Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quote of the Day:

"Ignorance worships boundaries; wisdom worships horizons."

– Eratosthenes (of Cyrene)

"We're all islands shouting lies to each other across seas of misunderstanding."

– Rudyard Kipling

"The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie."

– Mark Twain

1. (now two) Three Days Left to Support HRNK This Giving Tuesday (Request for Your Support)

2. Trump’s Focus on Drug War Means Big Business for Defense Startups

3. Why Russia and China Are Sitting Out Venezuela’s Clash With Trump

4. Is America Heading for a Debt Crisis? Look Abroad for Answers

5. China is bearing down on Taiwan – enabled by Trump’s weakness and vacillation

6. China move that could ‘paralyse’ globe as Xi Jinping urges return of Taiwan

7. Taiwan’s history is of independence

8. U.S. scholar urges Taiwan to prioritize deployable asymmetric weapons

9. The Military Faces a Make-or-Break Moment

10. China is bamboozling Patel on fentanyl

11. This Autonomous Submarine Is At The Center Of Naval Warfare's Biggest Change In Decades

12. Why Grok is first and foremost a disinformation machine

13. America’s Industrial Backbone

14. Arizona State’s President Is Pulling Out All the Stops to Get on Trump’s Good Side

15. These universities are reviving higher education’s civic seriousness

16. Before, There Was 'Shell Shock.' Now Soldiers In Trenches Suffer From Drone-Induced 'FPV Syndrome.'

17. The quiet US pivot to Latin America

18. Ukraine’s peace talks reveal the risks of replacing diplomats with dealmakers

19. Forget Aircraft Carriers: Diesel Submarines Are Becoming Silent and Stealth Powerhouse

20. The People Are The Weapon System

21. Russia Gains the Upper Hand in the Drone Battle, Once Ukraine’s Forte

19.

1. (now two) Three Days Left to Support HRNK This Giving Tuesday (Request for Your Support)

Please read the message below from Greg Scarlatoiu, the President and CEO of HRNK.

If you can only give to one organization on Tuesday, please consider the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK).

Neither the Biden nor the current Trump administrations have provided financial support, yet the State Department has used HRNK reporting and research for many years.

Please think about the 26 million Koreans in the north who are suffering under the most despotic regime in the world and the worst human rights abusers committing crimes against humanity on a scale not seen since World War II.

De Oppresso Liber - let us help the oppressed free themselves.

"Unification first, then denuclearization; the path to unification is through information and human rights."

Three Days Left to Support HRNK This Giving Tuesday

https://www.hrnk.org/three-days-left-to-support-hrnk-this-giving-tuesday/

Dear Friends and Supporters of HRNK,

On Tuesday, December 2, please keep HRNK in your thoughts and prayers. We need your generous support. Defunded by the U.S. government under the previous and the current U.S. administrations, HRNK is facing an existential crisis. We have been telling the truth about North Korea’s crimes against humanity since 2001. State Department funding assisted our satellite imagery investigation of North Korea’s political detention, workers officially dispatched overseas, and information environment, beginning in October 2014. That support vanished in March 2023. Without your help, downsizing will occur, unfortunately to the point where the very existence of HRNK may be in jeopardy.

North Korea’s Kim regime procures the funds needed to fuel its nuclear and missile programs as well as other tools of death by oppressing and exploiting its people at home and abroad. To this day, 200.000 North Korean men, women, and children are imprisoned at North Korea’s kwan-li-so political prison camps, pursuant to the yeon-jwa-jae system of guilt by association. The Kim regime is more than a Korean peninsula or regional threat. The human rights-security nexus it has generated is now threatening international peace and security, through the exportation of instability and violence to Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

A UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) accredited NGO since April 2018, HRNK can continue the good fight only with your help.

Please donate to HRNK. In addition to your personal assistance, we implore you to put us in contact with any grant agency or other potential donors you may know, that may be willing to support our mission.

Our Board member David Maxwell made a most compelling case for support to HRNK, in two recent articles:

Why Committee for Human Rights in North Korea Must Be Funded – Now More Than Ever:

https://www.upi.com/Voices/2025/10/27/perspective-committee-for-human-rights-North-Korea/6181761599619

Regime Fears the Truth: How HRNK Gives World Its Most Powerful Weapon against North Korea:

https://www.upi.com/Voices/2025/11/10/perspective-human-rights-north-korea/5071762787247/

To fund HRNK, please mail a check to 1801 F Street NW, Suite 305, Washington, DC 20006 or use the following link:

https://www.hrnk.org/donate/

The best way we can answer your generosity is to continue to ardently seek freedom, justice, democracy, and economic opportunity for the people of North Korea.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Have a Blessed Holiday Season,

Sincerely,

Greg Scarlatoiu

President and CEO, HRNK

2. Trump’s Focus on Drug War Means Big Business for Defense Startups

Summary:

POTUS' intensified drug war has opened a lucrative new market for defense-tech and AI startups, which are repurposing China- and Russia-focused systems for counternarcotics missions. Drones, imaging platforms and AI tools now support Coast Guard and Navy interdictions in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, mapping cartels and Chinese-linked fentanyl networks. A record cocaine seizure and lethal strikes on small boats showcase the new tempo of operations, despite legal and human rights concerns. Billions in new funding for DHS, the Pentagon and Coast Guard are driving rapid adoption of drones, robotics and counterdrone systems, turning the region into a live testbed for emerging defense technologies.

Trump’s Focus on Drug War Means Big Business for Defense Startups

WSJ

By Heather Somerville

and Vera Bergengruen

Nov. 29, 2025 9:00 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trumps-focus-on-drug-war-means-big-business-for-defense-startups-04f45ce8

Defense-tech companies and AI startups have found a vital new market in President Trump’s rapidly escalating drug war.
Drone and imaging companies are assisting the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy with interdiction operations in the Caribbean.
The administration’s crackdown has transformed the perennially sleepy military zone of the Caribbean and eastern Pacific into a hub of activity.

An artificial-intelligence tool created this summary, which was based on the text of the article and checked by an editor. Read more about how we use artificial intelligence in our journalism.

Defense-tech companies and AI startups have found a vital new market in President Trump’s rapidly escalating drug war.

The U.S. military has turned its attention southward, and the defense industry is lining up to sell it the tools for a different kind of war.

Defense-tech companies and artificial-intelligence startups have found a vital new market in President Trump’s rapidly escalating drug war. Weapons and AI platforms that were designed for a future conflict with China or struggled to prove themselves on the Ukrainian battlefield have found a niche in the administration’s tech-enabled crackdown on drug trafficking.

Drone and imaging companies are assisting the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy with interdiction operations in the Caribbean. AI companies from Silicon Valley to Dubai are pitching platforms that promise to map the hidden networks of fentanyl traffickers. On the southern U.S. border, a counterdrone system developed in Ukraine is being repurposed to deflect incursions from Mexico.

As Washington has revived the rhetoric and legal tools of the global war on terror, more companies large and small have staked their claims to the emerging market, at times retooling to fit the latest mission. They have rebranded their drones, sensors, AI tools and data platforms as custom tools for Trump’s fight against “narco-terror.”

The effort has accelerated since early September, when the U.S. military began an unprecedented campaign against small drug-trafficking vessels, executing strikes that have killed more than 80 people. Some regional allies have accused the U.S. of extrajudicial killings of civilians. The Trump administration maintains that drug cartels pose an imminent threat to America’s national security.

Coast Guard video of a suspect vessel as it was tracked in the eastern Pacific by a V-BAT drone. U.S. COAST GUARD

The legality of the boat strikes has been contested by U.S. lawmakers, foreign allies, the United Nations and human-rights groups. But the pushback mostly hasn’t deterred companies jockeying for a role in the Trump administration’s broader counternarcotics operations.

In an interview, Palantir Technologies Chief Executive Alex Karp declined to say whether his company’s technology was involved in counternarcotics operations, but voiced support for the strikes. “If we are involved, I am very proud,” Karp said. “I believe that fentanyl is a scourge on the working class of America and that if this scourge was affecting non-working-class people we would use extreme violence and so I support what they’re doing.”

While the administration’s upcoming national-defense strategy hasn’t been publicly released, people familiar with the document said much of it is devoted to homeland defense and hemispheric security—a significant shift toward the Western Hemisphere that gives concern over China a back seat.

“The counternarcotics mission has already opened new, unanticipated revenue lines,” said Aubrey Manes, senior director of mission at Vannevar Labs, a startup providing intelligence to national-security agencies. The company said it uses AI to help U.S. authorities uncover and disrupt drug-supply chains by mapping transnational criminal organizations and China-based suppliers, and to gauge public sentiment regarding U.S. operations against suspected Venezuelan drug boats.

Pallets of seized cocaine aboard a U.S. Coast Guard cutter at Port Everglades, Fla. Rebecca Blackwell/AP

In November, the Coast Guard unveiled at Port Everglades, Fla., a record seizure of around 60,000 pounds of cocaine. Assisting in the operation was a drone from Shield AI, which makes surveillance drones that can be launched from ships and spend up to 13 hours flying over water, sending video feeds to operators and flagging possible targets.

During a press conference announcing the seizure, Brandon Tseng, co-founder of Shield AI, interrupted a Coast Guard official’s comments to cheer, “Hell, yes!”

Shield AI started in 2015 with the aim to offer reconnaissance in U.S. operations in the Middle East. After the U.S. wound down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, defense-tech companies such as Shield AI found that a pipeline flowing with billions of dollars in defense contracts had slowed to a trickle.

Setbacks last year, including a grisly testing accident in which a servicemember’s fingers were partially severed in the blades of one of the company’s V-BAT drones, caused Shield AI to miss its financial targets. The opportunity in counternarcotics opened a new chapter. Building on a $198 million contract it awarded Shield AI in 2024, the Coast Guard said it plans to add V-BATs to a dozen cutters, plus more on land near the U.S. southern border.

Brandon Tseng, president and co-founder of Shield AI, on the company's production floor in Frisco, Texas. Desiree Rios for WSJ

Components undergo testing at the site in Texas. Desiree Rios for WSJ

Brandon Tseng, president and co-founder of Shield AI, on the company's production floor in Frisco, Texas. At right, components undergo testing at the site. Desiree Rios for WSJ

Anthony Antognoli, the Coast Guard’s program executive officer for robotics and autonomous systems, credits the V-BAT with more than $1 billion in narcotics seizures since the start of the year. A drone that can travel around 1,000 nautical miles, the equivalent of 1,150 miles, can do the work of 10 cutters, he said, allowing the Coast Guard to track and intersect people and drugs in the 4.5 million square miles it is responsible for covering.

“It is impossible to do that work with humans and patrol cutters alone,” Antognoli said.

A V-BAT drone is positioned for testing in Frisco, Texas. Desiree Rios for WSJ

The president’s spending bill in July gave the Department of Homeland Security an extra $165 billion over the next decade, including $6 billion to expand U.S.-Mexico “border security technology” such as surveillance. It also gave the Pentagon an additional $1 billion for antidrug and border missions. The Coast Guard received $4 billion more for cutters to patrol open waters and $350 million for robotics and autonomous systems.

“There’s priority and money,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a retired Marine colonel. “For business, that’s good.”

Since July, the Coast Guard has acquired several hundred aerial drones and undersea and surface vessels. “Our vision is to have robotics and autonomous systems as the foundation for the way the Coast Guard operates its missions,” Antognoli said. The Coast Guard’s priority right now, he said, is counternarcotics. “The narcotics threat to America is real and ever present and consistent,” he added.

The administration’s crackdown has transformed the perennially sleepy military zone of the Caribbean and eastern Pacific into a hub of activity.

U.S. Southern Command, which oversees operations in most of Latin America from Florida, tends to focus on chronically underfunded tasks including humanitarian missions. It has suddenly found itself at the center of an unprecedented lethal campaign. While it typically has a ship or two a month in the Caribbean, it now has a dozen or so ships, plus drones and other aircraft.

A Southern Command official asked lawmakers for more resources in February, arguing that the region is “an ideal setting for demonstrating new technologies” and a testing ground for robotic and unmanned systems in counternarcotics.

Newsletter Sign-up

Technology

A weekly digest of tech columns, big stories and personal tech advice, plus a news ticker and a touch of dark humor.

“We are really good at finding small boats,” said Greg Davis, chief executive of Overwatch Imaging, which makes airborne camera systems with superhuman vision that are bolted onto drones that are stationed on ships in the Navy’s Fourth Fleet in the Caribbean, and drones launching from California to patrol the eastern Pacific. “We get better intelligence, and better intelligence always helps,” he said.

The Defense Innovation Unit, a branch of the Defense Department that works to bring more startup innovation into the military, in September requested that startups pitch their best ideas for technology “capable of reliably stopping non-compliant small watercraft without placing undue risk to” people.

These counternarcotics missions are simpler than others that defense startups have pursued, said military strategists and company executives. Flying a drone over the Caribbean is easier than over Ukraine, where electronic warfare has rendered many American-made drones ineffective or unusable, and the distances are shorter than in a hypothetical China-Taiwan conflict. The drones sneaking over the border from Mexico, after being launched by drug cartels, are often Chinese off-the-shelf models—soft targets for jamming.

Foreign startups are also closely watching the shift in America’s defense priorities and positioning themselves for business opportunity. Rakia Group, a small company headquartered in Dubai, recently set up a U.S. subsidiary to pitch its AI tools to U.S. government agencies for countering drug trafficking, terrorism and illegal immigration.

Chief Executive Omri Raiter said its platform can connect the dots between activity on encrypted messaging apps, dark-web markets, boat and mobile-phone signals, social media and other data feeds to help investigators map trafficking routes that are hard to see. For example: spotting ships and containers whose movement or paperwork doesn’t match their weight or ownership records.

These companies are eager to put themselves “in a position that’s kind of of the moment in terms of the national-security discussions,” said William Hartung, a defense-spending expert at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “There’s a lot of money to be made.”

At the U.S. southern border, the Army is gathering the latest counterdrone technology to take down incoming drones deemed a threat. And it has enlisted Ukraine’s expertise: Moodro, a startup co-founded by a Ukrainian, Michael Obod, has technology to jam drones from up to around 10 miles away, and it is developing a longer-range version of its system for the Army.

“We put all of our investment in Ukraine first, but we see a lot of interest in the U.S.,” Obod said.

In January, the Army said, it is set to evaluate counterdrone and drone companies at a demonstration for the 101st Airborne Division at a base in Kentucky.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What could be the consequences of a broader U.S. military presence in Latin America? Join the conversation below.

The Army has awarded a counterdrone company, Epirus, $44 million for two of its new-generation systems, which are set to be tested in a few months. “It’s looking as good as it could look for us,” Chief Executive Andy Lowery said.

Epirus’s systems are designed to take down drones at close range, without damaging anything or anyone else around them. Lowery said his company wants no part of a more-literal war.

“I’m a strange cat, I’ve got a spiritual side of myself,” Lowery said. “If the government decides to use big guns and bring back the battleships, I’m not getting involved.”

Write to Heather Somerville at heather.somerville@wsj.com and Vera Bergengruen at vera.bergengruen@wsj.com

WSJ

3. Why Russia and China Are Sitting Out Venezuela’s Clash With Trump

Summary:

Venezuela’s confrontation with POTUS exposes the limits of its “axis of authoritarianism.” Despite U.S. naval buildup and threats to oust Nicolás Maduro, Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and others offer little beyond rhetoric, minor maintenance help and small fuel cargos. Moscow is drained by the Ukraine war; Beijing is constrained by a weak economy, sanctions risk and a creditor-trap reliance on Venezuelan oil for debt repayment. Both are courting major deals with Washington, so they will not jeopardize talks for Caracas. Maduro’s regime discovers that peacetime anti-U.S. solidarity does not translate into real military backing when deterrence counts.

Comment: I fear they might be employing Bonaparte's dictum: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Will our actions in Venezuela cause a "domestic implosion" in the US? The politics over the "illegela orders" controversy could very well escalate. This would surely be of benefit to China and Russia. But I hope that sitting it out is an indication of the weakness of the Dark Quad or CRInK.

Why Russia and China Are Sitting Out Venezuela’s Clash With Trump

WSJ

The ‘Axis of Authoritarianism’ is depleted by the war in Ukraine and preoccupied with trade negotiations

By Kejal Vyas

and James T. Areddy

Nov. 29, 2025 2:03 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/why-russia-and-china-are-sitting-out-venezuelas-clash-with-trump-0fcc7710

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro marched in a Caracas rally this past week to protest U.S. threats. Gaby Oraa/Reuters

Venezuela’s anti-American allies, including Russia and China, offer limited support despite a U.S. military buildup.
Russia and China face internal challenges, such as the war in Ukraine and a weak economy, tempering their aid to Venezuela.
China, Venezuela’s largest creditor, has reduced loans and relies on oil exports for debt repayment, creating a “creditor trap.”

An artificial-intelligence tool created this summary, which was based on the text of the article and checked by an editor. Read more about how we use artificial intelligence in our journalism.

Venezuela’s anti-American allies, including Russia and China, offer limited support despite a U.S. military buildup.

For two decades, Venezuela cultivated anti-American allies across the globe, from Russia and China to Cuba and Iran, in the hope of forming a new world order that could stand up to Washington.

It isn’t working.

Russia, China, Cuba, Iran and other anti-American powers are offering little more than words of support for Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as he faces a U.S. military buildup that President Trump has said is aimed at forcing his ouster. Like Iran when it came under military attack from Israel and the U.S., Venezuela is finding its authoritarian allies on the sidelines of conflict.

“The so-called axis of authoritarianism looks much stronger in peacetime,” said Ryan C. Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “It has proven to be a little hollow in times of need.”

In recent days, with a flotilla of American naval forces arrayed on Venezuela’s doorstep, Caracas’s allies have offered only birthday wishes for Maduro, who turned 63 on Nov. 23. “In tough times, on the difficult paths, on the challenging crossroads, shines the spiritual light of the warrior who knows how to fight and win,” Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega said in a letter.

Trump hasn’t said yet whether he will escalate the U.S. military campaign to land strikes on Venezuela after three months of strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. Those strikes have killed more than 80 people.

The U.S. says the boats, some of which the military says originated from Venezuela, were carrying drugs for cartels and gangs that it has designated as terrorist organizations. Critics say the strikes amount to extrajudicial killings and are unnerving U.S. allies who are increasingly wary of sharing intelligence.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Maduro sat across from each other during a May meeting in Moscow. Ding Haitao/Xinhua/Zuma Press

Analysts who track Venezuela say its partners are essentially powerless against the U.S. Close partners like Cuba, Iran and Nicaragua are economically hobbled and have little capacity to intervene in Venezuela.

Maduro’s two most powerful allies, China and Russia, have previously provided military equipment, maintenance and training, say analysts, along with economic assistance. As Maduro prepares defensive action, the Russians are helping with aircraft upkeep and surface-to-air missile systems, according to people familiar with the matter.

Last weekend, two oil tankers identified by the European Union as having transported banned Russian oil arrived in Venezuela with light crude and naphtha. Venezuela badly needs those products to produce fuel and pump its own heavier oil for export to China.

It is far from enough, analysts said.

Newsletter Sign-up

What’s News

Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox daily. Enjoy a free article in every edition.

“These are small gestures that are not going to be sufficient if the U.S. moves to deadly force on Venezuela,” said Vladimir Rouvinski, an international relations professor at Icesi University in Colombia who tracks Moscow’s engagement in Latin America.

Both Russia and China face challenges that temper their interest in Venezuela’s security concerns. For Moscow, it is the cost of its grinding war with Ukraine and for Beijing it is a weak economy that limits its generosity. The U.S.-led financial sanctions on Caracas add to the complications of dealing with the country.

Both countries are trying to negotiate major diplomatic and trade deals with Trump now, giving them little incentive to waste political capital on Venezuela.

“Russia isn’t going to help Maduro beyond what they’ve already done,” Rouvinski added.

Russia and China provided similar diplomatic support to Iran during its 12-day war with Israel this year, but both stood on the sidelines militarily, even after the U.S. military in June bombed the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.

Maduro arrived to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in May. Maxim Shemetov/AFP/Getty Images

Under Maduro’s predecessor, the leftist firebrand Hugo Chávez, Venezuela used its vast oil and mineral resources to build commercial and political relationships with U.S. adversaries. Chinese banks lent Venezuela billions of dollars, to be repaid in oil, to finance housing, telecoms and other infrastructure.

Cuba received cut-rate oil in exchange for doctors and military advisers who helped root out dissent in the Venezuelan army, former military officials say. Iran set up small auto manufacturing plants. Belarus even had a hand, establishing a brick factory.

After Maduro took office in 2013, falling oil production and civil unrest sent the economy into a tailspin—raising questions in some friendly capitals over whether loans were being wasted on Caracas.

But the alliances still carry weight for Maduro’s regime. After the U.S. in 2019 sanctioned Venezuela’s oil industry, Iran sent small fuel cargoes to try to ease chronic shortages. Russia took over oil-trading operations to move Venezuelan crude on the black market.

And then those allies recognized Maduro’s government even as the U.S. called Maduro illegitimate after the July 2024 presidential election, which the opposition said the regime stole.

As Venezuela’s largest creditor and buyer of oil, China calls the Latin American nation an “all-weather” partner—a recipient of more than $30 billion in major arms from China since 2000, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

But Maduro’s economic honeymoon with China was short lived after he took over in 2013, as loans and grants to Venezuela shortly afterward slowed to a trickle. Beijing has abandoned several infrastructure projects and now relies almost entirely on Venezuela crude exports to satisfy its debt arrears.

“People talk about debt traps,” said Margaret Myers, who studies Asia-Latin America ties at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy group. “This is a situation of a creditor trap.”

Evanán Romero, a former deputy energy minister for the Venezuelan government who now advises the opposition on an oil-sector recovery plan, said China could lose if Maduro were to fall, since a successor government could give priority to ties to the U.S.

“The oil wouldn’t go to China if the U.S. opened up,” Romero said. “It doesn’t make any sense to send to China. That was ideology, not economic sense.”

Write to Kejal Vyas at kejal.vyas@wsj.com and James T. Areddy at James.Areddy@wsj.com

WSJ

4. Is America Heading for a Debt Crisis? Look Abroad for Answers

Summary:

The U.S. is drifting toward a debt crunch similar to the U.K. and France, where politics, taxes, spending and bond markets form an impossible trilemma. Washington runs deficits above 7 percent of GDP and debt near 100 percent, yet has avoided a bond revolt because the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency. That privilege is eroding under pressure from huge Treasury supply, de-dollarization moves by China and others, sanctions risk, and alienated allies. If foreign demand for Treasurys weakens, yields could spike. Economically, the U.S. could raise taxes and trim spending, but leaders lack the political will.

Comment: Is this our number one national security threat? A threat of our own making? What happens if we lose the dollar as the world's reserve currency?

Is America Heading for a Debt Crisis? Look Abroad for Answers

WSJ

All that stands between the U.S. and a debt-market freakout is the dollar. Having the world’s reserve currency isn’t the unbreakable shield many assume.

By James Mackintosh

Nov. 29, 2025 11:00 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/uk-budget-debate-us-debt-lessons-38bc52e3

Nov. 29, 2025 11:00 pm ET

The U.K. government in its latest budget ignored its promises to go for growth. Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg News

Politics and debt don’t mix well. Americans would be wise to look across the Atlantic to see how tough things can get.

The U.K. government demonstrated the problem with its annual budget, where it is stuck in a trilemma, unable to please lenders and voters while also doing the right thing for the economy. Something had to give, so on Wednesday the government ignored its promises to go for growth, and focused on the bond market and its political base.

France has the same trilemma, only worse. Government debt is higher than in the U.K., the fiscal deficit is higher, and not only are tax rises politically impossible but taxes are already so high that raising them further might be self-defeating.

Spending cuts are even more difficult than in Britain—where welfare cuts have proved to be a political nonstarter—and securing a budget at all in a deeply riven French Parliament is a challenge. At least in London the bond panic during the supershort term of Prime Minister Liz Truss has shown the politicians that they have to pay attention to lenders.

Already some of the same issues are visible in the U.S.—along with a lack of political will to do anything to prevent the problem from festering. For now, all that stands between the U.S. and a debt-market freakout is the dollar. Having the world’s reserve currency, however, isn’t the unbreakable shield many assume.

Go back to the U.K. to see how dysfunctional politics limits action. The government floated the idea of an economically efficient income-tax rise in the run-up to the budget, and the bond market loved it. But politics made Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves abandon the idea in favor of a series of smaller, delayed tax rises on pensions, corporate investment and driving that each slice a little off potential growth—but, she hopes, will get less attention from voters. The money raised goes into welfare spending forced on the government by its own members of Parliament, after it lost a fight earlier this year.

The parallel issue in the U.S. is tariffs: An inefficient tax on the purchase of certain foreign goods is possible (though the legality of the biggest tariffs is still to be determined), and even briefly popular. But U.S. politics is just as fragile as in the U.K., and when the bond market or voters objected, tariffs have been rolled back.

April’s so-called reciprocal tariffs were delayed and then slashed when the bond market panicked. They dropped from a peak effective rate of 28% to the current 18% calculated by the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale—far lower, although still the highest since 1934.

Likewise, rising voter concern about food prices has led to tariffs on imports of coffee, bananas and some beef being ditched. It was sensible to remove those, but it was especially bizarre to introduce charges on foodstuffs not even produced in the U.S. in the first place.

The U.S. doesn’t yet have the trilemma created by conflicting demands on tax, spending and borrowing, thanks to global demand for dollars funneling money into Treasurys. But there are worrying signs, and the fiscal situation suggests a growing chance of trouble ahead—despite faster economic growth than elsewhere.

Warnings of bond pressure have shown up in extreme situations. Most recent was the April revolt, where 10-year Treasury yields jumped and concern grew about a self-fulfilling liquidation of borrowing, akin to the U.K.’s Truss moment, before President Trump pulled back. In 2020, lockdowns showed how bad such a selling spiral can be, and the Federal Reserve was forced to buy more than $1 trillion of bonds to stabilize the market.

The fiscal situation in the U.S. is far worse than what Reeves has to deal with in Britain. The International Monetary Fund estimates that total U.K. government debt will hit 95% of gross domestic product this year, with a deficit of 4.3%. U.S. debt is expected to be a smidgen below 100%, with a deficit on course to be one of the biggest in the developed world at more than 7%.

What saves American finance is the dollar’s status as the must-have global asset and trading currency. Both roles face challenges, though, and the more the U.S. exploits foreigners, the higher the risk they look elsewhere.

There are four overlapping threats to the dollar: supply, China, reserve safety and the pushing away of allies.

Supply is the big one, as the U.S. runs near-record peacetime deficits on top of a bulging current-account deficit. America has to attract a constant flow of foreign capital to finance government and imports, an unstable position.

China has shifted a little more trade into yuan, although the dollar remains by far the dominant currency for international payments. China, Russia and others including Turkey have been replacing some of their reserves with gold in the midst of rising concern about dollar-based reserves being frozen or confiscated by Washington. And while allied governments haven’t obviously cut their dollar exposure, they were spooked by Trump’s tariffs and talk of unilateral fees on reserves held in Treasurys.

None of these has, so far, dealt significant damage to the dollar’s reserve status. But they all hurt. The risk is that the market senses a shift coming and pushes up Treasury yields in anticipation of foreign buyers drifting away.

On the plus side, it is economically easy for the U.S. to head off the problem. It raises the lowest tax as a share of GDP of any Group of Seven country, at just 30%, so higher taxes are likely to damage growth less than elsewhere. Government spending, also the lowest in the G-7, is harder to cut, as the failure of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency demonstrated.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What steps should the U.S. government take to avoid a debt crisis? Join the conversation below.

If the problem sounds familiar, it should be. Former Luxembourg Prime Minister and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker once said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.”

It isn’t clear that today’s politicians do, in fact, know what to do. But whether they know or not, getting re-elected while staying within the strictures of the bond market is going to be tough. America has the dollar to lean on—but probably not forever.

Write to James Mackintosh at james.mackintosh@wsj.com

WSJ

5. China is bearing down on Taiwan – enabled by Trump’s weakness and vacillation

Summary:

China is tightening a comprehensive siege on Taiwan, mixing military pressure, isolation, cyberattacks and propaganda that touts a Hong Kong style future most Taiwanese find terrifying. Xi prefers coercive “anaconda” tactics to force capitulation without war but will fight if needed. POTUS tariff failures, craving for a China trade deal and reluctance to reassure Taipei or back Japan signal weakness and unreliability, emboldening Beijing. By prioritizing trade over values and security, he risks repeating past appeasement, where ignorance of adversaries and misreading of stakes turned crises like Czechoslovakia and Ukraine into disasters.

Excerpt:

As in Czechoslovakia in 1938, so in Ukraine and now, prospectively, in Taiwan. “History has proven that compromising with aggression only brings war and enslavement,” Lai warned. But Trump doesn’t read history. His ignorance kills.

Comment: Everything is connected. What happens in one part of Eurasia affects something in another part of Eurasia. Can China be successful with an "anaconda strategy?" Mr. Tisdall provides a depressing analysis tha include historical analogies.

China is bearing down on Taiwan – enabled by Trump’s weakness and vacillation | Simon Tisdall

The US hasn’t just left Ukraine vulnerable; it is also provoking Xi’s intensifying attitude towards what he considers a renegade province

The Guardian · Simon Tisdall

Sun 30 Nov 2025 03.00 EST

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/30/china-donald-trump-xi-jinping-taiwan-trade

Sheer ignorance, fed by malign intent, historical prejudice and mutual misunderstanding, is often the crucial spark that ignites simmering international conflicts. If Adolf Hitler, remarkably ignorant of the US, had grasped the true extent of American industrial might, would he still have fatefully declared war on Washington in 1941?

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, it evidently had no idea what it was getting into. Humiliating defeat contributed greatly to its subsequent disintegration. In 1990, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, convinced he had a green light from the White House. In all these cases, stupidity produced disastrous misjudgments that proved fatal.

China’s fractious relations with the western democracies suffer from similarly hazardous blindspots. The recent publication in state media of “explainer” articles apparently intended to provide reassurance about Taiwan’s future under Chinese rule exemplified this lack of mutual knowledge, to almost comical effect.

When (not if) China takes charge, vetted “patriots” will govern Taiwan in a Beijing-approved regime modelled on Hong Kong, the articles said. Say again? Viewed from Taipei and the west, Hong Kong is a cautionary tale of nightmarish repression, brutal security laws, censorship – and broken Chinese promises dating back to the 1997 handover from Britain.

How astonishing that even the most indoctrinated communist apparatchik may think Taiwan’s citizens, who cherish their democracy and de facto sovereign independence, would voluntarily follow this path. To assure peace and prosperity, secessionists would be crushed, state media declared brightly. It’s obvious – Beijing just doesn’t get it.

China’s relentless siege of traditionally US-backed Taiwan has moved beyond crude military pressure (although that’s increasing). Its efforts to enforce the island’s economic and diplomatic isolation – and overthrow its pro-western, elected government – are augmented by spying, cyber-sabotage, mass surveillance and idiotic lies, conspiracies and disinformation.

Announcing a $40bn increase in defence spending last week, Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, warned the annexation threat was “intensifying”. In an echo of Ukraine, which faces similar pressures from Russia and is likewise unsure of US support, Lai said the most worrying scenario was that browbeaten Taiwanese would simply give up.

“Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s first preference is to win without a devastating, unpredictable war,” wrote analyst Hal Brands. “His method is encompassing, steadily escalating coercion … This is a classic ‘anaconda strategy’, meant to get progressively tighter until Taiwan yields. Isolation and demoralisation will ultimately produce capitulation, the thinking goes.”

Xi would still use military force if coercion failed, Brands predicted. But China’s main thrust was aimed at “creating a sense, in Taiwan, that Chinese power is overwhelming; fostering a belief, in the US, that intervention is just too costly; and thereby convincing the people of Taiwan, some day, that their best option is to give up without a fight.”

Political foolishness, rooted in historical enmity, is also fuelling the most heated crisis in China-Japan relations in a decade. It exploded when Japan’s newly installed, rightwing prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, answered a random question in parliament. Defending Taiwan and nearby trade routes from Chinese invasion, including by military means, was, she said, an existential issue “threatening [Japan’s] survival”.

Takaichi, a protege of hawkish former PM, Shinzo Abe, was merely stating what she and many Japanese have long believed – but blurting it out loud, on the record, made it official. An incandescent China swiftly imposed sanctions and boycotts; both sides moved military assets towards disputed islands. China’s consul general in Osaka demanded Takaichi be “decapitated” in a tweet that was later deleted.

That was exceptionally dumb. China’s hysterical reaction to what was basically a statement of the obvious is wildly exaggerated, indicating nervousness about where its Taiwan policy may lead. Takaichi’s provocative iron lady tribute act has won public backing, polls show, even though it came about almost by accident. But ignorance is not bliss. The risk of real conflict is too great.

This row – and Lai’s alarm bells – have highlighted the Taiwan issue just as Xi was trying to neutralise it as a US-China bilateral problem. Xi has successfully repulsed Donald Trump’s tariff bullying this year. In particular, his swingeing, retaliatory export curbs on rare-earth minerals floored Washington. They marked a moment when global geopolitical power shifted.

Free weekly newsletter

Guardian columnists and writers on what they’ve been debating, thinking about, reading, and more

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

after newsletter promotion

Lai Ching-te, president of Taiwan, holds a press conference on his ‘Action Plan for Safeguarding Democratic Taiwan and National Security’, Taipei, 26 November 2025. Photograph: I-Hwa Cheng/AFP/Getty Images

Lacking a strategy, Trump has now flipped from waging a trade war to gushing gratitude for an invitation to visit Beijing next April, obtained during his obsequious phone call to Xi last week. Trump subsequently offered no public assurances to Taiwan and, in a separate call, urged his Japanese ally, Takaichi, to pipe down. His truckling to Xi reinforced fears in Taipei and Tokyo that, as Ukraine knows, he’s chronically unreliable.

For his part, Xi used the call to forcefully imply that if Trump really wants a big, beautiful trade deal to boast about at home, the US must formally accept that China’s sovereign right to Taiwan is an “integral part of the postwar international order”.

Suspicions grow that Trump may ultimately subordinate defence of Taiwan to detente with China. At present, he seesaws. Promised arms packages are delayed or don’t arrive. Taiwan sought a free trade agreement. Instead, it was hit with 32% tariffs, later reduced. Now as before, the cluelessness in this dynamic is all Trump’s. Xi continues to run rings round him.

Taiwan and Japan are not alone in worrying that Trump doesn’t understand what’s at stake. “The administration’s single-minded prioritisation of trade has led it to sweep thornier points of diplomatic contention under the rug,” wrote Jonathan Czin, a China specialist, pointing to Beijing’s unchecked human rights abuses, anti-western cyberwarfare, armed confrontations with the Philippines and overall South China Sea expansionism.

As in Czechoslovakia in 1938, so in Ukraine and now, prospectively, in Taiwan. “History has proven that compromising with aggression only brings war and enslavement,” Lai warned. But Trump doesn’t read history. His ignorance kills.

Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator

The Guardian · Simon Tisdall

6. China move that could ‘paralyse’ globe as Xi Jinping urges return of Taiwan

Summary:

China’s pressure on Taiwan is escalating as Xi again tells POTUS the island must “return” to China, while Japan’s new prime minister warns Tokyo could respond militarily to an attack. A Chinese seizure of Taiwan would upend seventy years of Pacific stability, cripple global trade through the Taiwan Strait, and devastate supply chains. Taiwan is central to world semiconductor and AI chip production, so a conflict could trigger a crisis on the scale of 2008. Xi prefers “smokeless war” and gray zone coercion, yet is clearly building forces to keep invasion options open.

Comment: Does Xi suspect an opening and opportunity to be exploited now? Just like Korea, what happens in Taiwan will have catastrophic global effects. How can we deter war and counter PRC unrestricted warfare?

China move that could ‘paralyse’ globe as Xi Jinping urges return of Taiwan

news.com.au · Harrison Christian

It’s an idea at odds with history and reality - and turning it into fact could trigger a generational crisis. Yet it’s never far from the lips of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Harrison Christian

4 min read

November 30, 2025 - 7:24AM

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/china-move-that-could-paralyse-globe-as-xi-jinping-urges-return-of-taiwan/news-story/d9d7389c6580c17823ec31934c9a559b

It’s an idea at odds with history and reality - and turning it into fact could trigger a generational crisis.

Yet it’s never far from the lips of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

When President Xi spoke on the phone with Donald Trump this week, he again pressed the case for Taiwan to be returned to China.

The pair were speaking after the new Japanese prime minister, the firebrand Sanae Takaichi, warned that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could result in a military response from Tokyo.

China fumed that Japan had “crossed a red line”, and tensions escalated further when the Japanese military scrambled jets in response to a suspected Chinese drone - all while the Taiwanese president announced A$60 billion in extra defence spending.

President Xi’s message for President Trump was a grim reminder that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would prove catastrophic for Australia and the global economy, not to mention the Taiwanese people, who have long valued their independence.

“If China succeeded in controlling the island of Taiwan it would be a game-changer for the strategic environment in the Pacific and this would massively affect Australia’s security, upending 70 years of peace and stability,” China expert Anne-Marie Brady told news.com.au.

“So a resilient Taiwan is good for the whole of the Pacific, including Australia and New Zealand.”

Japanese prime minister, the firebrand Sanae Takaichi, suggested that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could result in a military response from Tokyo. Picture: AFP

China fumed that Japan had “crossed a red line” in the diplomatic spat. Picture: Maxim Shemetov-Pool/Getty Images

Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge said a conflict over Taiwan would “paralyse international trade”.

Nearly half of the world’s container ships pass through the Taiwan Strait.

“You cannot have business as usual through the world’s busiest international waterways while a war between China and the US and partners is underway,” Mr Shoebridge said.

“And Australia’s economy is deeply dependent not just on exporting stuff to China, but importing a whole lot of household items. Bunnings and Woolworths, for example, are hugely exposed to getting products to sell to Australians out of China.

“So we’d feel the effects quickly because these companies don’t have stockpiles. We are asleep at the wheel when it comes to the practical consequences of Australia’s import dependence on China.”

The analyst added that if America came to Taiwan’s aid, there would be “immediate US expectations that Australian facilities were available to the US”.

Why is Taiwan important?

Increasingly, the world economy hinges on Taiwan and its chip production — which is worth roughly US$1.57 trillion ($2.4 trillion).

Most high-performance GPUs – including almost all NVIDIA chips powering the AI boom – are manufactured by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

South Korea and the US make some AI chips, but Taiwan produces the vast majority because it has been pouring capital into chip fabrication since the 1980s.

In an invasion, TSMC – which depends on sensitive equipment and thousands of highly trained staff – would likely be put out of action.

Big Tech would scramble to diversify outside Taiwan, but replicating TSMC’s capacity would take years and tens of billions of dollars.

The AI build-out that has been driving US and global growth would stall, causing a panic on the scale of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

And the economic blowback for China would be severe, as countries began a painful decoupling and moved their supply chains elsewhere.

Most high-performance GPUs – including almost all Nvidia chips powering the AI boom – are manufactured in Taiwan (pictured Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang). Picture: I-Hwa Cheng/AFP

China’s ‘century of humiliation’

If invading Taiwan would be ruinous for China, why does Xi Jinping still keep it on the table?

For many mainland Chinese, “reunification” is a matter of national pride and historical justice.

After the CCP took over China, the Republic of China (ROC) government retreated to Taiwan in 1949, where it has governed ever since.

Ms Brady said the CCP were “unable to take over Taiwan as they lacked an air force or navy at the time”.

Reclaiming Taiwan remains a popular goal on the mainland, where students are taught that the island was lost during a “century of humiliation” by foreign powers, including Japan’s takeover of the island in 1895.

In those days, China was still ruled by the Qing dynasty, and the CCP had yet to be founded.

“Taiwan has never been part of the People’s Republic of China,” Ms Brady said.

The University of Canterbury professor added that the odds of a seaborne invasion of Taiwan were “slim,” arguing that Xi favoured different methods.

Taiwanese military forces deployed at a park in Taipei in July as the island nation stepped up preparations against a potential invasion. Picture: Annabelle Chih/Getty Images

Taiwan's AAV7 amphibious assault vehicle surfaces from the sea during an amphibious landing drill in May 2023. Picture: Annabelle Chih/Getty Images

“The CCP government prefer a ‘smokeless war’ to take Taiwan, whether through political subversion, intimidation, or a combination of both.

“They are using greyzone tactics which fall short of full-scale invasion to surround and weaken Taiwan.”

Mr Shoebridge agreed that China hoped to gain control of Taiwan through “continued pressure and coercion” rather than all-out war.

“Plan ‘A’ out of Beijing is to win without fighting. However, they’re doing everything to give Xi Jinping the military option of invading Taiwan to conquer it by force,” he said.

“That’s how they’re building the Chinese military and exercising it around Taiwan. So I don’t think we can rule out Xi Jinping deciding the moment is right to use force in the next five years, even though that’s not plan ‘A.’”

Trump said on November 2 that Xi “understands the answer to that” when asked if the US would come to the defence of Taiwan during a Chinese attack.

He described Tuesday’s call with Xi as “very good” and said he’d agreed to visit Beijing in April, as well as invited the Chinese president for a state visit next year.

“Our relationship with China is extremely strong!” the US president posted on social media.

“There has been significant progress on both sides in keeping our agreements current and accurate. Now we can set our sights on the big picture.”

Read related topics:China

news.com.au · Harrison Christian

7. Taiwan’s history is of independence

Summary:

Xi’s claim that “Taiwan’s return to China” is part of the postwar order is historically false. Taiwan has never belonged to the PRC and was a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945, followed by repressive KMT rule until democratisation. Under Qing rule it was a distant, rebellious frontier briefly made a “province” only from 1887 to 1895. Before that, it was inhabited by Austronesian peoples and then ruled by the Dutch and Koxinga’s Kingdom of Tungning. He concludes there is no historical basis for Beijing’s claim and Taiwan’s people must decide their future.

Comment: I will leave to the China hands and information warfare professionals: Is there value in useing this history in an information and influence activities campaign to counter the PRC and sustain support for Taiwan?

Home Editorial & Opinion

Sun, Nov 30, 2025 page8

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2025/11/30/2003848053

Taiwan’s history is of independence

By Gerrit van der Wees
In A phone call between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Xi is reported to have stated that in his view, “Taiwan’s return to China” is to be considered an integral part of the post-World War II international order.
Never mind that China under Xi has been trying to undermine the liberal post-war international order by setting up alternative organizations and schemes that are detrimental to freedom and democracy around the world. Its own repression of Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong are vivid examples.
The “return to China” is the biggest misnomer: Taiwan has never ever been part of the People’s Republic of China, and until 1945 it was a Japanese colony for 50 years. Many in Taiwan view the Japanese period as benign and “strict but fair,” certainly in comparison with the corrupt and repressive Chinese Nationalist Part (KMT) rule of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who imposed martial law that lasted on the island until 1987, after which the Taiwanese were able to gain the freedom and democracy they presently enjoy.
It is true that before the Japanese period Taiwan was very briefly a “province of China,” but that only lasted eight years.
From 1683 until 1887, the island was formally administered as part of the province of Fukien, but in reality it was a wild and open frontier. More than 100 armed revolts took place during that period, prompting the observation that there was “an uprising every three years and a revolution every five years.”
The inhabitants viewed the Qing Dynasty as very much a foreign colonial regime and in no way saw themselves as “part of China.” During roughly the same period Britain ruled India as a colony. Nobody would argue that India should be returned to Britain.
From before 1683 there is even more evidence that Xi’s claim that “Taiwan has been part of China since ancient times” does not hold water.
Before 1624, Taiwan was inhabited by an indigenous population of Malay-Austronesians, who fought each other ferociously but kept outsiders at bay. Occasionally a Chinese expedition passed by the island, but there was never any official presence.
When the Dutch East India Company arrived in Anping (present-day Tainan) in 1624 to establish a trading post, they found no evidence of any Chinese officialdom in Taiwan, let alone any administrative control. It was certainly not part of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644).
In 1623, emissaries of Tianqi (天?帝), then-Ming Dynasty emperor, even told the Dutch — who were trying to take Macau from the Portuguese as they looked for a port through which they could trade with China — to go “beyond our territory.” They did not object when the Dutch went to Formosa, building Fort Zeelandia and establishing control as part of the Dutch East India Company, which lasted until 1662. It certainly was not “part of China” during those days.
In 1662, Dutch rule ended when Ming Dynasty loyalist and warlord Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功), known as Koxinga, was driven from China by the advancing Manchu armies, he took refuge on the island, and established the short-lived Kingdom of Tungning.
The Ming Dynasty itself was long gone by that time, and the Cheng family rule ended in 1683, when Koxinga’s grandson was defeated by the Manchu navy at the battle of the Pescadores.
In 1683, the new Manchu Qing emperor was initially not interested in the island at all. His main goal was to defeat the last remnants of the Ming Dynasty. Emperor Kangxi (康熙帝) stated: “Taiwan is outside our empire and of no great consequence.” He offered to let the Dutch buy it back.
There is no historical basis for the Chinese claims to Taiwan. Of course, the main reason for the US and other friendly countries to push back hard against Xi’s claims is that the Taiwanese fought hard to attain their democracy and under the UN Charter have the right to determine their own future.
The only peaceful resolution could be achieved if China, the US and other countries accept Taiwan as a fully free, equal and democratic member of the international community.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat who teaches the history of Taiwan and US relations with East Asia at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

8. U.S. scholar urges Taiwan to prioritize deployable asymmetric weapons

Summary:

U.S. scholar Michael Hunzeker welcomed President Lai Ching te’s proposed US$39.8 billion defense buildup but urged Taiwan to prioritize rapidly deployable asymmetric weapons for credible deterrence. He warned T Dome air defenses will take years to field and said reforms in training, doctrine and military culture must precede new systems.

U.S. scholar urges Taiwan to prioritize deployable asymmetric weapons - Focus Taiwan

focustaiwan.tw · Link

11/29/2025 03:48 PM

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202511290006

Washington, Nov. 28 (CNA) Taiwan urgently needs to invest more in asymmetric capabilities, a U.S. scholar said on Friday, noting that credible deterrence requires prioritizing forces that can be deployed quickly.

Michael Hunzeker, an associate professor at George Mason University, was speaking to CNA following President Lai Ching-te's (賴清德) announcement earlier this week of a plan to allocate a supplementary NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.8 billion) for Taiwan's military buildup.

● Lai unveils plan to budget US$40 billion to bolster Taiwan's defense

● Lai's US$40 billion defense proposal 'a step towards peace': U.S. envoy

Echoing a comment made this week by the director of the American Institute in Taiwan, Hunzeker, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2000-2006, said Taiwan is in "urgent need for more investment in genuine asymmetric capabilities."

Beyond the need to pass the budget through the Legislative Yuan, Hunzeker also expressed a few other concerns.

"First, it will take years (or longer) for some of these proposed capabilities -- such as T-Dome -- to become a reality," Hunzeker said.

"Credible deterrence requires prioritizing the acquisition of capabilities that Taiwan can field as soon as possible, since the CCP [Communist Party of China] will obviously not wait around until Taiwan has everything it wants and needs, to attack," he added.

Hunzeker also warned that even the most cutting-edge weapons would be ineffective if Taiwan's military continues to use them in outdated ways. He stressed that reforms in training, doctrine, and military culture need to come first, before money flows and new weapons arrive.

According to Lai, the NT$1.25 trillion budget will be used to fund the construction of a multilayered "T-Dome" air defense network and strengthen Taiwan's overall defense posture over the next eight years.

The T-Dome will provide low-, mid- and high-altitude air defense, incorporate artificial intelligence to improve detection and decision-making, and enhance Taiwan's ability to intercept threats to protect military assets, critical infrastructure and civilians, Lai said.

(By Elaine Hou and Ko Lin)

Enditem/cs

focustaiwan.tw · Link

9. The Military Faces a Make-or-Break Moment

Summary:

Retired Maj. Gen. Punaro backs Hegseth’s acquisition reforms, urging faster, predictable funding, empowered leaders and higher defense budgets to fix a cautious system and deter adversaries.

Comment: How will we fund the military if we lose the dollar as the reserve currency?

The Military Faces a Make-or-Break Moment

The U.S. can’t deter peer adversaries with a procurement system that is slow, costly and unable to keep pace with modern threats.

Nov. 24, 2025 4:24 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-military-faces-a-make-or-break-moment-acquisition-reform-8ffd3008?st=WN2Dhk&reflink=article_email_share

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Washington, Nov. 18. Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters

Your editorial “Trump and a New ‘Arsenal of Freedom’” (Nov. 17) provides an insightful assessment of Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition-reform agenda. It is premised on something many in the defense community have understood for years: The U.S. can’t deter peer adversaries with a procurement system that is slow, costly and unable to keep pace with modern threats.

Mr. Hegseth rightly notes that the Pentagon is at a make-or-break moment. Empowering program leaders, accelerating contracting authorities and tapping private-sector innovation are the right priorities. Longer-term and predictable procurement is also essential. Industry can’t expand production of critical munitions and systems when both demand and funding fluctuate yearly. America’s defense industrial base, including traditional and emerging firms, has the capacity and talent to deliver unmatched capability if given the stability and direction that long-term commitment requires.

Meaningful reform also requires aligning the Pentagon’s rhetoric with its resources. If this is a true inflection point, the defense budget needs to be beefed up. Years of inconsistent funding have reinforced a culture of caution—something only sustained investment can fix. Flat budgets won’t change this dynamic. Mr. Hegseth’s reforms will help get more value for each dollar, but the savings generated won’t be enough on their own.

It is encouraging to see bipartisan leadership advocate for reform, from Sen. Roger Wicker’s Forged Act to the House’s Speed Act championed by Reps. Mike Rogers and Adam Smith. This rare alignment and focus create the conditions for change. Washington can’t afford not to seize the opportunity.

Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, USMC (Ret.)

McLean, Va.

Mr. Punaro is author of “The Ever-Shrinking Fighting Force.”

Appeared in the November 25, 2025, print edition as 'The Military Faces a Make-or-Break Moment'.

10. China is bamboozling Patel on fentanyl

Summary:

FBI Director Kash Patel has been duped by Beijing’s latest fentanyl promises. Xi previously pledged controls and the flow continued while tens of thousands of Americans died. Newsham says China could stop Chinese-origin precursors anytime, given its Orwellian surveillance state, but has no incentive, since fentanyl weakens America at low cost and generates hard-currency profits. He dismisses excuses about legal or local limits as propaganda. He urges real pressure instead. His proposals include cutting Chinese banks from the dollar system, delisting Chinese firms, targeting CCP elites’ assets and family visas, and massively raising fentanyl tariffs.

China is bamboozling Patel on fentanyl

Trump hasn't given Beijing a reason to stop the drug

washingtontimes.com · Grant Newsham

By Grant Newsham - Wednesday, November 26, 2025

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/nov/26/china-bamboozling-patel-fentanyl/

- Wednesday, November 26, 2025

OPINION:

Upon returning from China recently, FBI Director Kash Patel was crowing about success in the fentanyl war. “President Trump has shut off the pipeline that creates fentanyl that kills tens of thousands of Americans. These substances are now banned.”

He also said, “This opioid crisis is going to be ‘turned off.’”

Does he really believe this?

He got a promise from the Chinese to declare 13 fentanyl precursors illegal and to control seven other chemicals. So what? They have done this before. In a 2018 meeting with Mr. Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to restrict all fentanyl-type substances. Mr. Trump declared it a “game-changer.” Yet unsurprisingly, the drugs kept arriving in America.

In 2019, more than 37,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses. That’s nearly five times the number of American troops killed in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deaths have kept coming. Since 2013, around 750,000 Americans have died from fentanyl.

Think maybe this time is different? Don’t bet on it.

If Chinese leaders wanted to stop the flow of Chinese-origin fentanyl (precursors or otherwise), they could. They have a surveillance state George Orwell couldn’t have imagined.

They have no incentive to do so. Besides the dead from fentanyl, maybe 10 times as many people have been injured and often turned into zombies. Many victims are of military service age.

China is severely damaging its “main enemy” without firing a shot. Punishment from the U.S. government? None.

That’s not surprising, given the bought-off American elites who clamor to keep doing business with China, as Peter Schweizer’s “Blood Money” lays out.

Mr. Trump’s “fentanyl tariff” sounds good, but it’s missing a few digits. Instead of 10% (it was just reduced from 20%), it ought to be 2,000% — assuming one can put a price on the mass murder of Americans.

For too long, American elites have made excuses for why the Chinese government can’t (or won’t) stop the illicit drug flow. Some claim Chinese local governments, supposedly outside Beijing’s reach, are to blame because they want tax revenue and employment and are thoroughly corrupt.

True enough, but local officials are also frightened of being caught crossing Beijing. Thus, one readily concludes that the Chinese Communist Party leadership has no objections.

Others explain that the Chinese government is in a legal bind, as fentanyl producers keep jiggering the formula to avoid the “illegal list.” Therefore, the producers are always one step ahead.

A nice excuse, but in China, the law is what Mr. Xi and the CCP say it is. If they want to shut down fentanyl producers, the law is no obstacle.

Do the Chinese cops have an approach to policing that ties their hands? Not quite. The Chinese police can do whatever they want. The only restraints come from Zhongnanhai, the very top of the CCP.

The biggest whopper of all is the claim that Chinese authorities can’t locate the illegal drug producers. China is a big place, you know.

Well, deface a poster of Mr. Xi and see how long it takes to be arrested and imprisoned. Post on social media that he resembles Winnie the Pooh, and you’ll have Ministry of State security agents at your front door in minutes.

So the People’s Republic of China is glad to tell Messrs. Patel and Trump what they want to hear. Meanwhile, they are killing Americans with an aim to dominate the U.S. by midcentury. Even better, China generates a substantial amount of money from the drug trade — in convertible currency. Buy fentanyl, and you pay in dollars.

The Congressional Select Committee on China’s recent fentanyl report conclusively implicates the CCP in the fentanyl business, although it’s weak on the what-to-do-about-it front.

Here are some possible fixes:

Suspend all Chinese financial institutions from the U.S. dollar network. Start with the People’s Bank of China and add one a week.
Immediately delist every Chinese company from the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges. None should have been listed in the first place.
Revoke the green cards and visas and place liens on the properties and bank accounts of the top 500 CCP members’ relatives in the U.S.
Finally, the one thing that scares the daylights out of Mr. Xi and CCP elites: Expose their obscene wealth and don’t let up. Much of it is held in the U.S. and other free nations. They can’t blame their own corruption on foreigners to the 600 million Chinese living on $5 or less a day.

China can stop fentanyl, but the Trump administration still hasn’t given it a reason to do so.

• U.S. Marine Col. Grant Newsham (retired) is the author of “When China Attacks: A Warning to America.”

washingtontimes.com · Grant Newsham

11. This Autonomous Submarine Is At The Center Of Naval Warfare's Biggest Change In Decades

Summary:

Indonesia’s navy has test fired a 324 mm Piranha torpedo from its new autonomous submarine KSOT, proving the unmanned boat can conduct real combat missions. Built by PT Pal, KSOT carries sonar and torpedo systems and can be remotely linked to command centers on warships. The recent test used a crane to load the torpedo and kept the sub only partly submerged, yet confirmed basic viability. Similar systems include Ukraine’s Sea Baby naval drone and U.S. XLUUV and Manta Ray projects. Uncrewed subs can be smaller, dive deeper, and operate longer, potentially transforming future undersea warfare into robot-on-robot combat.

Comment: Is this concept the naval game changer?

This Autonomous Submarine Is At The Center Of Naval Warfare's Biggest Change In Decades - BGR

flip.it · Briley Kenney · November 28, 2025

https://www.bgr.com/2032753/autonomous-submarine-torpedo-sonar-systems/?utm

By Nov. 28, 2025 1:17 pm EST

Indonesian Navy (TNI AL)

It's an interesting thought that certain aspects of future warfare may not include the loss of human life as autonomous systems battle it out over air and sea. Air drones are fairly common, but wait, sea? That's right. The Indonesian Navy recently tested an autonomous submarine, called KSOT or Kapal Selam Otomatis Tanpa Awak, by firing a torpedo. The torpedo in question was a 324 mm "Piranha" fired from a launch tube that was mounted externally on the submarine. The torpedo was actually placed using a land-based mobile crane, and after being loaded, the submarine moved further out to sea to test the launch.

The submarine — made by Indonesia-based shipbuilder PT Pal — is equipped with sonar and torpedo launch capabilities, which is standard for military-based submarines, but what's unique, is that it includes autonomous capabilities, plus it's fast, efficient, and possibly stealthy. The communications or control systems of the sub can be remotely connected with command centers located on Indonesian Navy warships. While KSOT was originally unveiled in August, this test is significant because it confirms the technology could be used in battle, as it's able to fire torpedoes. Although, the fact that the Indonesian Navy had to manually load the torpedo is also relevant. Furthermore, the submarine remained only partially submerged during the entire test, and never disappeared fully under the surface. Still, the idea is to have an autonomous vessel and that alone could change naval warfare beyond anything we've ever seen.

Ukraine also unveiled a similar naval drone called 'Sea Baby,' expanding on its success using naval drones against Russia in the Black Sea. That also helps to highlight the capabilities of the technology and what it can achieve on a grand scale. Future wars may be fought with mostly robots and drones.

How would an autonomous sub change naval warfare?

Ihsannn22/Shutterstock

There are more vessels like KSOT, including Boeing's XLUUV or "Orca" and Northrop Grumman's Manta Ray, which can operate without a crew for "long-duration undersea missions." While there's no denying the potential of these unmanned submarines for scientific and research purposes — it's easy to imagine them going places no manned vessel ever could — the military implications are also great.

Manned submarines are built to human living conditions, with oxygen supplies and reinforced hulls to fend off extreme undersea pressure. Once you remove humans from the equation, some of those limitations are gone. For example, a fully autonomous submarine wouldn't need an oxygen supply system built-in. They can be significantly smaller and more stealthy. The smaller the radius of the hull, the more pressure it can withstand — bigger vessels need a thicker hull to contend with deep sea pressure, which is what causes a submarine to implode.

Technically, without the same limitations, built to smaller and tighter configurations, unmanned and autonomous submarines could reach depths or spaces that wouldn't otherwise be possible. Combine that with advanced military capabilities, like high-tech torpedoes, and they could sink to extreme depths, fire upon enemies from below, and more. Imagine robot submarines firing on one another while everyone observing is back on a command ship or dry land? It's wild to think about.

Consider also, Russian's deep-diving titanium nuclear submarines. The country's engineers build with titanium — which is extremely expensive and resource-intensive — to reach great depths and because it's more durable. It also offers some stealth benefits. But without a crew, some of those traits can be achieved with more economical builds. And with advanced nuclear powered submarines entering the waters, those autonomous subs could have all the power they'd ever need.

flip.it · Briley Kenney · November 28, 2025

12. Why Grok is first and foremost a disinformation machine

Summary:

Grok, X’s built in chatbot, is structurally a disinformation engine rather than a neutral tool. In recent weeks it has praised Elon Musk in absurd terms, denied or distorted facts about the Holocaust and the 2015 Paris attacks, and echoed “white genocide” conspiracy themes. xAI blames glitches or “adversarial prompting,” yet Grok was launched with minimal safeguards as an anti-woke system that should not avoid politically incorrect claims. Fed in real time by X, now a far right echo chamber, it reportedly cites sites like Infowars and Stormfront, reflecting Musk’s own partisan agenda.

Comment: A view from France.

Why Grok is first and foremost a disinformation machine

Grok, the chatbot that has been integrated into the X social network and aims to rival ChatGPT, has recently spread Holocaust denial and false information about the November 2015 attacks in France. It was a reminder that Elon Musk's tool, far from being neutral, was designed to misinform.Published on November 24, 2025, at 7:00 pm (Paris) 3 min read

Lire en français

Le Monde · Olivier Clairouin

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/11/24/why-grok-is-first-and-foremost-a-disinformation-machine_6747782_13.html

Elon Musk at the White House in Washington, March 24, 2025, when he was still working for the American president. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP

Elon Musk is "in better shape" than LeBron James, "funnier" than Jerry Seinfeld, smarter than Albert Einstein and more handsome than François Civil. At least, that's how Grok, the artificial intelligence built into the X social network, responds when asked to compare the billionaire to these various public figures. Since Thursday, internet users have noted that nothing seems to stop the conversational AI when it comes to proclaiming just how exceptional the world's richest man is.

The anecdote could be amusing, especially given that Musk is the owner of this very AI, launched in 2023. But above all, it reveals a worrying trend. While X, also owned by the South African-born entrepreneur, is already under investigation by Paris prosecutors concerning changes made to its algorithm, Grok's flattering responses highlight, once again, the growing foothold in the public sphere of a formidable misinformation machine.

Multiple cases without explanation

Grok's track record speaks for itself. In just the past week, it has spread false information about the November 2015 Paris attack and told a user that Zyklon B – the deadly product used in the gas chambers of Nazi Germany's extermination camps – was in fact used "for disinfection (…) against typhus."

These are far from isolated incidents. In May, Musk's AI developed an obsession with a supposed "white genocide" underway in South Africa, a theory favored by its creator. In June, it called to vote for Marine Le Pen, praised the "efficiency" of Adolf Hitler and called for a "real clean-up" in Marseille to fight drug trafficking. At the time, xAI, the company behind Grok, blamed a software update and claimed it had "taken action to ban hate speech."

Of course, no AI is immune to slip-ups or, as the term goes, "hallucinations." All of Grok's competitors have given more or less disastrous answers – didn't Gemini, Google's AI, once suggest putting glue on pizza? And anything can be manipulated to spread disinformation or pro-Russian propaganda, as noted in October in a study of the chatbots ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Deepseek.

Nonetheless, Grok's case is unique. While xAI's teams have occasionally half-heartedly acknowledged their responsibility for Grok's excesses, more often the blame is shifted to some unidentified third party ("Unauthorized modification," the company curtly replied when the AI kept repeating the "white genocide" talking point). As for the sycophantic messages about Musk, the businessman himself claimed on Thursday that they were the result of "adversarial prompting." No further explanation was given.

Far-right propaganda

The real reasons, however, are well known: Grok was designed as a tool for disinformation, and the extreme statements it spreads are not a bug but a feature. From the outset, Musk boasted of launching an AI with minimal safeguards, in order to provide what he called an alternative viewpoint to other AIs he has deemed too "woke." Its creators have always aimed to offer a tool capable of delivering provocative or humorous responses, for instance.

In a certain show of transparency, the company regularly publishes online some of Grok's internal "prompts" – that is, the instructions the chatbot is supposed to follow, regardless of what users ask. There, one can read that "a truth-seeking, non-partisan viewpoint" must take precedence over all else, and that the chatbot should not "shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated."

But that is precisely the problem. Beyond its seemingly more freewheeling tone, Grok's specificity lies in the data it draws on.

To generate its answers, the tool is plugged in real time into X, a social network that has become an echo chamber for the far right ever since Musk purchased it in 2022. It appears that the chatbot draws on very specific sources, as highlighted in a study by Cornell Tech University published in November (xAI is far less transparent on this point, despite its promises). Researchers found that Grokipedia, a Wikipedia competitor built from Grok's responses, extensively cited the conspiracy theory website Infowars and the neo-Nazi website Stormfront as reliable sources.

Read more Subscribers only Wikipedia, under fire from conservatives and shaken by AI

Despite all its claims about "truth-seeking," Grok remains the property of a far-right billionaire with his own political agenda. It should come as no surprise to learn that the AI partially generates its answers using posts made by its owner on X, or that Musk openly admits Grok will be "updated" to prevent it from citing Rolling Stone magazine or the NGO Media Matters for America, which he considers illegitimate sources.

Despite its harmful operation, the tool remains widely used: Grok has 64 million monthly users, according to the New York Times. That number is much lower than ChatGPT's (700 million per week), but still illustrates that for internet users who are inundated by a flood of new products from an industry eager for them to embrace AI, Grok remains, for all that, just another tool.

Olivier Clairouin

Translation of an original article published in French on lemonde.fr; the publisher may only be liable for the French version.

Reuse this content

Le Monde · Olivier Clairouin

13. America’s Industrial Backbone

Summary:

The global security environment is volatile, and the U.S. cannot deter threats without a strong manufacturing base. Decades of offshoring hollowed out America’s “industrial middle” that produces critical components like bearings, sensors and circuitry, leaving shortages and weak surge capacity exposed by Ukraine. The US needs a 21st century, dual use, digitally enabled manufacturing ecosystem in which commercial factories can rapidly pivot to defense production. Federal policy and NDAA programs should treat domestic industrial capacity as a strategic asset, align public and private investment and build regional hubs so America can rearm, innovate and deter at scale.

Excerpt:

The outcome of the next great competition won’t only be determined on the battlefield; it will be decided in the factories, foundries, and fabrication labs of America. Our adversaries are already building industrial depth for future conflicts, and we must do the same before the next major crisis emerges. The United States has the talent, technology, and entrepreneurial spirit to rebuild a resilient industrial ecosystem. What’s needed now is focus, investment, and urgency from Congress and the Department of War to unleash our private sector. If we get that right, America won’t just rebuild its manufacturing muscle—it will secure its future for another generation as a modern superpower.

Comment: Are the two most undervalued or overlooked nationals security assets the reserve currency and the defense industrial base?

America’s Industrial Backbone

realcleardefense.com · John Burer November 28, 2025

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/11/28/americas_industrial_backbone_1150112.html

Manufacturing is the Key to Deterrence

The global landscape is increasingly unpredictable, with economic shocks and security threats emerging suddenly and escalating rapidly. To meet these challenges, the United States must become more resilient and adaptable to ensure we are fully prepared to respond swiftly and effectively—wherever and at whatever scale threats arise. We have to be able to produce, build, and innovate within our own borders. America’s economic stability and military readiness are only as strong as its manufacturing base, and we must act now to restore it.

For too long, America and our allies have made an increasingly risky assumption—that the U.S. defense industrial base could rapidly scale—with our partners filling gaps and our adversaries constrained by their own supply challenges. But a new reality has emerged, exposing the depth and breadth of our vulnerability.

At the start of the conflict in Ukraine, the U.S. scrambled to meet demand for 155mm artillery shells and, after years of effort, is still struggling due to bottlenecks in many key industrial areas. All the while, fresh alliances are forming among rivals, and new technologies are dominating the battlefield, as evidenced by Chinese factories ramping up exports of key drone components to Russia.

In the systems that will define the next frontier of warfare—drones, counter-UAS technology, and advanced munitions—the United States continues to design the most advanced systems in the world but often has trouble producing them, particularly at scale. To complicate things further, American companies are not producing most of the components that make these systems possible. Ukraine, a war that is luckily not fought on our doorstep, provides us with a valuable insight: industrial readiness is a fundamental pillar of deterrence. If we cannot quickly adapt and scale production, our military advantage erodes long before the first shot is fired. Today, we face a dangerous shortage of factories, materials, and surge capacity required for deterrence and self-determination.

This weakness didn’t emerge overnight. Decades of offshoring and consolidation have eroded our industrial middle. The producers that make the gears, sensors, ball bearings, and circuitry behind every system are vanishing. In the past, these smaller firms have kept production lines moving and innovation alive, but in recent decades, they’ve been squeezed out by globalization and the dominance of a few large companies. Rebuilding this industrial backbone is essential if America is to regain the agility and flexibility needed to meet the demands of being a modern superpower.

The solution is not a nostalgic return to 20th-century defense manufacturing but a 21st-century reinvention—one that is distributed, digitally enhanced, and most importantly, dual-use. Dual-use manufacturing, or production that serves both commercial and defense markets, enables a manufacturing capability reservoir that operates with capitalist efficiency during peacetime and can provide surge capacity for the economy and the military in a crisis. A factory producing autonomous systems for agriculture or energy inspection today can quickly pivot to drone components for defense tomorrow.

We have a clear opportunity to unlock the untapped potential of our communities. The federal government must partner with regions rich in talent and resources to support manufacturers developing advanced dual-use facilities. These firms form the backbone of what could become a flexible, nationwide industrial base—one capable of rapidly pivoting from civilian to defense production when the nation calls. But this potential can only be realized if commercial manufacturers are aligned with national priorities and resources. This requires policymakers to treat domestic industrial capacity not as a byproduct of procurement, but as a strategic asset in its own right.

As appropriators look toward FY26 and beyond, they’re rightly focused on rebuilding the defense industrial base to meet the next generation of threats. Public and private investment must move together—and faster. Federal programs, such as those in the National Defense Authorization Act, can catalyze growth and encourage flexibility when paired with dynamic commercial manufacturers and ecosystems that support the scaling of emerging technologies.

The outcome of the next great competition won’t only be determined on the battlefield; it will be decided in the factories, foundries, and fabrication labs of America. Our adversaries are already building industrial depth for future conflicts, and we must do the same before the next major crisis emerges. The United States has the talent, technology, and entrepreneurial spirit to rebuild a resilient industrial ecosystem. What’s needed now is focus, investment, and urgency from Congress and the Department of War to unleash our private sector. If we get that right, America won’t just rebuild its manufacturing muscle—it will secure its future for another generation as a modern superpower.

John Burer is the founder and CEO of the American Center for Manufacturing & Innovation (ACMI), an organization dedicated to rebuilding America’s industrial base.

realcleardefense.com · John Burer November 28, 2025

14. Arizona State’s President Is Pulling Out All the Stops to Get on Trump’s Good Side

Comment: ASU is an amazing institution. We are happy that they agreed to take on Small Wars Journal.

Arizona State’s President Is Pulling Out All the Stops to Get on Trump’s Good Side

ASU is positioning itself as the anti-Harvard in Trump’s campaign to remake higher education

By Eliza Collins

and Douglas Belkin

| Photography and Video by Reuben J. Brown for WSJ

Nov. 26, 2025 12:00 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/arizona-state-university-trump-63e31b8d?st=7oSw3g

Quick Summary

Arizona State University, led by Michael Crow, is engaging with the Trump administration to reform higher education, contrasting with other universities’ resistance.View more

TEMPE, Ariz.—In October, President Trump asked a handful of top universities to accept sweeping campus changes in exchange for federal-funding advantages. Most schools rejected the proposal, fearing Trump would undermine their independence.

One college president, though, had a different response: Why wasn’t I invited?

Michael Crow, the outspoken longtime leader of Arizona State University, was miffed he hadn’t been approached. ASU’s sister school, the University of Arizona, had been invited. Crow, who had long championed higher-education reform and had signaled willingness to work with the administration, believed he should have been included. He and his advisers wondered if officials had mixed up the two schools, people familiar with the matter said.

While schools like Dartmouth and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology publicly refused to sign onto the proposal, Crow contacted the Trump administration and offered to provide input, the people said. Two weeks later ASU was invited to a follow-up meeting to discuss Trump’s agenda.

Elite universities have met Trump’s campaign to remake higher education with distress and resistance. ASU is pursuing a different strategy, one that involves leveraging its populist approach to work with the White House and serve as a model in the Trump era.

ASU officials have no problem being alone or in a group working with the administration; they believe this would position ASU to help redesign what they see as a flawed system—and capture as much support and money from the federal government as possible, people familiar with the matter said.

ASU President Michael Crow Andres Kudacki/AP

“There’s always opportunity,” Crow said in an interview. “And there’s opportunity now.”

In recent months, ASU has communicated with the White House on a new financial-aid idea, offered to help vet international students and scrambled to calm Trump officials in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing.

Crow’s efforts have won praise at the top levels of the Trump administration. “I’m incredibly impressed with a lot of the work he’s done,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, whom Crow has hosted on campus. “I think he’s a really smart guy.”

Crow’s critics argue university presidents must defy Trump and build strong alliances or risk their independence. “Safeguarding the well-being of one institution at the expense of the future of higher education writ large doesn’t work,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors. “I don’t think anyone who makes that call will be covered in glory when we look back at this moment in 20 years.”

Christopher Fiscus, a vice president at ASU, sees it differently. He said Crow’s longtime vision is to revamp the whole system, not just one university. “Much of traditional higher education is too elite, with too much student debt, and with poor student outcomes for employment. Not here,” he said. “The [Trump] administration is right that some things need to change.”

ASU hasn’t emerged unscathed from Trump’s cuts to research grants and international-student enrollment. But Crow likens this period to the Civil War, when the government supported the creation of land-grant universities: “an unbelievable opportunity,” he says, despite “bloodbaths going on all of the time.”

‘Seize the day’

This pragmatic approach is a hallmark of Crow, who has led the school’s massive growth over the past two decades. There is opportunity for the bold amid the Trump turbulence, he says. “Carpe Diem. Seize the day, call the play.”

The son of a Navy sailor, Crow attended Iowa State on an ROTC scholarship before earning a Ph.D. in public administration from Syracuse. He worked at Iowa State before entering administration at Columbia, where he rose to executive vice provost before taking the helm at ASU in 2002.

In Arizona, he set out to create what he calls “the New American University.” Traditional universities, he believed, had become too expensive, exclusive and self-serving. Instead, he sought to enroll and graduate as many students as possible with degrees aligned with the labor market.

ASU is one of the country's largest public universities by enrollment.

Early in his tenure, ASU graduated about 900 engineering students annually, despite strong industry demand. Crow made it easier to get into engineering programs. Now ASU graduates about 7,500 engineering students each year overall.

Any Arizona teen graduating high school in the top 25% of their class or whose score in college entrance exams is roughly in the top quarter qualifies for enrollment at ASU. Out-of-state applicants face some slightly higher thresholds. The school has a 90% acceptance rate, compared with about 4% at Harvard.

Crow’s methods have both generated some disdain from leaders of more elite universities and elevated him to near-godlike status in Arizona, where residents have reaped the rewards of his empire-building. Unlike the home states of most of the Ivy League schools, Arizona is a major political battleground that Trump won in 2024.

Even before Trump’s November victory, Crow had taken a stronger stance against practices conservatives also criticized elsewhere. When protests over the war in Gaza erupted across campuses, including at ASU, Crow adopted a harder line than many other university presidents. After students set up an encampment that the university deemed in violation of its policies, they were arrested. Crow then dispatched an adviser to tell prosecutors: Don’t go lightly on these kids, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, people familiar with the conversation recounted.

‘Every conceivable idea’

Since Trump’s inauguration, ASU officials have held multiple conversations with the administration about reforming federal education policies.

With the Education Department, ASU has discussed operating a pilot program to distribute financial aid in new ways, according to people familiar with the conversations. Crow and his advisers proposed a model they believe would boost graduation rates and the return on federal investment. While conversations are preliminary, the school is seeking to be more involved in how aid is distributed.

“We’re submitting every conceivable idea that we can come up with,” Crow said.

A group of students preparing to watch the sun set over ASU’s campus in Tempe, Ariz.

ASU officials also offered to help the State Department vet international students. Unlike some schools that are fighting the administration’s efforts to crack down on foreign student enrollment, ASU has asked how it can meet the new demands faster and bring students to campus.

The school offered to hire and pay for an administration-approved third-party vendor to help vet students seeking to come to Arizona for school, according to people familiar with the matter. Crow said the State Department rejected the proposal. Crow is concerned about the administration’s proposed 15% cap on international students, according to people familiar with his thinking.

ASU has hired the lobbying firm Continental Strategy, whose team includes former Trump administration and campaign officials, plus the daughter of Trump’s chief of staff.

The school also joined a network of major Arizona businesses that are each committing $250,000 annually to an organization run by former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat-turned-independent. She is touting her relationship with members of the Trump administration and GOP-led Congress. Sinema is a professor at ASU and has donated millions of leftover campaign funds to the university.

ASU hasn’t entirely escaped damage. Funding cuts at agencies including the U.S. Agency for International Development and the National Institutes of Health have cost ASU roughly $200 million in awards so far, according to ASU. A pullback of semiconductor research money has put into question a billion-dollar facility that had been on track to open at ASU in 2028. And Trump’s student-visa restrictions have driven a small decline in international enrollment.

Crow hasn’t always aligned with conservatives, including clashing with Trump ally Kari Lake, the GOP nominee for governor and Senate in recent years.

But Crow has worked to de-escalate confrontations with the Trump administration. In September, a misunderstanding over plans for a vigil honoring Kirk, the conservative activist and Arizona resident killed that month, sent ASU staff and their consultants scrambling to smooth things over with the president and his Justice Department.

President Trump spoke at a memorial service for Charlie Kirk in Glendale, Ariz., in September. Rebecca Noble/Bloomberg News

In the days after Kirk’s killing, conservative ASU students were planning a vigil for thousands of mourners. Initial confusion about the location of the vigil and whether it would cost organizers money bubbled up on social media. That caught the attention of Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at DOJ, who posted a warning to the school on social media: “ASU needs to check with a lawyer asap.”

ASU officials fanned out to try to calm the tension. They posted on social media that they were never going to charge students for the event and said it was all a misunderstanding. The school’s lobbyists went to work talking to Republican lawmakers while the Trump-aligned consultants made the case to the White House and DOJ directly, according to several people familiar with the matter. Several hours later, Dhillon posted that the issue had been resolved.

Crow says Arizona—barely a century old—with its cowboy spirit, is the place to try something new.

“Because the state is young and its cities and institutions are not bound by the weight of tradition,” he wrote in 2002, “like an unfinished canvas, Arizona still epitomizes the frontier.”

An ASU billboard near downtown Phoenix. Crow says Arizona is the place to try something new in higher education.

Write to Eliza Collins at eliza.collins@wsj.com and Douglas Belkin at Doug.Belkin@wsj.com

15. These universities are reviving higher education’s civic seriousness

Summary:

George Will highlights eight public universities building serious civics and humanities programs, led by Ohio State’s new Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society. Similar centers at Arizona State, Florida, Florida State, Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Mississippi promote rigorous study of American founding texts, political theory, and Western civilization. Often created with legislative backing, these programs challenge campus ideological monocultures and seek “progressive patriotism,” not counter-indoctrination. Will argues they answer student demand for substantive history and ideas, help revive declining humanities majors, and restore universities’ core mission to conserve and transmit the nation’s intellectual patrimony.

Opinion | These universities are reviving higher education’s civic seriousness

High school seniors, consider these institutions honoring the nation’s intellectual patrimony.

November 26, 2025

Washington Post · George F. Will

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/26/ohio-state-chase-center-universities-western-civilization/

High school seniors completing college applications confront a smorgasbord of choices. Herewith, eight suggestions:

Arizona State University, because of its School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. The University of Florida, because of its Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education. Florida State University because of its Institute for Governance and Civics. The University of Texas, because of its School of Civic Leadership, and Civitas Institute. The University of Tennessee, because of its Institute of American Civics. The University of North Carolina because of its School of Civic Life and Leadership. The University of Mississippi because of its Declaration of Independence Center for the Study of American Freedom.

And Ohio State University, because of its new Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society. These eight, with similar programs gestating in other states, are reviving universities’ civic seriousness, that is reinvigorating the humanities, inspiring students eager to grapple with big questions, and reversing academia’s forfeiture of its prestige.

All eight share the Chase Center’s conviction that “American citizenship is a high calling.” And that “citizenship well-lived” must be grounded in “the historical ideas, traditions, and texts” — the Federalist, Supreme Court cases, consequential rhetoric, etc. — that have shaped America’s polity and society.

Such programs are usually prompted by state legislatures, which, although occasionally clumsy and overreaching, are less threatening to academic freedom than are today’s campus monocultures enforced by censorious faculty factions. Such programs have inexpungable political resonances, so planting them in the groves of academe requires delicate tenacity.

The planting presupposes that the nation’s intellectual patrimony is worthy. Nowadays this is controversial. But the Chase Center and kindred programs operate on the assumption that “progressive patriotism” is not an oxymoron. Furthermore, civics programs often provide courses (e.g., military and diplomatic history, and political theory) that other departments ignore. Courses found only in civics programs sometimes even include those on the American Revolution and American intellectual history.

Many academics seem mystified about the 20-plus-year decline of humanities majors. William Inboden believes curriculums pertinent to civic thought, but nowadays largely neglected, can “re-set the demand signals in the academic marketplace” for courses and for specialized faculty to teach them.

Former Arizona governor Doug Ducey, who oversaw the 2017 birth of ASU’s program, helped to ignite this movement. Inboden has spread the movement’s gospel (literally, “good news”) through good works at two universities. He left the University of Texas to assist the flourishing of Florida’s Hamilton School, then returned to Texas as provost. The Hamilton School, which has its own majors, degrees and tenured faculty, is not an agency of “counter-indoctrination”; it is a small cluster of liberal arts excellence. It leavens the educational menu for a small (about 1,500) but intellectually thirsty fraction of Florida’s 40,000 undergraduates eager to study the Western civilization of which our nation is an emanation and elevation.

Writing in National Affairs, Inboden notes that universities should be conservators and transmitters of the best that has been thought and said. Therefore they have an inescapably conservative function that is the essence of universities’ “social contract with American society.” The rupture of that contract included Yale’s 1995 rejection of a $20 million gift because it was designated for studying Western civilization.

Students, Inboden says, have been voting with their feet, walking away from the sterile humanities dogma that identity (racial, ethnic, sexual) is the decisive dimension of human identity. This idea, which discounts the history-making role of ideas, yields, Inboden says, an “impoverished view of the human person, the communities we form, and the endeavors we undertake.”

No wonder disappointed students and dismayed scholars are flocking to places like Hamilton. It had more than 2,000 applicants for the first 55 faculty positions it filled, and in one year hired four Harvard and four Cambridge PhDs.

Ohio State’s Chase Center advances the 21st-century renaissance of civic education by invoking Salmon P. Chase, President Abraham Lincoln’s treasury secretary, then chief justice of the Supreme Court. He lived a life of 19th-century usefulness and heartbreak: Implacably anti-slavery, he lost three wives and four of his six children to diseases. Ohio State is a land grant university spawned by legislation signed by Lincoln, the 1862 Morrill Act.

Long ago, a droll president of the University of Oklahoma vowed to make OU an institution its football team could be proud of. Ohio State — a top 15 research university in a National Science Foundation survey, ranked ahead of Harvard and Yale, and decent at football — is such a place, and becoming even better because of the Chase Center.

Washington Post · George F. Will

16. Before, There Was 'Shell Shock.' Now Soldiers In Trenches Suffer From Drone-Induced 'FPV Syndrome.'

Summary:

Modern trench warfare in Ukraine echoes World War I, but the cause of stalemate has flipped. Then, machine guns and artillery forced troops into trenches and created “shell shock.” Today, cheap drones, AI, and pervasive sensors create a “transparent battlefield” where any concentration of forces is quickly detected and struck. Networked systems like Delta and Kropyva compress sensor-to-shooter time to seconds, while FPV kamikaze drones and loitering munitions replace massed artillery. Electronic warfare has come down to trench level, turning drone operators into prime targets and producing chronic anxiety now described as “FPV syndrome” among frontline soldiers.

Comment: All military failures are a result of a failure to learn, a failure to adapt and a failure to anticipate (Cohen and Gooch). We should learn and adapt from the Ukraine experience and anticipate the effects of "FPV syndrome" in the future. We need to work to mitigate the effects now perhaps as an integrated part of trying since we surely must see that there will be effects on our military personnel in the future.

Before, There Was 'Shell Shock.' Now Soldiers In Trenches Suffer From Drone-Induced 'FPV Syndrome.'

trenchart.us · Nov 24, 2025

The fear and paranoia are signatures of a new era of warfare.

Nov 24, 2025

by KOSTIANTYN MOISIEIEV

https://www.trenchart.us/p/before-there-was-shell-shock-now?r=2fdx8&utm

Ukrainian soldiers in a trench fight. Via social media

A hundred years ago, on the torn fields of Flanders and in the mud of Verdun, humanity witnessed a crisis in the art of war. World War I, which began with romantic visions of swift cavalry charges, colorful uniforms and bayonet attacks, was reduced within months to an industrial-scale slaughter.

Machine guns and rapid-fire artillery made the space between trenches deadly, forcing million strong armies to dig into the earth.

Today, on the slag heaps of Donbas and in the steppes of Zaporizhzhia, we feel the echo of that war. The front line has once again become relatively static, and attempts at large scale mechanized breakthroughs end in catastrophic losses.

Yet the nature of this trench warfare has changed. If in 1916 the stalemate resulted from the inability to protect infantry from overwhelming fire and from the absence of mobile communications, today’s positional warfare is the result of total battlefield transparency caused by the prevalence of drones.

We have moved from an era in which the “fog of war” concealed the maneuvers of entire corps to an era of a “transparent battlefield,” where even the smallest concentration of forces is quickly detected and destroyed.

Over a century, humanity has traveled the path from bayonet assaults to drone swarm attacks. The essence of war has not changed, but its instruments have become faster, more precise—and far more dangerous.

World War I became a historic turning point because defensive technologies overtook offensive ones for the first time.

Trench Art is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The bayonet gave way to artillery, which created uninterrupted barrages and forced armies into trenches. A communications gap emerged: headquarters planned grand operations but lost control of their troops at the moment of attack. Wired communication functioned reliably only in defense. This period also saw the birth of electronic intelligence based on signal interception.

In World War II this positional deadlock was partially overcome thanks to the combination of the internal combustion engine and wireless communication. Mobile radios in tanks became in some cases more important than the caliber of the gun. They solved the problem of controlling advancing units.

Theories of offensive warfare emerged, centered on speed and real-time coordination. Maneuver once again became the king of the battlefield, enabling entire armies to be encircled instead of attacked head on.

World War II differed from modern wars in its low accuracy of weapons. Strategic bombing campaigns by the Allies or artillery waves of the Red Army worked by destroying whole square kilometers.

It was a war of industrial economies: victory went to the side that could produce more tanks, aircraft, bombs and shells than the enemy could destroy. At the same time, radar and electronic warfare systems played a key role in the “battle of beams” between Britain and Germany, marking the first systemic war over navigation and detection.

By the late 20th century, armies developed the illusion of a “contactless war,” born from the success of Operation Desert Storm. According to this doctrine, victory was expected through air power, which was believed to guarantee rapid defeat of the enemy.

British soldiers in a trench in World War I. National WWI Museum photo

The drone era

This paradigm lasted nearly 30 years until the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war delivered the first major blow to it. Azerbaijan quickly proved that cheap drones negate advantages in armor and outdated air defense systems. It signaled the dawn of an era of robotic aerial killers—an era Russia failed to appreciate at the outset of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The most significant development and experience in the use of unmanned systems and electronic warfare came with the start of the large scale Russia-Ukraine war. The Ukrainian army integrated civilian and military technologies into a single network. The situational awareness systems “Delta” and “Kropyva” reduced the time from target detection to firing from dozens of minutes to nearly seconds.

This created a phenomenon of a “transparent battlefield.” Maneuvering large formations became impossible, forcing troops to disperse. Logistics became “capillary” and lost its centralized structure.

But drone warfare itself didn’t stand still. Early in the war, Bayraktar TB-2 drones were effective, but they are now vulnerable to layered air defenses. First-person-view drones and loitering munitions have taken center stage. Cheap kamikaze drones replaced scarce artillery shells and began striking equipment and personnel with surgical precision.

The Russia-Ukraine war became the first conflict in which both sides have actively relied on artificial intelligence to increase drone autonomy, given the growing use of electronic warfare across the front.

Meanwhile, E.W. systems descended from the strategic level to the trenches. The Pokrova system and other trench-level E.W. complexes became not a luxury but a necessity for survival. A tactic emerged of hunting drone operators by locating their control signals.

Thus, the “shell shock” of World War I has transformed into an “FPV syndrome,” expressed as constant anxiety under around-the-clock aerial surveillance.

It’s going to get worse. The coming era of A.I. will gradually push humans out of the control loop—and create whole new technological challenges.

Kostiantyn Moisieiev is the co-founder and CEO of Cascade LLC, which develops battlefield-proven electronic warfare and radio-frequency solutions including Lima EW.

Thanks for reading Trench Art! This post is public so feel free to share it.

trenchart.us · Nov 24, 2025

17. The quiet US pivot to Latin America

Summary:

The US is quietly reorienting strategy toward Latin America by deepening trade and investment ties framed as supply-chain diversification away from China. Rather than reshoring, Washington is building a hemispheric production corridor, shifting critical inputs, manufacturing and logistics to neighbors that offer lower costs, shorter routes and political alignment. This creates a de facto geopolitical bloc and tighter Latin American dependence on US standards and cycles. Europe risks marginalization as a third center of gravity emerges. The pivot, largely absent ideological rhetoric, may prove a durable reset of US grand strategy, redefining global interests around a Western Hemisphere core.

Comment: It will be interesting to see how this is reflected in the new National Defense/War Strategy. Note how actions are preceding strategy (or public strategy anyway).

The quiet US pivot to Latin America

by Imran Khalid, opinion contributor - 11/28/25 3:00 PM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5625477-us-latin-america-trade-shift/?utm

While headlines remain fixated on tensions with China, tariff threats and the latest diplomatic signals from Washington, a quieter shift is taking shape across the Americas. In recent weeks, the United States has moved to deepen trade and investment ties with several Latin American countries, from Argentina and Ecuador to Guatemala and El Salvador. These agreements have been presented as economic extensions of Washington’s broader effort to reduce supply chain risks. But they point to something more significant: a strategic reorientation that is beginning to redraw the map of American influence.

For years, debates about global power revolved around two poles. One was China’s economic reach and its effort to reshape international systems. The other was Europe’s struggle to respond to a world where security and energy vulnerabilities had become more visible. Lost in this conversation was Latin America, long treated as a region of proximity rather than priority. That may be changing. The new trade frameworks suggest a return of strategic thinking, one that positions Latin America at the center of Washington’s response to global uncertainty.

What makes this moment unique is that the pivot is not couched in the language of ideology or intervention. It is rooted in supply chains and economic partnership. The United States is quietly building alternative networks that reduce dependence on China for critical inputs and reduce exposure to disruptions in Asia. Instead of reshoring everything at home, Washington is shifting key links in its production and logistics to neighboring countries that can offer lower costs, shorter routes and more predictable political alignment.

This emerging pattern mirrors past episodes of American strategy, but with notable differences. In the Cold War, Washington sought to counter Soviet influence through political alliances and security arrangements. Today, the primary battleground is economic. Washington is building a Latin American supply chain corridor that can support advanced manufacturing, energy transition materials and critical minerals that the U.S. does not want sourced from China. That corridor is not simply about diversification. It is about shaping a new kind of geopolitical bloc in the Western Hemisphere.

For many Latin American countries, the partnership offers opportunities that previous relationships did not. These states stand to gain from investment, technology transfers and access to U.S. markets. But they also become part of a larger strategic project that is not openly discussed. As the United States reduces its dependence on China in areas like semiconductors, rare inputs, and assembly of advanced equipment, Latin America becomes a vital substitute. This creates a new power dynamic. Washington may rely more heavily on Latin America, but the region will also be more deeply tied to U.S. economic cycles, regulatory standards and strategic interests.

Europe, meanwhile, risks becoming a bystander in this shift. The United States and China have defined the last decade of global competition, but the emerging U.S.-Latin America integration could create a third center of gravity. European companies, already struggling to compete with U.S. industrial policies and Chinese scale, may find themselves squeezed out of markets that they once dominated. The transatlantic relationship has long been the anchor of Western cooperation, yet the economic balance within that partnership is beginning to tilt.

This development raises important questions about the nature of U.S. strategy. Washington’s approach to Latin America has often been reactive. But the recent deals look more deliberate. They resemble the early stages of a long-term effort to build a stable economic sphere that can insulate the United States from global shocks. If that analysis is correct, then this is not simply a trade pivot. It is a quiet reset of American grand strategy.

The implications are far-reaching. China may find that it cannot easily counter a U.S. move into Latin America, a region where Beijing made significant gains over the past two decades. Europe may discover that its industrial decline has left it unprepared for a hemisphere-wide reconfiguration of trade. Latin America itself may face the challenge of balancing new opportunities with the risk of overdependence.

Washington has not framed this pivot as a dramatic shift. It has unfolded without big speeches or headlines. But sometimes the most consequential changes are the ones that attract the least attention. If these new partnerships solidify, the Western Hemisphere could become the centerpiece of a new phase in U.S. strategic planning. It would not replace America’s global interests. It would redefine them.

Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master’s degree in international relations.

18. Ukraine’s peace talks reveal the risks of replacing diplomats with dealmakers

Summary:

PTUS' business envoy Steve Witkoff illustrates the dangers of replacing professional diplomats with dealmakers in Ukraine peace talks. Unlike Jean Monnet’s constructive role in postwar Europe, Witkoff operates in a context that amplifies his worst instincts. He leans toward a “victor’s peace” that risks Ukrainian capitulation, focuses on quick outcomes over legitimate process, and treats the war as a great power bargain between Washington and Moscow, sidelining Kyiv and Europe. With weak institutional checks and dependent allies, his influence could produce an unstable, unjust peace rather than a durable settlement.

Comment: Can we draw such a broad conclusion from this or is it a one off? Of course we have not reached any agreement so perhaps judgement is premature.

Ukraine’s peace talks reveal the risks of replacing diplomats with dealmakers

theconversation.com · Alexandros Koutsoukis

Published: November 28, 2025 11:52am EST

https://theconversation.com/ukraines-peace-talks-reveal-the-risks-of-replacing-diplomats-with-dealmakers-270827

Recent reports about the role of Donald Trump’s special envoy, American businessman Steve Witkoff, in the Ukraine peace negotiations have raised wider questions about why political leaders turn to business figures in high-stakes diplomacy – and whether this can ever work.

A leaked recording of Witkoff advising Russian officials on how to present their proposals to Washington has intensified concern about the direction of the process. Some see it as a symptom of the US president’s personalised foreign policy, while others view the process as a sign of a broader shift away from professional diplomacy altogether.

Diplomacy is often portrayed as the preserve of seasoned professionals, and for good reason. Skilled negotiators such as the UK’s Jonathan Powell – who played a key role in the Northern Ireland peace process – understand how to manage escalation, read political constraints and build agreements that can survive leadership changes.

Yet political outsiders sometimes play constructive roles. Businesspeople can think creatively, take risks that cautious officials avoid and open up transactional trade-offs that traditional diplomats might have dismissed as impossible.

When diplomatic processes are stuck and international pressures are high, a different perspective can widen the space for compromise and create opportunities for what earlier leaders could not achieve: a working deal.

One of history’s most striking examples of a businessman-turned-diplomat is Jean Monnet. After starting his career in his family’s cognac business, Monnet was appointed by the French government in 1939 to coordinate Franco-British war supplies.

He was one of the key figures to propose and advocate the idea that became the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 to the then-US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. This agreement saw the US provide military and other supplies to its European allies without the need for immediate payment.

Jean Monnet (right) at the signing of the Lend-Lease Act in 1941. United States Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons

Monnet later conceived the plan that led to the 1950 Schuman Declaration. This produced the European Coal and Steel Community and laid the foundations for the European Economic Community, which eventually evolved into the EU.

What made Monnet successful was not only his creativity, positive political vision and ability to work behind the scenes. He was helped by a political context in which the US and Europe shared a desire to find a way to unite. This contributed to effective, cooperative and stable outcomes.

Strengths like those displayed by Monnet only matter when business envoys operate within political contexts and organisational structures that keep their transactional instincts in check. Unlike Monnet, Witkoff is operating within a context that amplifies – rather than restrains – these tendencies.

Dangerous tendencies

Witkoff’s first tendency is to lean towards a “victor’s peace”. His advising of Russian officials on how to persuade Trump of their peace plan reflects a transactional mindset that prioritises what is politically easy for the presumed victor, rather than what is just or stable.

But if negotiations begin from the assumption that Russia will ultimately win the war, and therefore Ukraine must accept the terms of its anticipated defeat sooner rather than later, the result may look less like a lasting peace and more like a humiliating capitulation.

This fear has already been voiced by European leaders. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, warned on November 25 that Europe cannot support “a peace that is in essence a capitulation” as this would leave Ukraine weakened and Russia emboldened.

Witkoff’s second tendency is to focus on the outcome of the negotiations rather than the process, neglecting to realise that peace agreements endure only when they are recognised as legitimate by those who must live with them.

The carefully calibrated balance of coercion and consent is the real art of diplomacy, and requires appreciating how the defeated can learn to live with defeat and not see it as humiliation. This occurred in Japan after the second world war, where defeat was gradually transformed into pride in a new liberal pacifist culture.

Witkoff’s third tendency is that he, like many businesspeople, appears to view negotiations as direct dealings between the most powerful players. This is what I have referred to in my research as the “great power bias”.

Approaching negotiations in this way can reinforce the idea that the US and Russia are the “real” players in the peace negotiations, while Ukraine and its European allies become peripheral. This could result in a deal based on the idea that the strongest party does what it wants and the weakest suffers what it must.

Steve Witkoff and the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, at talks over ending the war in Ukraine in Geneva, Switzerland, on November 23. Martial Trezzini / EPA

These three tendencies are manageable on their own. But the danger arises when they all move in the same direction and experience very little pushback. In an era of rising populism and a political environment dominated by Trump’s personalised style, there is little room for such counterweights. Witkoff’s influence is based on proximity to the president, not on a mandate shaped by allies, diplomats or Congress.

Ordinarily, allies would act as a counterweight to such tendencies. Yet Europe’s ability to shape the negotiations is limited by its own dependency. Without greater capacity to support Ukraine militarily or to provide the satellite intelligence on which Kyiv relies to continue fighting the war, European governments are forced to depend on the US even as they question its approach. This leaves them able to offer guidance but with diminished influence on the terms of the negotiation.

Peace in Ukraine will ultimately require a combination of creativity and restraint: an openness to new ideas but within a framework that ensures a degree of fairness, legitimacy and security. Businesspeople can contribute to such a process, but not when their tendencies are unchecked. The balance that makes outsider involvement constructive is precisely what is missing in the case of Ukraine.

theconversation.com · Alexandros Koutsoukis

19. Forget Aircraft Carriers: Diesel Submarines Are Becoming Silent and Stealth Powerhouse

Summary:

Repeated naval exercises show quiet diesel-electric submarines can penetrate carrier strike group defenses and achieve simulated kills on billion-dollar U.S. aircraft carriers. Famous cases include Sweden’s AIP-equipped HMS Gotland slipping past USS Ronald Reagan in 2005 and Canada’s older HMCS Okanagan sinking USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1981. These results highlight enduring gaps in antisubmarine warfare and prove even legacy diesel boats remain dangerous in coastal and chokepoint waters. As China rapidly expands its Yuan-class AIP fleet, U.S. planners must adapt tactics, sensors, and unmanned systems to protect carriers and sustain sea control across contested seas worldwide.

Forget Aircraft Carriers: Diesel Submarines Are Becoming Silent and Stealth Powerhouse

nationalsecurityjournal.org · Jack Buckby · November 28, 2025

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/forget-aircraft-carriers-diesels-submarines-are-becoming-silent-and-stealth-powerhouse/

Key Points and Summary – Repeated naval war games have revealed an uncomfortable truth: quiet diesel-electric submarines can routinely “sink” billion-dollar aircraft carriers.

-From Sweden’s AIP-equipped HMS Gotland slipping through USS Ronald Reagan’s screen in 2005 to Canada’s older HMCS Okanagan scoring a simulated kill on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1981, exercises keep exposing gaps in carrier antisubmarine warfare.

(September 24, 2021). The navy’s only forward deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) transits the South China Sea. Reagan is attached to Commander, Task Force 70/Carrier Strike Group 5 conducting underway operations in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Rawad Madanat)

These results aren’t predictions of real battles but hard data on how even modest subs can exploit detection blind spots.

-As China expands its Yuan-class AIP fleet, these lessons now shape U.S. Navy tactics, hardware choices, and how carriers, subs, and drones will be used in future high-end conflict.

Why Diesel Submarines Keep Sinking Aircraft Carriers

Modern naval forces routinely conduct large-scale exercises and scripted wargames to test how their fleets perform under different combat scenarios.

This is a long-established process for most militaries, and these simulations – many of which are now computer-driven but also carried out at sea with live units – are designed to expose weaknesses, validate planned tactics, and demonstrate how different platforms interact under pressure.

One recurring focus on modern exercises is how capable aircraft carriers and their escorts are in detecting and countering submarines – particularly modern diesel-electric boats that are optimized for silence and coastal operations.

Within these controlled exercise scenarios, submarines are often instructed to defend a carrier strike group – something that is increasingly relevant as surface vessels grow vulnerable to modern drone technology and burgeoning long-range missile industries to the east.

When submarines manage to reach positions where, under real conditions, they could fire torpedoes with a reasonable chance of hitting the carrier, the exercise will log it as a simulated “kill.” These results aren’t treated as predictions of future battles, obviously.

BALTIC SEA (March 13, 2016) Swedish submarine HSWMS Halland surfaces in preparations for a small-boat transfer during exercise BALTOPS, June 7, 2016. BALTOPS is an annual recurring multinational exercise designed to improve interoperability, enhance flexibility and demonstrate the resolve of allied and partner nations to defend the Baltic region. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Daniel Foose/Released)

Instead, they provide commanders and planners with valuable data on where detection gaps may exist, how submarine crews could exploit them, and how ASW tactics need to adapt.

Two well-documented cases – one involving a Swedish AIP-equipped submarine and another involving a Canadian diesel-electric boat during a NATO exercise – illustrate how these simulations work and why they continue to inform naval training and planning to this day.

HMS Gotland vs USS Ronald Reagan

In 2005, during a U.S.-hostile model war game that took place off Southern California, the Swedish submarine HMS Gotland – a diesel-electric boat fitted with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system – reportedly penetrated the defensive screen around the nuclear-powered carrier USS Ronald Reagan and registered multiple virtual torpedo hits, effectively “sinking” the multi-billion-dollar vessel.

Gotland’s ability to remain submerged, silent, and completely undetected – thanks to its low acoustic signature – allowed it to exploit gaps in such a way that it proved it could take out a vastly superior vessel in terms of size and firepower.

The submarine exploited gaps in the carrier group’s antisubmarine defenses, which included destroyers, helicopters, patrol aircraft, and sonar arrays. And the exercise stunned the world; the submarine, after all, cost an order of magnitude less than the carrier it “sank.”

It may sound alarming, but these kinds of exercises are necessary for naval forces to be adequately prepared.

The result forced a reevaluation of ASW training within the U.S. Navy and ensured that future carrier strike groups would be better prepared.

Gotland-Class Submarines. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

But this matters now: AIP-equipped diesel-electric submarines now proliferate globally because they’re cheaper to build and operate than nuclear boats. The Gotland case today remains a cautionary tale, and one that won’t be forgotten any time soon.

HMCS Okanagan vs USS Dwight D. Eisenhower

This example is remarkable for a different reason: it proved that even older subs can penetrate modern carrier screens.

During a 1981 NATO exercise in the Atlantic/North Atlantic region, a conventional diesel-electric submarine of Canada’s Oberon-class managed to slip through the escort screen protecting USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and register a successful simulated torpedo strike – effectively “sinking” the carrier.

Despite being older, legacy submarine technology – in this case from the 1960s/70s – the Oberon-class submarine proved capable of exploiting detection gaps and acting upon that information.

It raised serious questions about over-reliance on technology rather than tactics, meaning that despite the West having the best hardware and technology, smaller forces could exploit those gaps and cause significant damage.

190928-N-YZ751-8022

ATLANTIC OCEAN (Sept. 28, 2019) The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) transits the Atlantic Ocean with ships assigned to Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 10 and aircraft assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 3 during a photo exercise to conclude Tailored Ship’s Training Availability (TSTA) and Final Evaluation Problem (FEP) as part of the basic phase of the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Tony D. Curtis/Released)

It proved, as did many other simulations, that the threat is not limited to the latest generation of stealth boats and that larger forces were always vulnerable.

Older, less glamorous submarines can still be extremely dangerous under the right conditions. And for naval strategists, the lesson was clear: ASW defense cannot take its technological superiority for granted and must always anticipate adversaries employing every tool at their disposal to undermine it.

Undersea Forces Expand

Today, these scenarios carry relevance as several navies expand their undersea forces, most notably China’s ongoing push to field more advanced Yuan-class AIP submarines.

The Pentagon is well aware that Beijing is increasing both the quality and quantity of its submarine fleet, and that this trend will only continue and further complicate carrier operations in the western Pacific over the next decade.

Exercises like the Gotland and Oberon cases are therefore essential reference points for planners looking to determine the next steps for the U.S. Navy.

It may be a change in tactics, but it also may mean a change in hardware. And as great-power competition intensifies at sea, all sides will ultimately be forced to change how they use their carriers, submarines, and drone technologies in maritime environments.

About the Author:

Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York who writes frequently for National Security Journal. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments’ approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society. His latest book is The Truth Teller: RFK Jr. and the Case for a Post-Partisan Presidency.

More Military

The Army’s AH-64E Apache Helicopter Can Destroy Drones with Missiles

U.S. Navy Iowa-Class Battleship USS New Jersey’s ‘Comeback’ Is Now Complete

Blaze of Glory: The SR-71 Blackbird Retired Hitting Mach 3.21

nationalsecurityjournal.org · Jack Buckby · November 28, 2025

20. The People Are The Weapon System

Summary:

Modern conflict blurs battlefront and homefront, yet US national security still treats civilians as bystanders. Jesse Levin and Nicholas Krohley argue that this civil-military divide is now a core vulnerability. Adversaries exploit social fragmentation, fragile infrastructure, and disinformation while large defense bureaucracies chase industrial age fixes. Real resilience comes from informal, trusted networks that already solve problems at speed, as seen in Ukraine’s whole of society resistance, volunteer efforts after Maria and Sandy, and civilian evacuation and aid networks in Afghanistan and Ukraine. They call for “collaborative readiness” that treats citizens, communities, and entrepreneurs as the primary weapon system.

Comment: The authors used the correct article in the title. The people are not "A" weapons system. They are "THE" weapons system. We must understand the human domain because this is where the most decisive aspect of warfare takes place.

We talk of wars of maneuver and wars of attrition but in reality the war that we should be focused on not losing is the war of exhaustion.

War of Maneuver

War of maneuver seeks a decision by movement, position, and tempo rather than by sheer destruction of the enemy’s forces. The aim is to disrupt the enemy’s cohesion, decision cycle, and will to fight, often by striking critical vulnerabilities, flanks, rear areas, and command systems. Success comes from surprise, speed, and exploitation, forcing the enemy into paralysis or collapse before his full combat power can be brought to bear.

War of Attrition

War of attrition seeks victory by wearing down the enemy’s material strength and manpower over time. The aim is to inflict losses faster than the enemy can replace them, accepting high friendly costs in the expectation that the opponent will reach physical or logistical breaking point first. Fronts are often static, battles are grinding, and the decision is achieved by cumulative casualties and materiel loss rather than dramatic maneuver.

War of Exhaustion

War of exhaustion focuses on the opponent’s political, economic, and societal staying power more than on battlefield losses alone. The goal is to prolong the conflict, raise costs, and strain the enemy’s institutions, alliances, and domestic will to continue. Military operations support a broader strategy that targets endurance - time, morale, legitimacy, and resources - so that the enemy chooses or is forced to quit before being physically defeated.

The People Are The Weapon System

substack.com · Jesse Levin

Democratizing National Security in the Age of Gray Zone Conflict

Jesse Levin

Nov 29, 2025

Co-authored with Nicholas Krohley

https://readinesscollective.substack.com/p/the-people-are-the-weapon-system

In my previous piece, The Greatest Threat to National Security: Apathy, I explored the cultural roots of America’s civil-military divide. This article looks at the operational consequences and how informal networks, entrepreneurs, and ad hoc communities fill the gaps left by institutional structures.

One of the most overlooked operational vulnerabilities in American security today is the widening gap between national security institutions and the public they rely on. Domestic divisiveness, institutional siloing, and cultural distance between the “defenders” and the “defended” has created a brittle system unfit for today’s challenges.

Thanks for reading The Readiness Collective ! Subscribe for free to stay in the loop.

Modern conflict no longer respects or operates with boundaries between civilian and combatant, battlefield and home-front. Yet our national security institutions continue to prepare for traditional warfare, while ignoring the porous and persistent nature of contemporary threats.

If we want to remain resilient as a nation, we need to close the gap between the national security apparatus and the public it serves. We must stop isolating civil society from the mission of national security and begin treating our collective cohesion, civic trust, and entrepreneurial spirit as the foundational infrastructure of defense.

Most Americans don’t know they’re on the front lines. Foreign adversaries are waging a constant campaign against the U.S., not with tanks or bombers, but with economic coercion, cyber sabotage, disinformation, and supply chain disruption.

Today’s threats are ambient and ambiguous and exploit three things in particular: our degraded information hygiene; our aging infrastructure; and our social fragmentation. The divide between national security institutions and the general public isn’t just a disconnect, it’s a vulnerability. And it’s one we’ve left wide open. The front lines are in our hospitals, schools, grocery stores, and digital spaces. Today’s “warfighters” include teachers, coders, entrepreneurs, and parents. They’re not behind enemy lines, they’re checking email, managing logistics, caring for kids, and running small businesses.

Yet the DoW and national security community remain largely focused on traditional battle readiness and industrial-age solutions. We continue to respond to exponential problems with linear strategies: reindustrialization; munitions factories and rare earth acquisition. These efforts, in large part, reflect a “Freedom’s Forge” mindset, one that made sense in 1941, not in an era of cyberattacks, disinformation, and supply chain weaponization. These efforts are very necessary, but they’re only one piece of a much larger strategic shift that’s overdue.

The idea that the DoW or the broader national security enterprise can “innovate” us into readiness alone is misplaced. These are massive bureaucracies honed for a different era. That’s not a critique, it’s an acknowledgment of structural reality. Process and protocol have their place. But the answers we need aren’t likely to emerge from the same machinery that was designed to fight different wars.

The sharpest edge we have is the human one - the informal, trusted networks that solve problems at the speed of reality.

For decades, the American public was told that their patriotic duty during times of war was to “go shopping.” That message, post-9/11, intentionally or not, codified a culture of separation between the warfighter and the citizen, the professional and the protected.

That narrative no longer holds. We can’t afford for civil society to be a passive audience to geopolitical conflict. And we cannot allow institutions to continue gatekeeping participation in national readiness. It must be shared.

We need a mindset shift, one that redefines service and recognizes the strategic value of civic engagement, cultural cohesion, and entrepreneurial action. Not every threat is a call to arms. Some are calls to adapt.

The smartest move isn’t escalation. It’s aggressive collaboration. We must view our current threat landscape not just through a lens of strategic competition but through strategic adaptation.

National security must stop treating civil society as a fragile liability and start seeing it as our most versatile asset. That means moving from military-only thinking to collaborative readiness, building trust networks, local response capability, and shared understanding of what readiness even means.

Institutions like the DoW are better suited at codifying, replicating, and scaling tested solutions. But most of the initiatives launched to “spur innovation”like The Defense Innovation Unit, AFWERX, SOFWERX, on contracting vehicles like OTAs, SBIRs—end up being procedural in nature, which runs, in large part, counter to how real-world innovation actually happens today.

This is not at all to imply these organizations have not helped and contributed tremendously, but it is to suggest there are other collaborative ecosystems that are thriving despite being wildly under resourced and outside of general purview and awareness.

We need to think like entrepreneurs and educators, not just commanders. The solution space must include behavioral science, narrative architecture, and cultural design, not just weapons development and force posture.

Ironically, the cross-pollination the defense world is trying to foster with the private sector already exists in the wild. Outside any formal contracting process, there are ad hoc, informal networks solving real problems, often without profit motive, because the mission matters. These groups mobilized for the Afghanistan evacuation, for Ukraine’s logistics and humanitarian corridors, and countless other flashpoints.

Informal Networks As A Strategic Capability

Ukraine: A Civic Resistance Model

Ukraine has become the modern gold standard for whole-of-society mobilization. Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union, Ukrainians built a culture of decentralized resilience. When Russia invaded in 2022, civilians stepped forward in extraordinary ways:

Commercial drone hobbyists repurposed gear for ISR
Small businesses funded tactical units and retooled for defense production
Hacktivist networks formed cyber defense coalitions
Volunteer drivers became logistics nodes

This wasn’t command-and-control readiness. It was bottom-up, local, entrepreneurial. It worked because it was flexible, chaotic, and trusted.

Hurricane Maria: Stabilizing with $30K and Starlink

In Puerto Rico, after Hurricane Maria, a small civilian team deployed satellite terminals to remote grocery stores for $30K out of pocket. This re-enabled payment systems, letting residents on benefits cards buy food. The result: millions in food purchases restored; local economies restarted and dependence on aid reduced—in weeks.

These were informal collaborations with FEMA, DHS, and the Puerto Rican government. No preexisting contracts. No bureaucracy. Just people solving problems with trust, speed, and ingenuity.

Hurricane Sandy: Climbing Gyms to Relief Camps

After Sandy, Team Rubicon mobilized veterans for relief ops in NYC. With nowhere to stage hundreds of volunteers, a climbing gym in Brooklyn opened its doors. Within hours, an informal, self-organized ecosystem of veterans, gym goers, and responders formed. It became TR’s largest operation at the time.

Ukraine Civilian Response: Entrepreneurial Impact

During the early days of the 2022 invasion, American civilian networks mobilized. Entrepreneur Joe De Sena, founder of Spartan Race, wanted to contribute in a big way. Collaborating with and resourcing Tactivate’s network to support emergency operations, Joe, the International Spartan Community and volunteers got an incredible amount done in under two months with comparatively little in resources. Some of the effort included:

Sixty 4x4 vehicles sourced repaired and deployed
Hundreds of thermal imagers delivered
Hospital-grade generators installed
Thousands of medical kits assembled and delivered

All within six weeks, at a fraction of the cost of traditional systems.

Afghanistan Withdrawal: Networks Over Hierarchy

During the chaotic U.S. withdrawal, informal civilian networks stepped in where official efforts collapsed. Groups like the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum coordinated safe houses, encrypted comms, and extractions alongside military efforts. These weren’t rogue actors. They were high-trust, high-capability teams working around bureaucracy.

These examples aren’t fringe or anecdotal. They are the blueprint.

To make this scalable and sustainable, we must:

Establish civilian readiness training: cyber hygiene, crisis response, misinformation literacy
Normalize national security literacy in schools, workplaces, and civic life
Create civilian service pathways, reservist roles for technologists, emergency task forces, civic tech brigade
Provide funding, tools, and autonomy to trusted local actors
Redefine service to include educators, hackers, EMTs, behavioral scientists, and economic resilience experts

This is not about militarizing the public. It’s about decentralizing resilience.

The divide between civil society and the national security apparatus is our greatest vulnerability. The path forward is not more isolation but more integration. We must equip the American public not just with information, but with agency. We must give them a role.

Because national security isn’t a spectator sport. It’s a team effort. And our most powerful weapon system isn’t buried in a silo or locked in a vault.

It’s us.

Do it!

substack.com · Jesse Levin

21. Russia Gains the Upper Hand in the Drone Battle, Once Ukraine’s Forte

Summary:

Russia has seized the initiative in the drone war, turning Ukraine’s former asymmetric advantage into a growing vulnerability. Russian FPV, Lancet, Molniya and fiber-optic drones now dominate key sectors of the front, striking Ukrainian logistics, drone teams, and supply routes 20 to 40 miles behind the line. The Rubicon unit pioneered deep interdiction in Kursk, then exported tactics to Donbas, making rear areas increasingly lethal and forcing Ukrainians to move on foot. Ukraine still punishes Russian infantry near the front but lacks comparable range and scale. This shift is eroding Kyiv’s battlefield resilience and weakening its diplomatic leverage for 2026.

Comment: Hard to keep an edge or advantage when everyone is adapting based on what is working on the battlefield. Are we learning, adapting, and anticipating?

Russia Gains the Upper Hand in the Drone Battle, Once Ukraine’s Forte

Moscow’s military has gotten better at using the war’s deadliest weapons: small, cheap drones

By Ian Lovett

, Marcus Walker

and Nikita Nikolaienko

Nov. 29, 2025 11:00 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-gains-the-upper-hand-in-the-drone-battle-once-ukraines-forte-803d242e?st=JNZh8F

Ukrainian servicemen on a road covered with antidrone nets in the front-line town of Kostyantynivka. Anatolii Stepanov/Reuters

Quick Summary

Russia’s increased drone effectiveness against Ukrainian supply lines is the most significant shift in the war in 2025.View more

KHARKIV, Ukraine—The four Ukrainian soldiers were speeding down a supply road more than 20 miles behind the front line when a Russian drone exploded behind them, throwing the rear of their Nissan Pathfinder into the air.

Capt. Stanislav Derkach was slammed into the dashboard, dislocating his kneecap. He and the three other soldiers hobbled into the woods and watched as a second fixed-wing Molniya drone finished off the SUV.

A few months ago, such rear areas were relatively safe. Now any movement can come under attack. “I consider us very lucky,” said Derkach, who is recovering in a hospital.

Russia’s growing prowess at hitting Ukrainian supply lines with drones is the most important shift in the war in 2025, Ukrainian front-line fighters and analysts studying the conflict say—more significant than Russian forces’ incremental gains in territory.

The tilting tactical balance is also weakening Kyiv’s diplomatic hand. In Washington, influential members of the Trump administration are pushing for an end to the war on terms favorable to Russia, arguing that Ukraine should accept or face a worse deal later because it can’t sustain the fight.

Kyiv and its European backers are scrambling to persuade President Trump that Russia should be pressured to accept a more balanced deal and that Ukraine isn’t sliding toward defeat.

Drone dominance

For most of the nearly four-year-old war, Ukraine has held a clear advantage in battlefield drones, using innovative tactics and technology to compensate for Russia’s greater manpower.

But this fall, Russian forces have gained the upper hand in the tactical drone contest for the first time. They are outnumbering Ukraine’s unmanned aerial vehicles in key sections of the front, while using improved tactics that are testing Ukraine’s ability to keep its front-line defenders supplied.

The trend bodes ill for Ukraine’s ability to hold ground in 2026, unless Ukrainian forces can find answers to Russia’s improved capabilities.

Kill Zones

The drone threat is spreading deep behind the front.

Front line and line of contact

Rear area

Infantry

Ground

drones

Quadcopters

Fixed-wing

drones

Supply

trucks

Men on foot

bringing supplies

Russian Forces

6 miles

Up to 25 miles

REAR

AREA

FRONT LINE

UKRAINE

REAR

AREA

LINE OF CONTACT

Source: WSJ research

Roque Ruiz and Emma Brown/WSJ

“Not only are lines of communication wrecked; the very idea of a secure rear is fading,” the former head of Ukraine’s military and currently its ambassador to the U.K., Valeriy Zaluzhniy, warned recently.

Russia is still unable to achieve a breakthrough, Zaluzhniy noted in an analysis of the war for Ukrainian news site Mirror of the Week.

Large-scale maneuvering remains nearly impossible on a battlefield where masses of cheap drones can see and target movement by soldiers or vehicles.

But the danger for Ukraine, Zaluzhniy said, is that its undermanned army could reach a point of exhaustion unless it can take back the initiative in the high-tech drone war.

Crossing the Rubicon

Russia has steadily increased its use of small drones throughout the war, deploying them for reconnaissance, guiding artillery fire or attacking Ukrainian front-line forces. It has copied Ukraine’s use of first-person-view, or FPV, drones: exploding devices with four rotors, steered into targets via a live feed on a pilot’s goggles.

Russia long struggled to match Ukraine’s nimble and growing drone forces. For the past two years, FPVs have helped Ukraine to compensate for its chronic shortage of infantry and slow Russia’s offensive operations to a crawl.

Moscow changed its drone tactics in 2024, after Ukrainian forces burst into Russia’s Kursk region.

A new unit called Rubicon recruited many of the best Russian drone pilots and targeted Ukrainian logistics in Kursk. They used fiber-optic drones, connected to the pilot by a long cable so the signal couldn’t be jammed. Struggling to move supplies, Ukraine’s position in Kursk crumbled, leading to a chaotic and bloody retreat this past spring.

Rubicon expanded, taking the tools and tactics that worked in Kursk to the eastern front in Ukraine, while training other Russian drone units in its methods.

Ukrainian officers said Rubicon focuses on midrange targets, usually at least 12 miles beyond the front line, bypassing Ukrainian infantry.

“They have two main tasks: They disrupt our logistics and they target our drone pilots,” said Yurii Fedorenko, commander of the “Achilles” 429th drone regiment.

Select Russian drones

Lancet-3

Loitering munition drone

Payload capacity: 6.6 lbs. (warhead)

Range: 25 miles

Speed: 50-68 mph

Service Ceiling: 16.4 ft.

Endurance: 40 minutes

Wingspan: 5.4 ft.

Molniya-2

First-person view drone

Payload capacity: 22 lbs. (small explosive, TM-62 antitank mine)

Range: 37 miles

Speed: 75 mph

8.2 ft.

Gerbera

Multipurpose drone (loitering, reconnaissance and signal relay)

Range: 373 miles

Speed: 99 mph

Sources: Center for European Policy Analysis (Lancet); Militarnyi (Molniya-2); War Sanctions (Gerbera)

Roque Ruiz/WSJ

Ukrainian logistics and drone units are now suffering greater casualties than the front-line infantry, said Konrad Muzyka, director of Polish-based military-analysis firm Rochan Consulting. That is partly because the infantry has so few men, he notes.

Losses are forcing Ukrainian drone pilots to launch their FPVs from further back, restricting the range of their attacks. Meanwhile, Russian drones with longer ranges are flying ever deeper into the rear.

“Russian military learning has eclipsed Ukraine’s for midrange strikes,” said George Barros, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. “They are interdicting stuff 40 to 70 kilometers from the front line. Previously, for those effects, you needed to fly manned aircraft.”

Ukrainian FPVs still wreak havoc in the last 12 miles or so that Russian troops must traverse to reach the front line. But Ukraine is short of weapons for hitting Russian logistics, command positions and other targets in the rear.

“The kill zone has shifted more behind Ukraine’s front line than the other way around, because Russia has improved,” said Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a think tank based in Philadelphia.

Pokrovsk pocket

Pressure points: the cities that Russia is trying to take

Kyiv

Kupyansk

UKRAINE

Russian Forces

Lyman

Severodonetsk

Slovyansk

UKRAINE

Luhansk

Dnipro

Debaltseve

Horlivka

Pokrovsk

Donetsk

Zaporizhzhia

RuSSIA

Hulyaipole

50 miles

50 km

Note: Russian forces as of Nov. 25

Source: Institute for the Study of War and AEI’s Critical Threats Project

Emma Brown/WSJ

The battle for the city of Pokrovsk in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region shows how Russia has gained the lead in tactical drones. Ukrainian troops fighting in Pokrovsk say Russian drones in the area now outnumber the defenders’ by as many as 10:1.

Russian forces have been trying to conquer the city, once home to 60,000 people, for the past 18 months. Much of it is now a gray zone, with neither side in control and positions scattered throughout the town. Men from both sides hunker down in battered buildings, often unsure of where the enemy is around them.

What worries many Ukrainian soldiers most is how Russia’s longer-range drones are able to pummel their supply lines into Pokrovsk from as far as 40 miles away.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

How do you think the Russian improvements in drone capabilities will influence the course of the war? Join the conversation below.

The roads are so dangerous for vehicles that Ukrainian troops are hiking the last 10 miles on foot, said an officer with the 68th Jaeger Brigade, which is defending Pokrovsk.

As well as fiber-optic drones, Russian units are using Lancet fixed-wing drones with a range of up to 25 miles, and growing numbers of the cheaper Molniya models.

They are basic but effective, said Fedorenko, the Ukrainian drone-unit commander. Molniyas can either detonate their own payload or carry two or three small FPVs, extending their range. Sometimes the FPVs then attack Ukrainians from their rear.

“When you see a drone flying toward the front, you think it’s one of our drones. So it’s really tricky,” Fedorenko said.

Countermeasures

Ukraine, which has its own mother ship drones, is trying to regain the edge. Some Ukrainian officers say their drone forces need to give more priority to hitting Russian drone teams and logistics—mimicking Rubicon’s approach—rather than focusing mainly on killing Russian infantry.

“Our main issue is resources. Their advantage isn’t in technology but in scale,” said the head of unmanned systems for Ukraine’s 2nd Corps, who goes by the call sign Volt.

Ukraine wants to make more of its own fiber-optic drones. Fedorenko complained that Russia receives huge supplies of fiber-optic cable from China, while Ukraine is getting little from the West.

“Unfortunately, we have to say that China is a stronger ally on this than the U.S. and Europe combined,” he said.

Write to Ian Lovett at ian.lovett@wsj.com and Marcus Walker at Marcus.Walker@wsj.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website