalating into global wars is alarmingly real. The American public, meanwhile, remains largely disconnected from these growing threats.
The Commission on National Defense Strategy urges a complete overhaul of U.S. national security policy. The outdated, post-Cold War mindset must give way to a new strategy that fuses military power, diplomacy, and commercial innovation. The private sector now leads in key technological advancements, and the U.S. must adapt quickly to integrate these into its defense efforts. A multi-theater force, capable of deterring threats in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific simultaneously, is vital. The U.S. must also strengthen alliances and invest in rebuilding its defense industrial base to handle protracted conflicts. The future of global stability hinges on the U.S. adopting this new approach and preparing for a world where it can no longer act alone. - Foreign Policy
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jane Harman is the chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, and Eric S. Edelman is the vice chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy.
How Does the U.S.-China ‘Cold War’ End?
Republicans are divided on whether regime change in Beijing should be the ultimate goal:
By Lili Pike, a reporter at Foreign Policy.
As the U.S. election draws near, a deeper divide within the Republican Party is emerging over how to confront China’s rise. While there is bipartisan agreement that China poses a serious threat to national security—leading to policies like tariffs and technology restrictions—Republicans are increasingly split on the ultimate goal of this competition. Some, like Matt Pottinger and Mike Gallagher, argue that the U.S. should go beyond just containing China and work to weaken the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from within. Their vision is to pressure Beijing into loosening its authoritarian grip, ultimately allowing the Chinese people to lead their country toward democracy, drawing comparisons to America’s Cold War strategy against the Soviet Union.
However, not all Republicans share this aggressive stance. Elbridge Colby and others caution that aiming for regime change or internal shifts in China could dangerously escalate tensions, feeding Beijing’s insecurities. Instead, they advocate for a more measured approach—maintaining a balance of power and decoupling economically, while avoiding the provocations that could spark a larger conflict. With a potential second Trump term looming, these competing visions within the GOP are shaping the future of U.S.-China relations. Trump himself has favored a more transactional approach, praising Chinese President Xi Jinping in the past, but key figures from his former administration, like Pompeo and Pottinger, could push for a more hardline strategy. The outcome of this internal battle will likely define how the U.S. navigates its most consequential rivalry for years to come. - Foreign Policy
September 13, 2024
Israeli Commandos Carried Out Raid on Secret Weapons Site in Syria:
Israeli commandos carried out a high-stakes raid on a Hezbollah missile production facility in Syria near the Lebanese border, destroying the site and killing at least 18 people. The complex operation involved Israeli special forces rappelling from helicopters, seizing materials, and ground forces gathering intelligence. Airstrikes targeted the sprawling Scientific Studies and Research Center near Masyaf, known for its role in developing short- and medium-range precision missiles for Hezbollah. Israel, which had previously targeted the site, took this escalated approach to ensure the facility's destruction after airstrikes alone failed to breach its fortified sections. The raid also aimed to collect intelligence on Hezbollah's weapons programs, with U.S. officials, including Gen. Michael Kurilla, notified beforehand. The site, previously linked to chemical weapons production, had more recently been a hub for missile manufacturing with support from Iran, making it a strategic target in Israel's ongoing efforts to neutralize Hezbollah's military capabilities. - NYT
U.S. Forces Try to Regroup as al Qaeda, Islamic State Sow Terror in West Africa:
The U.S. is repositioning forces in West Africa as al Qaeda and Islamic State militants expand their influence across the Sahel region, especially following the expulsion of U.S. troops from Niger after a military coup. With the loss of key counterterrorism bases in Niger, the Pentagon is relocating commandos and aircraft to coastal countries like Benin and Ivory Coast, while negotiating with Chad for a return of U.S. forces. The instability in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger has led to rising violence, prompting those governments to turn to Russia for military support, including the Wagner Group, which has been accused of atrocities that have fueled further extremism. The U.S. is refocusing efforts on shoring up regional security through military training, surveillance, and counterterrorism support in neighboring nations to prevent militant groups from moving south into more stable Gulf of Guinea countries. Despite these efforts, U.S. officials acknowledge the difficulty of achieving past counterterrorism objectives in the current regional landscape. - WSJ
U.S. and Chinese Militaries Find Reason to Start Talking Again:
The U.S. and China have begun re-engaging diplomatically at the military level after a two-year freeze, driven by tensions in the South China Sea and China's support of Russia. Recent meetings between senior U.S. and Chinese military officials, including at the Xiangshan Forum, mark an effort to prevent competition from escalating into conflict. Key points of contention include U.S. military operations near Taiwan and the South China Sea, where China's assertiveness has raised concerns, particularly involving territorial disputes with the Philippines. While these talks signal progress in stabilizing ties, both nations remain firm on their core security issues, with China demanding an end to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and Washington committed to continuing its military presence in contested areas. Resuming military-to-military communications benefits both sides by reducing the risks of miscalculations during crises. Despite the re-engagement, broader tensions persist, particularly over China’s military support for Russia and U.S. alliances in the region. - WSJ
China's Risky Power Play in the South China Sea:
Tensions in the South China Sea have escalated as China's coast guard aggressively challenges Philippine vessels, employing "gray zone tactics" like collisions, blockades, and water cannon blasts. China, which claims nearly the entire South China Sea, has targeted the Philippines in disputes over resource-rich areas like Sabina Shoal, situated near the Philippines' coast and key to its trade routes. Recent confrontations have led to damaged Philippine ships and injuries, signaling an intensifying conflict as China aims to assert dominance in the region. The Philippines, backed by a strengthened alliance with the U.S., has responded with a more assertive approach under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Despite some provisional agreements, incidents such as the June 17 clash that injured eight Filipino soldiers indicate that de-escalation may be temporary. The U.S. has called on China to reduce its coercive actions, while China accuses the U.S. of stirring unrest, suggesting the risk of further confrontation between these major powers remains high. - NYT
America Keeps Ukraine Fighting With Its Hands Tied:
On September 13th, there were hopes that Ukraine might gain approval to use British and French Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles against targets inside Russia, a decision that hinges on U.S. approval, as these missiles may rely on American satellite targeting and components. President Joe Biden met with Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, but no immediate decision was made, maintaining the policy that restricts Western-supplied long-range missiles to targets within Ukraine. Russia, concerned about a shift in policy, issued threats, expelling British diplomats on espionage accusations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed frustration at the limitations imposed on Ukraine, particularly as Russia continues to launch strikes using missiles and drones from locations deep within its borders. Zelensky plans to push Biden for more freedom to target Russian military facilities, emphasizing Ukraine’s right to self-defense under international law. Despite concerns about Russian escalation, analysts argue that many Russian “red lines” have already been crossed, and further restraint by the U.S. may not significantly alter Russia’s aggressive actions. Biden’s reluctance likely stems from concerns about further escalation, but experts suggest these fears may be overplayed. Any decision to allow Ukraine to strike within Russia with Western missiles may be quietly communicated without a formal public announcement. - Economist
Fear Factor, How to Know You’re in a Security Dilemma:
The concept of the security dilemma is pivotal in understanding international relations and conflicts among major powers, such as the United States, China, and Russia. This dilemma arises when a state’s actions taken to increase its security inadvertently make other states feel threatened, leading to escalating tensions and potential conflict, even if both sides merely seek peace. For instance, as China and the United States engage in strategic competition, both are navigating this dilemma. China's military buildup and assertive foreign policy can be perceived by the U.S. as aggressive, prompting the U.S. to bolster its own defenses and strategic presence, which in turn may be interpreted by China as a threat, perpetuating a cycle of insecurity and military competition. This cycle exemplifies how defensive measures by one state can provoke aggressive responses from others, making conflict more likely.
Similarly, the security dilemma helps elucidate the complex dynamics of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the broader East Asian geopolitical tensions. In the case of Russia, the invasion can be seen as a reaction to perceived threats from NATO’s expansion, which exacerbated Russian insecurities and compounded its aggressive actions. Russia's motivations may be a mix of both insecurity and expansionist desires, making it a particularly challenging adversary. In East Asia, particularly regarding Taiwan, the security dilemma is intensified. The U.S. commitment to defending Taiwan and enhancing its defenses is seen by China as a direct threat, complicating efforts to achieve stability in the region. Thus, the security dilemma presents a paradox where actions intended to ensure security often lead to greater insecurity and conflict, underscoring the difficulty in finding effective policy solutions amidst such intricate global rivalries.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Charles L. Glaser is a Senior Fellow in Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University.
September 6, 2024
Why Sudan's Catastrophic War is the World's Problem:
Sudan's ongoing war has evolved into one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, with a death toll potentially surpassing those in Gaza and Ukraine. Over 150,000 people have died, 10 million have been displaced, and famine threatens millions more. The conflict, fought between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), lacks ideological motives and is driven by warlords vying for power. Both sides have committed atrocities, including bombarding civilians and mass rapes, while external powers like Russia, Egypt, and the UAE fuel the violence by supplying arms.
The war's impact extends beyond Sudan, threatening regional stability in Africa, refugee crisis in Europe, and global trade routes like the Suez Canal. Despite this, the international response has been apathetic, overshadowed by other global conflicts. Immediate international action is critical to provide aid and reduce arms supplies, potentially saving millions from starvation and preventing further geopolitical instability. The world must prioritize Sudan to avoid worsening humanitarian and security fallout. - The Economist
U.S. and Iraqi Commandos Targeted ISIS in Sprawling Operation:
A major joint U.S.-Iraqi counterterrorism operation in western Iraq recently targeted key ISIS leaders, killing at least 14 fighters and capturing crucial documents. The mission, involving over 200 troops, was one of the most extensive in recent years and highlighted ISIS's resurgence in the region, despite the Iraqi government's claim that the group is largely contained. The United States has reported a surge in ISIS activity, especially in Syria, posing a continued threat to regional stability. The operation was aimed at disrupting ISIS's ability to plan attacks and involved a significant American military presence, though Iraqi officials downplayed U.S. involvement. Although the group no longer controls large territories, some 2,500 ISIS fighters remain active in remote areas, and the threat of their resurgence remains significant, especially in Syria. - New York Times
U.S. Tells Allies Iran Has Sent Ballistic Missiles to Russia:
Iran has reportedly delivered short-range ballistic missiles to Russia, marking a significant development in their military cooperation amid Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine. U.S. and European officials confirmed the shipment, raising concerns about further escalation of the conflict. Despite Iran’s denial, Western officials are alarmed by the deepening alliance between Moscow and Tehran. Iran’s missile transfer follows its earlier supply of drones to Russia, used in strikes against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. The West, including the U.S. and Europe, is preparing additional sanctions in response, though they may stop short of severing broader economic ties with Iran.
The transfer of Iranian ballistic missiles could have serious implications for Ukraine, whose air defenses, including the limited supply of Patriot missile-defense systems, are struggling to counter Russia’s missile barrages. Ukrainian officials have urged the international community for stronger support. This missile deal also risks undermining Iran’s diplomatic efforts to ease tensions with the West, especially given that the EU and U.S. had hoped to pursue further engagement with Iran’s new government. - Wall Street Journal
Iran Emerges as a Top Disinformation Threat in U.S. Presidential Race:
Iran has escalated its disinformation and propaganda campaigns, focusing on influencing the upcoming U.S. presidential election. These operations, which target both conservative and liberal audiences, aim to undermine confidence in the democratic process and deepen political polarization. Iran’s efforts have shifted from being overshadowed by Russia and China to becoming more aggressive and sophisticated, involving fake news websites like "Savannah Time" and "NioThinker," which pose as local American news outlets. According to U.S. intelligence and cybersecurity experts, Iran’s primary target seems to be former President Donald Trump, though it has also sought to discredit President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Iranian regime uses front companies and social media networks controlled by the Revolutionary Guards Corps to carry out these operations. The tactics include hacking political campaigns, spreading disinformation, and manipulating social issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict. Iran's ultimate goal appears to be destabilizing U.S. democracy and enhancing its geopolitical influence, similar to previous Russian interference efforts. Despite denials from Iranian officials, intelligence reports suggest that Tehran is determined to continue its influence campaigns without fear of repercussions. - New York Times
Zelensky reshuffles cabinet at key moment in war and ahead of U.S. trip:
Ukraine is undergoing its most significant government reshuffle since the 2022 Russian invasion, as President Volodymyr Zelensky seeks to reinvigorate the country's leadership amid intensifying conflict and as he prepares to present a "victory plan" in the U.S. His trip to the U.N. General Assembly in New York comes as Ukraine faces ongoing Russian missile strikes and renews calls for Western allies, including the U.S., to lift restrictions on long-range weapon use inside Russia. Several high-profile Ukrainian officials, including Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and other key ministers, submitted resignations as part of this shake-up. Zelensky's decision is aimed at addressing a perceived disconnect between parts of the government and the public, signaling a need for fresh leadership during this critical period of the war.
The reshuffle coincided with devastating Russian attacks, including a deadly missile strike in Poltava, killing over 50 people, and another in Lviv. Zelensky's government is seeking to bolster Ukraine's military capabilities, pressing allies for permission to strike deep into Russian territory to curb further air attacks. Meanwhile, internal political maneuvers are in play, with new appointments being made, including Andrii Sybiha as the potential new foreign minister. The situation remains fluid as Ukraine attempts to maintain international support and adapt to evolving challenges in the conflict. - Washington Post
Despite Ukraine’s Incursion, Putin Says He’s Willing to Talk Peace:
Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled a renewed interest in peace talks with Ukraine, suggesting a willingness to restart negotiations based on a failed 2022 draft treaty from Istanbul. This proposal, which Ukraine rejected at the time, would allow Kyiv to join the European Union but prevent NATO membership, disarm Ukraine, and limit foreign weapons on its soil—conditions that remain unacceptable to Ukraine. Putin’s comments come ahead of Ukrainian President Zelensky's visit to the U.S., aimed at securing more military support. Analysts see Putin's remarks as a strategic move to appeal to Western nations potentially weary of the economic cost of supporting Ukraine, while maintaining Russia’s goal of controlling eastern Ukraine's Donbas region. Despite recent Ukrainian incursions into Russian territory, neither side currently holds a decisive military advantage. Zelensky's position on peace remains focused on the full withdrawal of Russian forces, but both Russian and Ukrainian public opinion show small but growing support for negotiations, albeit with resistance to territorial concessions. - Wall Street Journal
The New Bioweapons:
Synthetic biology and recent scientific advancements have significantly increased the potential risks posed by biological threats. The development of new pathogens through engineered viruses and sophisticated biotechnologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9 and artificial intelligence (AI), has made it easier to create and manipulate dangerous organisms. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the vulnerabilities in global health systems and underscored the urgent need for improved defenses. The potential consequences of a man-made or enhanced pathogen escaping a laboratory could be devastating, possibly resulting in death tolls far exceeding those of historical pandemics like the Black Death. To mitigate these risks, experts emphasize the need for rapid detection systems, accelerated vaccine development, and robust governance of biotechnological research.
Historically, biological weapons have been pursued by various states and groups, from World War I to contemporary times, despite international treaties like the Biological Weapons Convention. The proliferation of advanced biological tools and AI technologies could potentially lower the barriers to creating such weapons. The challenge of defending against biological threats is compounded by the relative ease of generating pathogens compared to the complexity of developing a global response. Governments are urged to adopt comprehensive strategies, including bolstering biodefense infrastructure, enhancing international cooperation, and implementing stricter regulations on biological research and AI applications. This multifaceted approach is crucial to prevent and respond to potential biological risks effectively. - Foreign Affairs
Authors - ROGER BRENT is Professor of Basic Sciences at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. T. GREG MCKELVEY, JR., is a senior physician policy researcher and an adviser to the Meselson Center and the Technology and Security Policy Center at the RAND Corporation. JASON MATHENY is President and CEO of the RAND Corporation.
We Must Invest in Our Aging Nuclear Arsenal:
In recent years, global nuclear dynamics have shifted significantly, with authoritarian regimes intensifying their nuclear arsenals and capabilities. This trend is altering the balance of nuclear power, necessitating a reassessment of nuclear strategy by the United States and its allies. The U.S. currently relies on a nuclear triad—comprising bombers, ballistic missile submarines, and ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—which now requires substantial modernization and investment to maintain its effectiveness. The pressing challenge is primarily posed by China, which is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal and capabilities, prompting the Biden administration to realign its nuclear posture. However, the pace and scale of this investment remain critical concerns. Meanwhile, North Korea continues its provocative missile testing, and Iran is advancing its nuclear program with alarming speed, including developing long-range missiles. Russia's aggressive modernization of its nuclear forces and the potential development of space-based weapons further complicate the strategic landscape.
The current state of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, particularly the aging Minuteman III missiles, underscores the urgent need for modernization. The Department of Defense's Sentinel program, intended to replace these outdated missiles, has faced significant delays and cost overruns, raising concerns about its future. In response, it is crucial for both Democrats and Republicans to prioritize and fully fund this program, as well as invest in an integrated missile defense system capable of addressing evolving threats. This includes improving the ability to detect and intercept advanced weapon systems like hypersonic missiles. Additionally, enhancing missile defense capabilities through advanced technologies, such as high-energy lasers and coordinated defense networks, will be essential. A cohesive and well-funded defense strategy is necessary to address the increasing threats and ensure national security in a rapidly changing global environment. - New York Times
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mike Turner is the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and the head of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
August 23, 2024
Biden Approved Secret Nuclear Strategy Refocusing on Chinese Threat:
President Biden approved a highly classified nuclear strategy in March that shifts the U.S. deterrent focus to China, reflecting its rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal. The revised strategy, known as the "Nuclear Employment Guidance," is updated every few years and emphasizes preparing the U.S. for potential nuclear challenges from China, Russia, and North Korea. This new approach considers the possibility of coordinated nuclear threats from these nations and seeks to deter them simultaneously. The strategy's approval highlights a significant change in the U.S. nuclear posture, which traditionally focused primarily on Russia. It reflects concerns about China's growing nuclear capabilities, which are projected to rival the U.S. and Russia within a decade, and the increasing partnership between China and Russia, including their joint military exercises.
This new guidance comes amid heightened global nuclear tensions, with Russia's aggressive posturing in Ukraine and North Korea's expanding nuclear arsenal, which now potentially threatens coordinated action with Moscow and Beijing. The revised strategy underscores a more volatile nuclear landscape that the next U.S. president will face. Despite its significance, the new strategy has not yet been a major topic in the presidential campaign debates, and President Biden has only briefly acknowledged it without going into detail. The shift reflects an acknowledgment of the evolving nuclear threats and the need to adapt American nuclear strategy to address the possibility of collaboration among nuclear-armed adversaries, while also navigating the complexities of international relations with China and Russia. - New York Times
The Middle East's Bizarre Waiting game: Ceasefire or Armageddon?
The Middle East is at a critical juncture, with the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza hanging in the balance amid ongoing indirect talks between Israel and Hamas. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, on his ninth visit to the region since the conflict began, has emphasized the urgency of reaching a ceasefire, which he describes as "a decisive moment" and potentially "the last opportunity" to halt the violence. The proposed plan includes a six-week halt to hostilities, during which some hostages would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, followed by further negotiations on a comprehensive ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. However, this proposal faces significant hurdles: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is wary of angering his far-right allies, who threaten to destabilize his government if a deal is made, and Hamas remains unconvinced, rejecting what it sees as new, unacceptable conditions in the American proposal.
Complicating matters further, Iran's ambiguous stance adds another layer of uncertainty to the situation. While it has issued threats of direct attacks on Israel, it has yet to act, indicating a possible strategic delay as it weighs its options. Meanwhile, Hizbullah, Iran's ally, continues its sporadic attacks on Israel without escalating into full-scale conflict. Both Israel and Hamas are maneuvering for advantage, with Netanyahu concerned about maintaining Israeli control over key areas and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, operating from within Gaza's tunnels, remaining reluctant to release hostages without assurances of a full Israeli withdrawal. As the U.S. pushes for a resolution before its presidential election campaign heats up, the outcome remains uncertain, with the potential for either a breakthrough or further escalation. - Economist
How many hostages are still in Gaza since the Hamas attack on Israel?
What to know:
Since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, which resulted in the death of 1,200 people in Israel, an estimated 251 hostages were taken into Gaza. Currently, 71 hostages are believed to be alive, although the basis for Israel's estimates is not fully disclosed. A total of 116 hostages have been freed through various means, including a significant exchange deal in November 2023. The details regarding the hostages, including their identities, nationalities, and conditions, remain unclear, with conflicting reports about the deaths of some hostages during captivity. While most hostages are held by Hamas, others may be in the custody of different militant groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The number of hostages reported dead is at least 64, with Israel having recovered 30 bodies from Gaza. Hostages still believed to be in captivity include several foreign nationals and Israeli civilians, with ongoing uncertainty about their fate. Both Israel and Hamas have blamed each other for the deaths of certain hostages, but these claims remain unverifiable. The hostage crisis remains a significant point of tension in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, with both sides engaging in negotiations and military operations to resolve the situation. - Washington Post
It Isn’t Just Israel and Hamas. Israel and Egypt Have to Agree, Too:
The Biden administration is working to finalize a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas but faces complications due to disagreements between Israel and Egypt. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants Israeli troops stationed along the Gaza-Egypt border (the Philadelphi Corridor) to prevent Hamas smuggling, but Egypt opposes this, citing treaty violations and not wanting to appear complicit in an Israeli occupation of Gaza. This impasse is complicating ceasefire negotiations, with the U.S. attempting to mediate a compromise.
Despite U.S. efforts to broker a deal, including meetings between top U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian officials, significant obstacles remain. Egypt demands no Israeli military presence along the border, while Israel insists on security measures against Hamas. This disagreement has strained Israel-Egypt relations, threatening regional stability and the potential success of a ceasefire. While there is hope for a resolution between Israel and Egypt, a compromise with Hamas remains uncertain. - Wall Street Journal
As Ukraine Pushes Into Russia, Its Next Steps Are Unclear:
Ukraine's recent incursion into western Russia has sparked discussions about creating a buffer zone, though the extent of their advance and the duration of their stay remain uncertain. Ukrainian forces have captured around 400 square miles, but U.S. officials doubt Ukraine's intention to hold the territory long-term, citing the absence of defensive fortifications like trenches and minefields. The Ukrainian strategy appears opportunistic, exploiting Russia's disorganized response and internal security rivalries. However, the more territory Ukraine captures, the more challenging it will be to defend with its limited troops.
While Ukraine's advance has surprised Russia, causing logistical and command issues, U.S. and British support, including satellite imagery, aims to help Ukraine monitor potential Russian counterattacks rather than push deeper into Russian territory. There are concerns that Ukraine's expanded front line could overstretch its forces, potentially weakening defenses in other critical areas like the Donbas region. Despite these risks, Ukraine's offensive has demonstrated improved military tactics, particularly in "combined arms" operations, which had been a weakness in previous campaigns. - New York Times
Ukraine Cites Modi Visit as the Fruit of an Emerging Diplomatic Push:
Ukraine is claiming that its recent military incursion into Russia coincides with a strategic diplomatic push aimed at garnering broader international support for its negotiating position in potential peace talks. This diplomatic effort includes engaging with neutral or Russia-leaning nations, such as China and India. A notable example of this strategy is the planned visit to Kyiv by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which Ukrainian officials see as a significant diplomatic success. India, maintaining a careful balance between Ukraine and Russia, has not sought a mediating role but is open to conveying messages if requested. Mr. Modi's visit to Kyiv, especially following his earlier trip to Moscow and continued trade relations with Russia, underscores India's complex diplomatic stance amidst the ongoing conflict.
Ukraine's dual approach of military action and diplomatic engagement aims to strengthen its position in any future negotiations. The recent incursion into Russia has demonstrated Ukraine's ability to take the initiative and challenge the perceived stalemate in the war, while also highlighting the complexity of the conflict with multiple theaters of war. However, despite these efforts, there are no current peace talks scheduled, and Ukraine faces challenges on the ground and in maintaining international support. The visit by Mr. Modi is seen as a "big diplomatic breakthrough" for Ukraine, emphasizing its push to encourage neutral countries to adopt a more balanced stance in their relations with the warring nations. - New York Times
Venezuela’s Maduro Intensifies Repression:
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is intensifying his crackdown on opposition and dissent following a controversial election victory on July 28, which opposition groups claim he lost in a landslide. His government has imprisoned around 2,400 critics on charges such as terrorism, using repressive tactics reminiscent of allied dictatorships like Cuba and Russia. Maduro's regime has resorted to labeling dissidents as "fascists," implementing new "anti-fascism" laws to target activists and human rights organizations, and encouraging citizens to report those who criticize the government via a state-run app. Security forces have been deployed to Caracas slums to deter protests, and a climate of fear pervades as many opposition members are forced into hiding or exile.
International response has been critical, with the U.S. and other countries condemning the election results and threatening further sanctions against Venezuelan leaders. Despite mounting evidence of electoral fraud and the stifling of civil liberties, Maduro continues to consolidate power by leveraging control over state institutions, including the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed his election victory without providing evidence. As civil society faces increasing oppression, Venezuela's shift from a polarized democracy towards an outright dictatorship appears to be accelerating. - Wall Street Journal
America Needs a Strategy for China:
The current U.S. strategy toward China lacks a clear, long-term objective, contrasting with the Cold War approach to the Soviet Union, which had a well-defined end goal of containment. While there is bipartisan agreement on short-term measures, such as arming Taiwan and reducing economic dependence on China, there is little consensus on a broader strategic vision. The Biden administration's approach has shifted from a focus on constraining China to managing competition, prioritizing diplomacy and collaboration on global issues rather than containment. This strategy, however, may be insufficient given China’s aggressive pursuit of global hegemony and the ongoing threats it poses, including military aggression and cyberattacks.
The absence of a clear, assertive strategy may embolden China and undermine U.S. interests. The lack of an overarching goal like containment could allow China to expand its influence unchecked, creating an environment ripe for conflict. Effective competition with China requires a strong, unified approach and clear communication to the American public about the stakes involved. This includes confronting China's attempts to undermine democratic institutions and advance its authoritarian model. Mobilizing public support and pursuing a more decisive strategy might be essential to countering China's ambitions and achieving a stable international order. - Wall Street Journal
Author - Mr. Gallagher, a Journal contributor, is head of defense for Palantir Technologies and a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute. He represented Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District (2017-24) and was chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
The Crumbling Foundations of American Strength:
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine highlights a shift in global power dynamics, demonstrating that traditional measures of military strength are not the sole indicators of a nation's power. Despite Russia's significant defense spending and military resources, Ukraine's unexpected resilience in the conflict is largely attributed to its highly educated population and rapid technological innovation, including the use of homemade drones and weapons. This shift from tangible resources to intangible assets like technology and knowledge signifies a broader transformation in how power is defined and projected.
The United States faces significant challenges in maintaining its global influence as its traditional power bases erode. U.S. K–12 education and research universities are struggling with declining performance and funding, while the private sector increasingly drives technological advancements. The erosion of basic research funding and outdated immigration policies exacerbate these issues, leading to a loss of talent and innovation capacity. To counter these trends, the U.S. needs to revamp its approach to education, invest more heavily in basic research, and develop a national strategic infrastructure for technological innovation, ensuring that knowledge remains a cornerstone of its future strength. - Foreign Affairs
Author - AMY ZEGART is the Morris Arnold and Nona Jean Cox Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI Institute, and the author of Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence.
The Trouble With Allies:
When dealing with friends and allies whose interests and policies diverge from those of the United States, there are six main strategies to consider. The most common approach is persuasion, aiming to convince the ally to align with U.S. preferences, though this often fails when the ally resists U.S. advice. Another strategy involves offering incentives to induce compliance; however, these incentives can be limited or ineffective. Sanctions are a third option, used to compel a change in behavior, but they can backfire, particularly when the benefits of maintaining the alliance outweigh the issues at hand. A fourth strategy is to ignore the disagreements, which has been used in the past, such as with Israel's nuclear program. While this can sometimes be pragmatic, it risks ignoring critical issues, as seen with Israeli settlement activities. A fifth tactic involves attempting regime change, which is often impractical and can lead to more problems than it solves, as demonstrated by the experience in South Vietnam. The sixth approach is for the U.S. to act independently by openly criticizing the ally’s policies and pursuing alternative strategies, which can help maintain the relationship while also mitigating any negative impacts. This method allows the U.S. to protect its interests and preserve valuable alliances despite disagreements. - Foreign Affairs
Author - RICHARD HAASS is President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Counselor at Centerview Partners, and the author of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens.
August 16, 2024
In Secret Talks, U.S. Offers Amnesty to Venezuela's Maduro for Ceding Power
The U.S. is exploring a strategy to encourage Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down by offering amnesty, in light of substantial evidence suggesting that he lost the recent election. This approach includes potential pardons for Maduro and his top aides, who face criminal charges in the U.S. The Biden administration has reportedly put "everything on the table" to persuade Maduro to leave before his term ends in January. Meanwhile, Maduro has maintained his grip on power by jailing dissidents, keeping the military's loyalty, and leveraging a Supreme Court filled with his allies to buy time. International intervention may be necessary to resolve the political crisis, as Maduro's 11-year rule has led to economic collapse, widespread emigration, and strengthened ties with U.S. rivals like Russia and China.
Despite the amnesty offer and ongoing secret talks, Maduro remains wary of U.S. intentions, especially given Washington's past actions against his regime. While Latin America's largest countries are involved in efforts to address the situation, their stance has been relatively soft, primarily pushing for transparency. The U.S. has limited time to negotiate a transition before the next presidential inauguration in Venezuela, with future talks and strategies heavily influenced by the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November. The opposition in Venezuela has played a crucial role in documenting Maduro's electoral defeat, despite significant risks, as Maduro tightens his control and cracks down on dissent. - Wall Street Journal
U.S. proposes final Gaza cease-fire plan, seeking agreement by next week:
The United States, Qatar, and Egypt have jointly proposed a final cease-fire and hostage exchange deal between Israel and Hamas, aiming for an agreement by the end of the following week. Although details of the deal remain undisclosed, progress has been made after two days of intensive negotiations in Qatar, with U.S. President Joe Biden expressing optimism about the situation. The proposal reportedly bridges gaps between the conflicting parties and is intended to allow for a swift implementation of the deal, which involves a six-week ceasefire, the release of hostages, and Israeli withdrawal from key areas in Gaza.
However, despite this progress, both Israel and Hamas have expressed reservations, with each side accusing the other of deviating from previously agreed-upon terms. Senior officials from both sides, as well as representatives from the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt, are expected to reconvene in Cairo to finalize the details. The negotiations carry high stakes, particularly with the looming threat of an Iranian attack on Israel, which has been urged by Qatar to hold off to preserve the diplomatic efforts. The talks are being closely monitored by various stakeholders, including the U.S. and Israel, which remains on high alert for any sudden escalation. - Washington Post
Ukraines Push Into Russia Met Early Success. Where Does It Go From Here?
Ukraine's recent incursion into Russia's Kursk region represents a significant shift in the conflict, potentially complicating Moscow's ability to launch a major renewed offensive in eastern Ukraine. U.S. officials highlight that while the operation has been successful so far, its long-term strategic impact remains uncertain. The surprise nature of the attack contrasts with Ukraine's previous failed counteroffensive in the south, demonstrating an improvement in Ukraine's mechanized warfare capabilities. This incursion aims to divert Russian forces from the front lines in Ukraine and could serve as a bargaining chip in future negotiations, though it is unlikely to drive Russia to the table immediately.
The operation has boosted Ukrainian morale and exposed vulnerabilities in Russia's defenses, creating a dilemma for President Vladimir Putin. American officials note that while Ukraine's move has shocked the Kremlin, it will need to be followed by additional daring operations to sustain pressure on Russia. Despite the success of the Kursk operation, U.S. officials remain cautious, viewing it as a high-stakes gamble with potential long-term consequences yet to be fully realized. The operation also reflects a shift in U.S. policy, with President Biden authorizing limited strikes inside Russia, marking a new chapter in the conflict. - New York Times
Reluctantly, America eyes building more nuclear weapons:
The post-Cold War era of nuclear de-escalation has ended, giving rise to a complex and unpredictable global nuclear rivalry. Unlike the bipolar tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, today's landscape involves multiple nuclear and near-nuclear powers, some of which are increasingly paranoid. This environment presents significant challenges for the U.S., which must reassure its allies of its continued protection while expanding its nuclear arsenal to address emerging threats. Failure to do so could lead to widespread nuclear proliferation, making the world less secure. Evidence of these growing dangers includes China's rapid expansion of its missile capabilities, Russia's nuclear posturing, and North Korea's continued weapons development. Meanwhile, Iran is closer to developing nuclear weapons, and there is a growing alliance among these nations in military technology, which further complicates the global nuclear threat.
As the number of warheads worldwide begins to rise again, with China on track to become the third nuclear superpower, the U.S. faces the challenge of maintaining a credible deterrent against multiple adversaries simultaneously. The Pentagon has already started adapting by embracing new weapons and strategies, but political uncertainty and isolationist sentiments in the U.S. raise concerns among allies. If allies lose faith in America's nuclear umbrella, they may pursue their own nuclear capabilities, leading to further destabilization. While arms control talks have stalled, the U.S. must strengthen its position to encourage future negotiations. Maintaining and expanding extended deterrence is essential for global security, and the U.S. must continue to protect its allies to prevent nuclear proliferation and preserve global stability. - The Economist
A Post - American Europe:
For decades, U.S. policy in Europe has centered on maintaining a strong presence through NATO, with the U.S. serving as the primary security provider and European nations accepting American leadership. However, the Republican Party, influenced by former President Donald Trump's stance, has increasingly questioned this arrangement, advocating for European nations to shoulder more of the defense burden. In contrast, Democrats, under President Joe Biden, have doubled down on their commitment to European defense, celebrating NATO's recent expansion. The article argues that while this debate is necessary, both sides have misidentified the central U.S. interest in Europe, which has historically been to prevent any single nation from dominating the continent. With no clear hegemonic threat today, particularly from a weakened Russia, the article suggests that the U.S. should shift its approach, reducing its military presence and allowing Europe to take primary responsibility for its own security.
The authors, Justin Logan and Joshua Shifrinson, propose that the U.S. should gradually withdraw troops and encourage European nations to strengthen their own defense capabilities, ultimately transitioning NATO into a European-led alliance. They argue that this shift would allow the U.S. to focus on more pressing global challenges while ensuring that Europe remains stable without over-relying on American support. The article underscores that while Europe must still contend with security challenges, the current distribution of power on the continent and Russia's diminished capacity make it possible for European states to manage their own defense. This would realign the transatlantic relationship, allowing the U.S. to act as a balancer rather than a dominant power, which could lead to significant budgetary savings and more focused U.S. foreign policy.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Justin Logan is the Director of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Joshua Shifrinson is an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. - Foreign Affairs
America Isn't Ready for the Wars of the Future:
On the current battlefields of Ukraine, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned systems is revolutionizing warfare. Ukrainian forces are deploying thousands of drones equipped with AI to navigate the battlefield, avoid obstacles, and identify targets with unprecedented precision. This technology has significantly enhanced their capability to strike enemy tanks and aircraft, while Russian units face constant surveillance and disruptions in their communications. Both nations are in a technological arms race, striving to develop more advanced systems to outmaneuver and neutralize each other’s defenses. The rapid advancement of drone technology is not confined to Ukraine; it is also evident in conflicts across Myanmar, Sudan, Libya, and Gaza, where unmanned systems and AI-driven strategies are reshaping military operations.
Despite the surge in technological advancements, the United States risks falling behind due to its sluggish adaptation to these new realities. Current U.S. military tactics, equipment, and training methods are not fully equipped to counter the proliferation of AI-powered drones and autonomous weapons. Meanwhile, adversaries like Russia and China are making significant strides in military technology, with Russia's experience in Ukraine and China's ambitious restructuring efforts emphasizing tech-driven forces. To maintain its global military dominance, the U.S. must urgently reform its defense procurement processes, embrace innovative technologies, and overhaul its training and operational strategies. Failure to adapt could leave the U.S. vulnerable to future conflicts where AI and autonomous systems play a central role.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (2019-2023), Visiting Professor at Princeton University, and Distinguished Fellow in Residence at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, and Eric Schmidt, Chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project and former CEO and Chair of Google - Foreign Affairs